# Bod4God



## Renaissance Woman (Feb 27, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ogHwDYMaU

So...being fat is not conducive to being a good Christian, according to this pastor. Words fail me.

:blink:


----------



## Chimpi (Feb 27, 2007)

I.Do.Not.Like.His.Voice.At.All! (The news reporter, that is).


----------



## Tina (Feb 27, 2007)

Well, words don't fail me. I had to post to her to give her some kudos. That guy embodies every former fat, anti-fat zealot I've ever know and then some.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 27, 2007)

looks like the bible words can be spun around to be used negativly. but then i already knew that.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Feb 27, 2007)

Hm. I'm sure Jesus would have a thing or two to say about needing a certain type of body to "honor" him.


----------



## Mini (Feb 27, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Hm. I'm sure Jesus would have a thing or two to say about needing a certain type of body to "honor" him.



If, y'know, he existed.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Feb 27, 2007)

Mini said:


> If, y'know, he existed.



I must be good.

I must be good.

I must be good.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 27, 2007)

missaf said:


> Yeah, some religious organizations and churches state that being fat = gluttony = lack of self-control = sin.
> 
> They need to look at the planks in their own eyes before looking at the splinter in mine.
> 
> ...


and there are some that spin the bible to justify racism. i say one posting on the internet that said that african americans are dark colored because the fires from hell have burned us. and that we are the devils minions. and other bull shit like that.


----------



## Mini (Feb 27, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> I must be good.
> 
> I must be good.
> 
> I must be good.



PM me. 

(More words!)


----------



## Tina (Feb 27, 2007)

I believe there is some proof of the historical Jesus, just not the Biblical Jesus (miracles and such...).


----------



## Sweet Tooth (Feb 27, 2007)

I'm so glad my church sticks to the Bible and only the Bible. <sigh>

My body is a temple. It just happens to be cathedral-sized. I think if God cared so much about a long earthly life, He wouldn't have let His disciples and apostles die as martyrs. I personally think that living well and living fully are better than longevity [although I'm happy to take both, if offered].

There are lots of good books out there, but my favorite Christian books about weight are:
One Size Fits All And Other Fables by Liz Curtis Higgs [probably available on her website or used]
Loved On A Grander Scale by Neva Coyle [a former - and perhaps again? - Christian diet author]


----------



## Spanky (Feb 27, 2007)

Tina said:


> I believe there is some proof of the historical Jesus, just not the Biblical Jesus (miracles and such...).



See link. The "proof" is coming in a "documentary". 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2905809


----------



## XGuy (Feb 27, 2007)

Spanky said:


> See link. The "proof" is coming in a "documentary".
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2905809



If you have read the controversy about the tomb it's pretty weak.

I mean it's enough proof for me... these guys (Peter, Paul, the church fathers, etc.) committ the greatest and most successful and unquestioned conspiracy ever- and they forget to get rid of Jesus' tomb?


----------



## Spanky (Feb 27, 2007)

XGuy said:


> If you have read the controversy about the tomb it's pretty weak.
> 
> I mean it's enough proof for me... these guys (Peter, Paul, the church fathers, etc.) committ the greatest and most successful and unquestioned conspiracy ever- and they forget to get rid of Jesus' tomb?



I have no opinion on the matter. I just found it appropriate to Tina's comment above it.


----------



## Santaclear (Feb 27, 2007)

Renaissance Woman said:


> So...being fat is not conducive to ...r the Lord. It's all God could want of a bod.


----------



## XGuy (Feb 27, 2007)

Spanky said:


> I have no opinion on the matter. I just found it appropriate to Tina's comment above it.



Oh I understand I just figured everyone should know that (I didn't read that particular article but many are mentioned how thin the theory is). Such as the names are the most common names in Israel at the time, I've also seen the names listed differently in different articles- which is curious, they were all the same general idea but still interesting.



Santaclear said:


> Don't believe a word of it. Go Lard for the Lord. It's all God could want of a bod.



Hmm God loves us all and wants us all to follow him, thin, fat, or immobile. But at the same time he commands we care for the bodies, and logic would lead us to care for our bodies he gifted us with.

Though I think few people here advocate being/getting fat without concern for your health.


----------



## Tina (Feb 27, 2007)

Spanky said:


> See link. The "proof" is coming in a "documentary".
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2905809



That's not what I was thinking of -- and can't remember right now, actually.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Feb 27, 2007)

I have to write a 1000 word blog again? Man... I hate doing those.


----------



## bigplaidpants (Feb 27, 2007)

Sweet Tooth said:


> My body is a temple. It just happens to be cathedral-sized.



<smiles, speechless, feeling the joy of the Lord>


----------



## bigplaidpants (Feb 27, 2007)

What a tragic video. I'm surprised no one ranted about how Fox set this up, like they normally do, for emotional response and the typical sensationalism. The screen that runs for most of the second half of the broadcast pits Wendy arguing against images of the pastor preaching and doing his ministry. Fat girls vs. traditional authority. Fox, purposefully or not, humiliates the topic as much as it humiliates them both.

I hate preludes of personal authority. They can be so self-angrandizing. (sp?) But I'm gonna say it anyway: 

As someone who's pastored two churches and studied theology for 7 years, the whole "Gospel message" of thin = righteous or holy is little more than Jesus in drag. (Not that there's anything wrong with that either, mind you. But, I trust you get my point.) As some posters have already noted, the Gospel message has been prostituted out to so many campaigns, ideologies, and social movements historically. Anyone in their right mind would become cynical about Christianity and God at all. It's hard for many good church-folk to get that being Christian does not equal being "faithful" to social norms. It's too bad. Many of us who don't fit in the norm choke on the hair ball.

I gotta take my kids to school. So, I'm signing off. But, let me say - one heart to the bottom of this pile of holy crap is to rethink and reimagine the image of God. There are rich images in the Old Testament that go well beyond "God the Father." 

I have grown in my spiritual life tremendously by imagining the creator of the universe as a lavishly curved robust woman of immense wisdom, reliance, and girth. Call it blasphemy. Call me a heretic. Go ahead....crucify me!

You might just be proving my point.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Feb 27, 2007)

I always gotta remind you dear friends that Phillipians rails against those "Whose God is Their Belly"... The Old Testament is proSizeAcceptance("Rejoice Yourself in Fatness") and the New Testament is Anti. Fat is a Pagan Issue! Coming to DIM to worship:bow: SSBBWs is an entirely 'worldly' activity... Gaea is an Apple, is she not?


----------



## imfree (Feb 27, 2007)

Renaissance Woman said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ogHwDYMaU
> 
> So...being fat is not conducive to being a good Christian, according to this pastor. Words fail me.
> 
> :blink:


 Hi Y'all, my goal is, by GOD's Grace, to weigh 400lbs when I die, at the
age of 80, after out-living all those who told me to lose weight!!! I use my 400lbs to minister love and comfort to others with soft, warm, tender HUGGZZ!!!
GOD's Love-Touch,
Edgar


----------



## XGuy (Feb 27, 2007)

Ned Sonntag said:


> I always gotta remind you dear friends that Phillipians rails against those "Whose God is Their Belly"... The Old Testament is proSizeAcceptance("Rejoice Yourself in Fatness") and the New Testament is Anti. Fat is a Pagan Issue! Coming to DIM to worship:bow: SSBBWs is an entirely 'worldly' activity... Gaea is an Apple, is she not?



If the New Testament is "anti-fat" perhaps you should refamiliarize yourself with the message of Jesus Christ (the message of the New Testament). Sure it encourages you to be healthy, but Jesus never said God loves everyone but fat people.


----------



## Sweet Tooth (Feb 27, 2007)

Ned Sonntag said:


> I always gotta remind you dear friends that Phillipians rails against those "Whose God is Their Belly"... The Old Testament is proSizeAcceptance("Rejoice Yourself in Fatness") and the New Testament is Anti. Fat is a Pagan Issue! Coming to DIM to worship:bow: SSBBWs is an entirely 'worldly' activity... Gaea is an Apple, is she not?



Huh?

Jesus was accused of being a glutton. Granted, it was by people who tried to accuse Him of a lot of things, but there had to be behavior that caused them to point fingers and such which could've been simply that He enjoyed His food at parties.

Making one's god their belly isn't the same as being fat. I can be fat without obsessing about food or considering my stomach's desires above all else.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 27, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> I have to write a 1000 word blog again? Man... I hate doing those.


time for you to break out the redbull or amped energy drinks. should be saving essays energy for school man.


----------



## imfree (Feb 27, 2007)

Sweet Tooth said:


> Huh?
> 
> Jesus was accused of being a glutton. Granted, it was by people who tried to accuse Him of a lot of things, but there had to be behavior that caused them to point fingers and such which could've been simply that He enjoyed His food at parties.
> 
> Making one's god their belly isn't the same as being fat. I can be fat without obsessing about food or considering my stomach's desires above all else.


 Contrary to those who RESTRICT their food intake, I eat my fill and
don't think of food until I need to eat again.
Never Hungry,
Edgar


----------



## Jon Blaze (Feb 27, 2007)

gangstadawg said:


> time for you to break out the redbull or amped energy drinks. should be saving essays energy for school man.



When heretics like these come, sometimes I have to voice my opinion. I'm sorry you can't respect that...


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 27, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> When heretics like these come, sometimes I have to voice my opinion. I'm sorry you can't respect that...


who says that i cant lol. shit the stuff you write is great for english essays on open topics. besides i was joking damn. any ways its time for blaze man to blaze the guy and save the day.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Mar 8, 2007)

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...&MyToken=783e6a74-173a-4d0c-bd00-ddb01af19bc3

Size Prose- Twin Sabers


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Mar 8, 2007)

When He rode into Jerusalem, it took two donkeys to carry him (Matthew 21:1-7)!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 8, 2007)

John 6:10-13(NIV) said:


> 10Jesus said, "Have the people sit down." There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them. 11Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated *as much as they wanted.* He did the same with the fish.
> 
> 12When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, "Gather the pieces that are left over. *Let nothing be wasted.*" 13So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten.



Apparently the Lord didn't read the memo on portion control.


----------



## Krissy12 (Mar 8, 2007)

All of us DIMS wommens have bods for god. When the FAs see us, they scream, "Thank you Jesus"

Oh geez, I'm tired and lame tonight...please pay no attention.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Mar 8, 2007)

Krissy12 said:


> All of us DIMS wommens have bods for god. When the FAs see us, they scream, "Thank you Jesus"
> 
> Oh geez, I'm tired and lame tonight...please pay no attention.



It's all gravy in the spoon of life.  

It's a lot more accurate than what Reynolds is saying.  

*BBW walks by*

*Points Upward* Thank you!!  

*Another BBW walks by*

BY THE BEARD OF ZEUS!! She has the beauty of Helen!!!  

We have the potential to mix it up too.


----------



## imfree (Mar 8, 2007)

Krissy12 said:


> All of us DIMS wommens have bods for god. When the FAs see us, they scream, "Thank you Jesus"
> 
> Oh geez, I'm tired and lame tonight...please pay no attention.


 AMEN to that, Sis', I scream, "Thank you, Jesus!", when I see
a BBW, or even better, an SSBBW!


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Mar 8, 2007)

And every now and then you see a BBW or SSBBW whose body is worth fighting a full-scale war over. LOL




Krissy12 said:


> All of us DIMS wommens have bods for god. When the FAs see us, they scream, "Thank you Jesus"
> 
> Oh geez, I'm tired and lame tonight...please pay no attention.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Mar 8, 2007)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> And every now and then you see a BBW or SSBBW whose body is worth fighting a full-scale war over. LOL



I have to get my uniform and weapons ready.  

My unit is the first one to leave the BBW main camp in the morning.


----------



## Krissy12 (Mar 9, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> I have to get my uniform and weapons ready.
> 
> My unit is the first one to leave the BBW main camp in the morning.



No one leaves the BBW camp ever. Too many good things to eat!

oh..and there's food too.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Mar 9, 2007)

Krissy12 said:


> No one leaves the BBW camp ever. Too many good things to eat!
> 
> oh..and there's food too.



I have to defend the castle though.  

The oppressors are coming... There will be a battle... Like in 300 the movie.  They can't get near the main camp!!!


----------



## gangstadawg (Mar 9, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> I have to defend the castle though.
> 
> The oppressors are coming... There will be a battle... Like in 300 the movie.  They can't get near the main camp!!!



want my P90smg to help


----------



## Jon Blaze (Mar 9, 2007)

gangstadawg said:


> want my P90smg to help



For that I'm giving you half of my unit.  
CHARGE THE OPPRESSORS!!! KEEP UP OR BE LEFT BEHIND!!!


----------



## Shosh (Mar 10, 2007)

Gday, This is a bloody laugh! How many churches have priests and preachers etc that are involved in child sexual abuse and adulterous affairs, and visits to hookers etc. I usually find the people that put on the biggest song and dance about sin, and are over the top about religion are usually the most deviant. Susannah


----------



## Sweet Tooth (Mar 12, 2007)

Saw this in today's comics. 

View attachment Pardon_My_Planet-2007-03-12 small.gif


----------



## XGuy (Mar 12, 2007)

Susannah said:


> Gday, This is a bloody laugh! How many churches have priests and preachers etc that are involved in child sexual abuse and adulterous affairs, and visits to hookers etc. I usually find the people that put on the biggest song and dance about sin, and are over the top about religion are usually the most deviant. Susannah



You don't really hear about the pedophile down the street, you do if he's a priest. The statistics are probably only partly against priests- meaning there probably aren't that many more pedophile priests than there are in the regular population. And when you think about how many priests there are in the world we are talking about a shockingly low percentage.

I think priesthood is probably a little more suceptable to pedophiles, not because they can get close to boys and girls (there are tons of professions that would be much easier to do so in), but for a few reasons.

1) Someone who feels afflicted with these rather sick urges hopes by living a spiritual life they will be cured. Sometimes they probably are.

2) Someone who feels these sick urges, or even homosexual christians in the Catholic church (who may see their own urges as "sick") find it easier to live a life of chastity rather than explain why they aren't married. I would bet a lot of the priests who molest _teenage_ boys are probably "gay and not pedophiles" per sey, they probably see the boy as someone who will submit to authority and not "expose the dirty little secret," rather like those who molest little children clearly are pedophiles.

But to blame the problem entirely on Priests, or make such generalizations is just intolerant. They are no different than those few fat people who give all fat people a bad name.


----------



## bigplaidpants (Mar 12, 2007)

Susannah said:


> Gday, This is a bloody laugh! How many churches have priests and preachers etc that are involved in child sexual abuse and adulterous affairs, and visits to hookers etc. I usually find the people that put on the biggest song and dance about sin, and are over the top about religion are usually the most deviant. Susannah



Ha. Please, don't take this as tooting my own horn. But, see my post above. Some of us "religious types" see deviance is a good thing  .....where would fat eroticism be without it?

....but there's a difference between deviance and being, well, unethical.

_<bigplaidpants puts Pandora's box down, not wanting to "Hyde Park-ize" this thread, and heads back to the Lounge to think of a word that rhymes with "orange">_


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 12, 2007)

I was going to be good.

Then I said, "Fuck it."

The only reason someone molests children/teens is the same reason a person chooses to sleep with absolute scum:

They are incapable/ashamed of their sexuality and having a relationship with an equal, so they prey on others. Not even on the same level as heterosexuality/homosexuality. Disgusting bastard who can't get off without eating your own asshole mucus and choking your partner until they turn purple, but too cowardly to admit it? No reason to be ashamed of someone you can humiliate/manipulate like a youth or person so stupid they believe you're worthy of their time for a $10 fee.


----------



## bigplaidpants (Mar 12, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> ....The only reason someone molests children/teens is the same reason a person chooses to sleep with absolute scum:
> 
> They are incapable/ashamed of their sexuality and having a relationship with an equal, so they prey on others. Not even on the same level as heterosexuality/homosexuality....



TSL, I'm assuming your comments aren't because you felt I was saying otherwise. But, if differentiation between deviance and ethics needed clarity - which I really hope it didn't - you said it with flare.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 12, 2007)

bigplaidpants said:


> TSL, I'm assuming your comments aren't because you felt I was saying otherwise. But, if differentiation between deviance and ethics needed clarity - which I really hope it didn't - you said it with flare.



More or less, they were for Xguy who suggested homosexual priests would target teens thinking they'd "keep the secret." It wasn't for you!  (Unless, y'know, you're banging tramps. Then you should probably take offense.)


----------



## Waxwing (Mar 12, 2007)

Just adding a voice to the "being gay and being a pederast are not in the same ballpark" chorus. 

Being a child-molester and a rapist are closer. They're both about power and shame and preying on the weak because (like TSL said), you think you're a piece of shit. Of course in the case of child-molesters, they're right. 

I mean to say ages ago, and then forgot, about the original topic-- 
I was raised VERY religious, and was absolutely taught that overeating was a sin (in some way I think it was seen to be a very lustful physical act) and that being fat was an affront to god. I can't even begin to give you a reason for that, and one was never given to me. It just was. Jesus hates a fatty, etc. 

At this point I'm about the least-religious person you'll ever meet, but I can see how these kinds of ideas are a perversion of something that should be about love. *shrug*


----------



## ZainTheInsane (Mar 12, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> Just adding a voice to the "being gay and being a pederast are not in the same ballpark" chorus.
> 
> Being a child-molester and a rapist are closer. They're both about power and shame and preying on the weak because (like TSL said), you think you're a piece of shit. Of course in the case of child-molesters, they're right.
> 
> ...



Gluttony...I think was the 'sin' you were looking for.

Actually, the supposed Seven Deadly Sins...aren't in the original bible, new testament or old. They were preached by the clergy during the middle ages to keep serfs in line, and help the clergy keep their place on the top of things. It is sad really that despite the hundreds of years between then and now, it is still damaging people's lives. 

I believe in God ...which is probably my only truly religious inclination. I don't necessarily believe in Jesus in the sense of him being God's son. I don't believe many things most people of any christian sect believe. Because I like my version better. I like reading the bible, in any language I can attempt to translate (the bible is a GREAT tool for learning other languages because it is made in so many and there are so many words in it). 

Anyway, I enjoy the stories inside the bibles, and the gospels (even the ones just recently found and published...ie The book of Thomas, Mary, etc). It is very interesting subject matter. But do I believe in the tales they tell...not often. All the tales are hundreds of years old if not thousands for the majority of the Torah writings found in the old testament. They are exaggered, they are blown out of proportion, and they are all tales with lessons or stories bound to them...to teach culture, lessons, and ways of living well. It is a book about human life as told by people. It can be as magical, or as factual as people want it to be. It is history as people wrote it from hearing tales told from father to son or mother to daughter or whatever. :bow: 

Spiritual I am. I'm a skeptic as well. But I honestly don't think being fat or eating a lot is a sin. That's just silly. That's like saying smoking is a sin, or drinking is a sin, or anything affecting your physical or mental state in any way is a sin. Balls to that! If I die, and there happens to be a Hell to go to, I'm certainly not going there because I drank alcohol once in a while, or because I masturbate, or because I tried smoking once, or because I like eating food, or sleeping. And neither is anyone else. And if they do...what the hell is the point of living life?  

I think having fun is the point of life. And enjoying oneself as much as possible. And now away to do homework...oh joy!


----------



## Waxwing (Mar 12, 2007)

I'm familiar with the 7 deadlies, but it was gluttony that was the root of why it was considered wrong. The point I was trying to make was that it was seen as almost sexual because of its connection to the body, the sensual nature of eating, and the abandon with which it can be done. Does that make sense? It was weird-- there was definitely a sexual shame connected with food. 

Oh and if my grandparents knew that I had even *considered* trying a cigarette or a drink, I would have been *forcibly sent to a religious camp*. I'm not kidding. So, many people DO think that those things are sins. I was one of them. I'm just very lucky that both my mom and I were able to escape that mindset. 

Which reminds me that I need to leave for a while because I'm out of smokes and wine. :eat1: 

It's terrifying. You're totally right, what is the point of life if we are taught to deny ourselves all pleasures!? It's mystifying to me. 

In any event, have fun with the homework, but don't enjoy it too much.


----------



## Wagimawr (Mar 12, 2007)

ZainTheInsane said:


> Actually, the supposed Seven Deadly Sins...aren't in the original bible, new testament or old. They were preached by the clergy during the middle ages to keep serfs in line, and help the clergy keep their place on the top of things. It is sad really that despite the hundreds of years between then and now, it is still damaging people's lives.


There's a LOT of dumb shit that happened in the middle ages just like that, to keep the church in control - sadly, a lot of modern religion is based on those ideals which should have been overturned years ago - nothing very Christlike in a lot of them.


----------



## XGuy (Mar 12, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> More or less, they were for Xguy who suggested homosexual priests would target teens thinking they'd "keep the secret." It wasn't for you!  (Unless, y'know, you're banging tramps. Then you should probably take offense.)



I never implied they weren't perverted? But come on these guys are exploiting their authority, and for a while they got away with it because it isn't easy to expose someone who holds authority over you. I'm not saying they only target them because they think they will keep a secret, but obviously that is a part of it, otherwise they would just fly to some of these places in Asia where you can get a child in bed for $5.



Waxwing said:


> Just adding a voice to the "being gay and being a pederast are not in the same ballpark" chorus.



I never said they were similar, what I said was a homosexual priest may _feel_ he is evil. Just like a lot of people feel bad for being fat, it isn't wrong but they still feel that way.

EDIT: I think the "seven deadlies" are on their way out perhaps because I have never heard them in a religious context and never really have even known if they were specifically a religious thing or not.


----------



## Waxwing (Mar 12, 2007)

gotcha, XGuy. I think that I misunderstood what you said. 

I've never heard of the Seven in a religious context either, but damn they're interesting. My goal is to commit them all.


----------



## OfftoOtherPlaces (Mar 12, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> It's terrifying. You're totally right, what is the point of life if we are taught to deny ourselves all pleasures!? It's mystifying to me.



Agreeing with what you said, but to play the devil's advocate (oh ho ho ho the punnery):

The reason a Christian (I can't speak with authority on other religion, though I'd like to be able) would deny pleasure from the self is in order to approach God with all the less distraction. The Absolute is so amazing that it is worth it to deny oneself all sorts of pleasures in order to get a glimpse of it-- and by extension, it would be worth it to die painfully for a good cause, if one could just exist in God's luminous shadow forever. That would be the point of life if one wished to deny oneself an ordinary life of pleasures in the world.

It _is_ terrifying, sacrifice. The prospect scares me every day, but when you want a thing so badly, it's going to hurt you inside whether you seek after it or not.

I used to think that my life wasn't worth anything unless I was giving it up to someone or something else. I still feel this way today, but now it's tempered a bit-- there are times for living and times for dying, and unless you want a lot of friction in life you have to be willing to recognize these times whether they fit your so-called scheduel or not.

I guess my big offering here is that Death is not our enemy, it's not the enemy of Life. And they're friends, actually-- and Death is our dark haired lover who waits for us our whole lives-- and the real enemy is Mammon, or Money, or Precious Bane, or whatever name you want to give the corrupting idol that we value more than the Good and tries to make us forget that we really are made of dust, and to dust we will return someday.


----------



## Waxwing (Mar 12, 2007)

I'm not sure if I can figure out a way to express this, but there are, to me, many kinds of sacrifice. Done in the right frame of mind, and with the right spirit and the right intent, sacrifice and self-denial can absolutely be ways in which one reduces distraction and comes closer to god (whatever your own concept of god may be). 

My mom is a practicing Buddhist, and has been for many years (since we left the church, really), and although the concepts of denial are slightly different than in christianity, there is definitely something of that in Buddhism as well. It's the intent to live *without desire*, because from desire comes suffering. It's what you're talking about -- quieting those urges and influences we get from the world in order to create a spiritual inner life. 

The concept of being without desire is a hard one for me. It is in so many ways true that much suffering comes from desire, but desire is also so pleasurable as well, that to work toward being without it is definitely a loss. But, if you believe the precepts, it's a loss which will ultimately reward you with enlightenment. 

I think that when denial is really problematic to me is when it's done because of a fear of punishment. It's when it goes from being "I will give this up because I want to feel closer to god" to "I will avoid this because I'm afraid god will punish me." I was very much raised to believe the latter, and to me that removes so much of the potential meaning and joy from it. I did or didn't do things because I heard incessantly that I was going to hell, not because I was encouraged to commune more closely with god. 

All of this is coming from someone who was very religious, and now is not at all. Also someone who is very attached to her desires.  I deeply respect the strength that it takes to live by one's convictions, whatever they may be, and as long as they allow for freedom for everyone else to do the same.


----------



## bigplaidpants (Mar 12, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> .... It wasn't for you!  (Unless, y'know, you're banging tramps. Then you should probably take offense.)



I don't *think* my wife would describe herself that way.



Waxwing said:


> Just adding a voice to the "being gay and being a pederast are not in the same ballpark" chorus.



I simply want to go on record: I would put unchecked and unquestioned homophobia square in the category of sin and leave "being gay" completely out of it. I could go on about this, but I won't. I already think this thread is getting off-topic. But, suffice it to say, it is Christianity's pathetic campaign to pave the wide and easy road of homophobia VS taking the narrow gate of overt acceptance of solidarity with queer folk that leaves me both cynical and cold. 



Say Hello to the Angels said:


> Agreeing with what you said, but to play the devil's advocate (oh ho ho ho the punnery):



SayHello....this whole post is both poetic (i.e. Death as dark haired lover  ) and thought provoking. I warrants a fuller discussion that probably should be its own thread. 

I see you actually trying to play "believer's" advocate.  



> The reason a Christian (I can't speak with authority on other religion, though I'd like to be able) would deny pleasure from the self is in order to approach God with all the less distraction.



Personally, I agree with this statement but with many qualifiers. I won't go into them, here. But, I will say, I understand the roots of this approach to God is largely more Greek than Jewish, the root of Jesus' life and religious teachings. The ascetic practices of the early Church evolved out of ideas that were mainly Greek (Hellenistic) in origin, which espoused that the life of the body was bebased and flawed existence. Early Christianity embraced much of these dominant ideas from surrounding culture, which to-this-day deeply influences our feeling of Christianity.

Again, tt would be a whole other thread. But, I also think the erotic - not to be confused for just being another word for "sexual" - is also an important way to experiencing divine presense. I believe God's love is erotic in its purest sense: wanting us for our own sakes. Pitting the body and the erotic against the religious, in my view, creates more misunderstandings and "stumbling blocks" than windows.

I'm not suggesting you're saying any of that. Just adding my own thoughts.

I will say again, though. I'd encourage anyone to start a thread on these issues, if you want more. Anything religious, in my mind, usually gets a little "Hyde-Parky" and probably be put there. Just sayin!


----------



## Waxwing (Mar 12, 2007)

bigplaidpants said:


> I'd encourage anyone to start a thread on these issues, if you want more. Anything religious, in my mind, usually gets a little "Hyde-Parky" and probably be put there. Just sayin!


 
Ha, I'm exactly the same way. When I was typing out my tome I was thinking how fun it would be to have a good ol' fashioned argument about this.  

And word on SHttA's post being poetic. Nicely done. 

In other news, "SHttA" is a hilarious acronym.


----------



## bigplaidpants (Mar 12, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> Ha, I'm exactly the same way. When I was typing out my tome I was thinking how fun it would be to have a good ol' fashioned argument about this.
> 
> And word on SHttA's post being poetic. Nicely done.
> 
> In other news, "SHttA" is a hilarious acronym.



LOL....you nailed it. ("SHttA")


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 12, 2007)

Just one question here.

If God can make no mistakes and all made in God's image is perfect - then how can fat be a sin or wrong????


----------



## Sweet Tooth (Mar 12, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Just one question here.
> 
> If God can make no mistakes and all made in God's image is perfect - then how can fat be a sin or wrong????



Spiritual image is different from what we view as "image" which is the body. Also, if you read Genesis, some traits were given more to men and some more to women. Perfection is also synonymous with "completeness" in the Bible, not perfection as we view it in society.

This isn't to justify the anti-fat campaign of churches by any means. I don't believe they have a Scriptural leg to stand on in their efforts. Helping people deal with addictions would be, IMO, Scriptural based on verses referencing freedom. The obvious assumption, then, is that they're either misreading the Bible or assuming all fat people have an eating disorder.


----------



## XGuy (Mar 12, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Just one question here.
> 
> If God can make no mistakes and all made in God's image is perfect - then how can fat be a sin or wrong????



That's kind of a silly question, of course philosophers love to argue it day in and day out... if God is perfect and assumably creates perfection (especially since we are made in His image) how can there be murder, molesters, theives, etc?

Because of the Fall of Man, inherent in free will. God sure wishes we all lived piestic lives but we live in a fallen world in which God is unfortunately not the only influence. Whether you believe in the creation story or not (many Christians even just think it is a story) the idea of the Fall of Man is inherent in Christianity, and a common theme. I am a fan of Augustine, I beleive in a tangible spirit of evil (Satan), but the evil that threatens us most on earth (and I think probably the state of hell) is not that of evil spirits- but rather the absence of good, or God. Very Platonic, or is it Aristotolian... whatever lol.

Being fat is not in-and-of-itself wrong or a sin. But not taking care of our body, the temple and Icon of Christ, and gift from the Lord, is sinful and wrong. Just like abusing alcohol would be wrong. The unfortunate truth is the majority of fat people are not taking care of their bodies, and that is why it gets attached that being fat is a sin. Of course this isn't universal since there are a lot of fat people that are overweight but do still take care of their bodies.

But sermons like these, in my opinion are rediculous and one reason I left my church. Going to church, and being a Christian is not about fitting your "flavor-of-the-month" pastor's view of "perfection." By flavor of the month I mean most protestant churches views are so wide that it isn't like you are expected to conform to some shape universally. This pastor thinks fat people are sinning, my Church never presented that particular view, they were busy on other ones.

Our search to become "perfect," should be focused on more direct piestic means exemplified by the life of Christ, the apostles, church fathers and doctors, and saints.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 12, 2007)

> That's kind of a silly question,



And exactly who are you to make such a statement??????


----------



## OfftoOtherPlaces (Mar 12, 2007)

bigplaidpants said:


> I will say again, though. I'd encourage anyone to start a thread on these issues, if you want more. Anything religious, in my mind, usually gets a little "Hyde-Parky" and probably be put there. Just sayin!





Waxwing said:


> Ha, I'm exactly the same way. When I was typing out my tome I was thinking how fun it would be to have a good ol' fashioned argument about this.



One of you two start it, I wouldn't be sure how to word the prompt. I do eat up religious debate though, just as long as no one gets POV warrior about it. It would need to be intelligent and civil-- you know.

I'll keep playing devils advocate too-- I'm a contrarian.


----------



## Waxwing (Mar 12, 2007)

Say Hello to the Angels said:


> I'll keep playing devils advocate too-- I'm a contrarian.


 
Me too. I will argue a position I don't in any way believe in just to give that side a voice. I think it's great to encourage people to really think about what they believe and why. 

Okay come on, bigplaidpants. Make us a neato debate thread. Go! I mean, no pressure or anything.


----------



## XGuy (Mar 13, 2007)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> And exactly who are you to make such a statement??????



It's a silly question in that it is one of the biggest philosophical paradoxes of the Bible and Christian faith as a whole. I don't really mean it is silly as in stupid (since some of the brightest philosopher's will argue for eternity).

Anyone familiar with the Faith though should know the answer is simply the Fall.


----------



## OfftoOtherPlaces (Mar 13, 2007)

XGuy said:


> It's a silly question in that it is one of the biggest philosophical paradoxes of the Bible and Christian faith as a whole. I don't really mean it is silly as in stupid (since some of the brightest philosopher's will argue for eternity).
> 
> Anyone familiar with the Faith though should know the answer is simply the Fall.



So many things wrong with this reply :doh: 

Why are you assuming that she is familiar with "the Faith" as you call it?

For me the answer is simply the We Don't Know. That is, why did God make us fallible-- victims of the Fall? No idea.


----------



## XGuy (Mar 13, 2007)

Say Hello to the Angels said:


> So many things wrong with this reply :doh:
> 
> Why are you assuming that she is familiar with "the Faith" as you call it?
> 
> For me the answer is simply the We Don't Know. That is, why did God make us fallible-- victims of the Fall? No idea.



I'm not assuming that she is familiar with the Faith... I am saying that is why I see it as a philosophically _silly_ question- is because for those of the Faith it should be a fairly simple answer. Of course with philosophers things are rarely simple!

You can have whatever answer you really want, but the Bible is pretty clear (if you are of the Faith) on the Fall.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 13, 2007)

Say Hello to the Angels said:


> So many things wrong with this reply :doh:
> 
> Why are you assuming that she is familiar with "the Faith" as you call it?
> 
> For me the answer is simply the We Don't Know. That is, why did God make us fallible-- victims of the Fall? No idea.



where's the fun in having somebody love you simply because they're predesigned to do so? having someone love you because they are vapid and incapable of doing anything else is not love. It's better when people can meet you, learn the bald-headed truth about you, decide weather or not they like or dislike you and you treasure the friends and aquaintances who will stick around even though there may be some things they don't particularly like or understand about you. But if they like you only because you're rich, famous, you buy them things or they receive some benefit that elevates them above everyone else is a waste of time. Free will is a mandatory requirement for love.


----------



## bigplaidpants (Mar 13, 2007)

Say Hello to the Angels said:


> ...I'll keep playing devils advocate too-- I'm a contrarian.





Waxwing said:


> Me too. I will argue a position I don't in any way believe in just to give that side a voice.



I'll think about a thread....I'm not sure I can get to it 'til later.

As for being a contrarian, of course, I'm not a contrarian at all. I agree with everybody. <all the Saints nod in agreement> 

But, by saying so, I have become contrary to both of you. <all the Saints look down, now perplexed>

Alas....we are in the paradox before we begin. :doh:


----------



## bigplaidpants (Mar 13, 2007)

LillyBBBW said:


> .... Free will is a mandatory requirement for love.



Lilly, I agree with you. And, of course, your statement applies to God, too. God is absolutely free....to do whatever She wants.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 13, 2007)

bigplaidpants said:


> Lilly, I agree with you. And, of course, your statement applies to God, too. God is absolutely free....to do whatever She wants.



*"You must spread some Reputation around... bla bla bla."​*
Will you cut that out! You're going to make the 'Dimensions Bot' bag me for rep cheating patterns.


----------



## Shosh (Mar 16, 2007)

Hey, When it comes to some religious institutions I am pretty intolerant. Expecting men to be celibate goes against nature. I reckon the real reason the Catholic church does not allow priests to marry is because of property rights. If a priest were to divorce, his wife may be entitled to some property settlement. The church is one of the richest institutions in the world property wise.They want to keep it that way.
Secondly who are these priests to give pre marriage counselling and advice to couples? Please, how could they possibly understand given their backgrounds. A couple would be better off going to see a lay couple of the same faith who actually have a clue about the issues surrounding marriage.
Thirdly the church tries to dictate to women about birth control and abortion.
Keep your rosaries off my ovaries basically.
There is no such thing as sin. People are born into this world, with a brain and a heart, amongst other things. It is natural to make mistakes, and to learn from then. It is all part of the human experience.
Susannah


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 16, 2007)

Susannah said:


> Hey, When it comes to some religious institutions I am pretty intolerant. Expecting men to be celibate goes against nature. I reckon the real reason the Catholic church does not allow priests to marry is because of property rights. If a priest were to divorce, his wife may be entitled to some property settlement. The church is one of the richest institutions in the world property wise.They want to keep it that way.
> Secondly who are these priests to give pre marriage counselling and advice to couples? Please, how could they possibly understand given their backgrounds. A couple would be better off going to see a lay couple of the same faith who actually have a clue about the issues surrounding marriage.
> Thirdly the church tries to dictate to women about birth control and abortion.
> Keep your rosaries off my ovaries basically.
> ...



The Catholic church does not try to dictate to women anything. People know in advance what the edicts or concepts of a religeon are and they adhere to them because that's what their wishes are. Their actions are no less an act of freedom than your choice to disagree. At any time anyone can get up and walk out of any service. I'm not Catholic and I don't agree with a lot of the opinions commonly held among the Catholic faith, but I'm not under the mistaken impression that by my choosing an alternative I'm somehow better at exercising freedom than they are. And their right to disagree with abortion is no more harmful to your ovaries than a persons right to protest the war is harmful to US Soldiers. It's all a part of the circus we call freedom.


----------



## Shosh (Mar 16, 2007)

Hey, I stand by everything that I said. Furthermore the Vatican is historically anti semetic, homophobic and misoginistic.
Religion should be life affirming and positive. It should lift you up and give you purpose, and boost your self esteem. People are walking away from organized religion in their droves.
Susannah


----------



## bigplaidpants (Mar 16, 2007)

Susannah said:


> Hey, When it comes to some religious institutions I am pretty intolerant. ....
> Susannah



Hey Susannah....& Lilly, too. If you're at all interested, I attempted to transplant this debate about religion and sexuality to Hyde Park. I spun my questions in a more positive way, but - of course - ya'll can post what you wish.

It's here.

Just an invite!


----------



## Shosh (Mar 16, 2007)

Hey Biggie, I am passionate about this topic because I can't believe the chutzpah of some so called religious leaders in the community. Some of them are the most morally bankrupt people who need to take a look at what is going on in their own backyard.Susannah


----------



## bigplaidpants (Mar 16, 2007)

Susannah said:


> Hey Biggie, I am passionate about this topic because I can't believe the chutzpah of some so called religious leaders in the community. Some of them are the most morally bankrupt people who need to take a look at what is going on in their own backyard.Susannah



Then, please!...by all means join the discussion. There are a few who like religious debate here....most seem to avoid it. Prolly for good reason. I've seen the slam-sessions get hot.

I'm a theology student and have been a pastor....and I completely agree with your passionate sentiment. I welcome your input. Spice it up, baaabiiiee!

<Was that a morally inappropriate sexual harassment???!!!!> :doh: 

Hope to see you there.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 16, 2007)

Susannah said:


> Hey, I stand by everything that I said. Furthermore the Vatican is historically anti semetic, homophobic and misoginistic.
> Religion should be life affirming and positive. It should lift you up and give you purpose, and boost your self esteem. People are walking away from organized religion in their droves.
> Susannah



Says you? Religion can be anything anyone deems to be life affirming and I'm sure you are aware of man's inherant nature to affirm themselves by marginalizing others. It is older than the Bible itself and certainly not an exclusive patent to the Vatican. You've a right to your opinion of course - though church attendence is booming, increased by close to 15% in the last ten years. No one is forcing you to breed or be Catholic.


----------



## Big Beautiful Dreamer (Mar 16, 2007)

Well, I don't go into the discussion boards much, so I may have missed most of the excitement on this thread. 
I will say, however, that I describe myself as a person of faith and if needed tend to qualify that by saying I'm a member of the Religious Left, in part because there is sometimes a perception in popular culture that someone who makes faith a priority in daily living must be conservative. 
I won't even go there in that post.
I will say, simply, that I recognize what a blessing it is to have a body with all the parts in good working order. I believe that I have a responsibility for good stewardship of that body. To that end, I exercise, hydrate, and eat lots of veggies and fruit. 
Yes, I'm overweight. Maybe always will be. But that's my stance, such as it is.
Caveat: I do NOT repeat NOT suggest that someone who does not have a body with all the parts in good working order is being punished. No, nix, negatory, NO. I simply acknowledge that my body functions well and I am grateful.
Cheers,
Big Beautiful Dreamer


----------

