|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Nov 21, 2003 13:19:20 GMT -5
Because of certain Internet gremlins who shall not be named, Part 72 isn't being cooperative. So welcome to Part 73.
The rules remain the same -- no spoilers (there's a special place for that), the golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated, and that goes for characters), and most importantly, have fun. Let the posting begin!
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 21, 2003 13:21:58 GMT -5
Hi, Dave! (Waves) Thank you kindly!
Goodness, am I the First (after our Technopagan, of course)?
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Nov 21, 2003 13:23:07 GMT -5
Because of certain Internet gremlins who shall not be named, Part 72 isn't being cooperative. So welcome to Part 73. The rules remain the same -- no spoilers (there's a special place for that), the golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated, and that goes for characters), and most importantly, have fun. Let the posting begin! hey, y'all! thought I'd stop in and say "howdy," from Branson. Still have not yet seen this week's angel, probably won't until I return home, but i sort of know what happens, so I do not fear this board. Hope everyone's doing well...i'm going to have quite the job catching up when I get back!
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 21, 2003 13:24:49 GMT -5
hey, y'all! thought I'd stop in and say "howdy," from Branson. Still have not yet seen this week's angel, probably won't until I return home, but i sort of know what happens, so I do not fear this board. Hope everyone's doing well...i'm going to have quite the job catching up when I get back! "Howdy" back atcha! You are going to have quite the job catching up; a word to the wise - no beverages while you're reading! Hope you're having a xylophone time in Branson!
|
|
|
Post by Len on Nov 21, 2003 13:31:15 GMT -5
Just as the conversation was starting to move away from this... I actually don't have much time and I'm sure I'll end up rambling but I just had to say something since I haven't seen someone actually explain this yet. Though premarital sex IS a sin in the Catholic church, it is not just as simple as "because God says so." THAT is often perceived as the real "reason" to those who are not Catholic or those who haven't looked further into the Catholic beliefs. Catholics are told it is a sin is to encourage them not to do it. The "because God says it is a sin" would be similar to a parent saying to their child "if you keep doing that, I'm going to punish you" to get them to do something (or stop doing something, as the case may be). Actually, that type of control method is one of the things I hate about my religion. I dislike that Catholics might be taught to fear or dislike God because the church is constantly playing the "it's a sin and you know that means eternal damnation" card. (Oops, I'm sorry... got on MY soapbox for a minute there. *hops down*) The real 'reason' behind not having premarital sex has to do with sanctity of marriage and teaching people to understand that. In the Catholic church, marriage is a sacred thing between two people that is not to be taken lightly. Given that the C. church doesn't believe in divorce, that is an understandable thought process. And, so, they want people to think about something as intimate as having sex for the first time. If marriage is to be sacred, it would make sense that they would teach that you only want to be THAT intimate with the one person you intend to commit yourself to for the rest of your life. So, when I hear people say that they are only waiting because "God says they should", I HAVE to hope that they understand WHY the church tells God says that. Oh, also, for the record, the Catholic church isn't just saying that premarital sex is bad for women. Really the men in the church should be virgins going into their marriages, as well. My first boyfriend wanted to marry a virgin but, yet, he was all for having sex with his girlfriends. I had HUGE arguments with him about it because, hello, the hypocrisy. How could he ask for sex with a girlfriend and then say that he would never marry that girl because she was willing to have sex before marriage. Ahh, it killed me. I am Soooo with you on this point! DRATS! I had a whole long reply – and lost it when the Part locked!!! grrrrr!!! I’ll try to reconstruct (but doing so is one of my all-time hated activities...sooo frustrating! rasnfrassindrasn Moloch).... Thanks for your thoughtful Post Rae, which answered the question I posed a while ago. So, if the reason for abstaining from pre-marital sex is to preserve the sanctity of marriage, doesn’t that mean that BOTH people who indulge in sex for pleasure AND people who indulge in sex for love are equally at “fault” – i.e. they are both equally degrading the sanctity of marriage? And now that I think of it (always a cause for concern), if the reason is to “abstain from premarital sex” is to “preserve the sanctity of marriage,” because you sex should only occur within marriage, isn’t that a bit of circular reasoning? i.e. doesn’t it beg the question of why you should only have sex within marriage? I mean it isn’t sex that makes marriage a special bond – isn’t it, rather, love, devotion, caring, kindness, and respect that make marriage a special bond? Sex is clearly not the essential, or even an essential, ingredient of marriage. People who are physically unable to have sex, still get married. Their marriage isn’t any less a marriage than others, right? (y’know, I’m feeling more and more comfortable with the title of “Demon’s Advocate” here!)
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 21, 2003 13:36:20 GMT -5
Hey, Len - Demon's Advocate is definitely you. How about the more archaic spelling of Dæmon (or daemon) for fun?
I really should go do real stuff. I'm going to let Kitty/Kitsa/Kathy (she's trying to change her name) have a turn at the computer, so I won't be tempted.
Later!
|
|
|
Post by RAKSHA on Nov 21, 2003 13:37:39 GMT -5
Because of certain Internet gremlins who shall not be named, Part 72 isn't being cooperative. So welcome to Part 73. The rules remain the same -- no spoilers (there's a special place for that), the golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated, and that goes for characters), and most importantly, have fun. Let the posting begin! Eve and Lindsey must be fooling around with communications - and the universe - again! Those crazy kids...
GAIL
|
|
|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Nov 21, 2003 13:39:31 GMT -5
Eve and Lindsey must be fooling around with communications - and the universe - again! Those crazy kids...
GAIL When it's phones, we can blame Eve and Lindsey. When it's the Internet, though, that's Moloch's domain. "... Press 1 for goats ...."
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 21, 2003 13:39:47 GMT -5
<snip> I wish I could tell Spike personally that he needs to get some kind of life that doesn't revolve around one-upping Angel or pursuing women that Angel hadn't lusted after/loved first or prophecies that had not been in Angel's heart first.... Two things - 1) Good point about Spike always choosing goals that seem, in some way, to have to do with getting what Angel has. As much as he did love Buffy, notice that (in Wrecked), even after that first dramatic night with Buffy in that abandoned house, Angel is one of the first things on Spike's mind. He brings up the spectre of Angel with "Vampires make you hot." I do think this latest episode marks the beginning of the end of that type of motivation for Spike. Classic son bests the father, and it reminds me of Buffy making the break with Giles, in LMPTM. 2) I wish I could show Spike personally that he needs to get some kind of life that doesn't revolve around one-upping Angel or pursuing women that Angel had, etc. I know I could be persuasive!
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Nov 21, 2003 13:40:24 GMT -5
I am Soooo with you on this point! DRATS! I had a whole long reply – and lost it when the Part locked!!! grrrrr!!! I’ll try to reconstruct (but doing so is one of my all-time hated activities...sooo frustrating! rasnfrassindrasn Moloch).... Thanks for your thoughtful Post Rae, which answered the question I posed a while ago. So, if the reason for abstaining from pre-marital sex is to preserve the sanctity of marriage, doesn’t that mean that BOTH people who indulge in sex for pleasure AND people who indulge in sex for love are equally at “fault” – i.e. they are both equally degrading the sanctity of marriage? And now that I think of it (always a cause for concern), if the reason is to “abstain from premarital sex” is to “preserve the sanctity of marriage,” because you sex should only occur within marriage, isn’t that a bit of circular reasoning? i.e. doesn’t it beg the question of why you should only have sex within marriage? I mean it isn’t sex that makes marriage a special bond – isn’t it, rather, love, devotion, caring, kindness, and respect that make marriage a special bond? Sex is clearly not the essential, or even an essential, ingredient of marriage. People who are physically unable to have sex, still get married. Their marriage isn’t any less a marriage than others, right? (y’know, I’m feeling more and more comfortable with the title of “Demon’s Advocate” here!) This looks like quote the fascinating discussion; anyone wanna tell me what part it's from?
|
|
|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Nov 21, 2003 13:44:01 GMT -5
Two things - 1) Good point about Spike always choosing goals that seem, in some way, to have to do with getting what Angel has. As much as he did love Buffy, notice that (in Wrecked), even after that first dramatic night with Buffy in that abandoned house, Angel is one of the first things on Spike's mind. He brings up the spectre of Angel with "Vampires make you hot." I do think this latest episode marks the beginning of the end of that type of motivation for Spike. Classic son bests the father, and it reminds me of Buffy making the break with Giles, in LMPTM. 2) I wish I could show Spike personally that he needs to get some kind of life that doesn't revolve around one-upping Angel or pursuing women that Angel had, etc. I know I could be persuasive! Yeah, we all wish a lot of things, Spring, but you must never forget what happened last time you violated the restraining order.......
|
|
|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Nov 21, 2003 13:45:13 GMT -5
This looks like quote the fascinating discussion; anyone wanna tell me what part it's from? That would be Part 72. Don't be fooled by anything in the index saying it's empty. It's not.
|
|
|
Post by Len on Nov 21, 2003 13:48:52 GMT -5
This looks like quote the fascinating discussion; anyone wanna tell me what part it's from? you can link right into the previous discussion in Part 72 by clicking on Eve's name.
|
|
|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Nov 21, 2003 13:51:10 GMT -5
you can link right into the previous discussion in Part 72 by clicking on Eve's name. I do so like the way this board works, when it's working the way I like. When it's working Moloch's way, it's no fun at all.
|
|
|
Post by DaveCrenshaw on Nov 21, 2003 13:52:22 GMT -5
Hi, Dave! (Waves) Thank you kindly! Goodness, am I the First (after our Technopagan, of course)? **Waves back** You know, it's not every day I get a red-hot S'cubie mama waving at me. Must mark this day on my calendar ....
|
|