What someone might think

[Tiarali]

(01-01-2012 11:27 AM)Ricardo Wrote:  They were serving wine at that wedding, weren't they?

Oh, no, no, no, no, no. You have misunderstood. You see, it would have been a SIN for Jesus to serve wine to others, so we know he couldn't have done that. But we know the KJB is infallible in its translation, so we know it couldn't have been fig cola that he made, so... ummm... OH I KNOW! Jesus made non-alcoholic wine. And you just didn't understand that plain reading of your KJB.

And just ignore that part of the story where it says that they normally served the good wine first because then people got so drunk that they didn't care about the quality of the wine they were served after that. If you question me on that point it's because you have sinful rebellion in your heart, and you need to repent!

Edit: Sorry, I'm feeling sarcastic and bitchy and cranky today. lol.

[bean]

Tiarali, now I learned something. I never thought of it that way before (the good wine first.) It makes perfect sense.
Even in the KJV, it's pretty darn clear that is what was meant. (I did look at both translations, the KJV and the NIV)

I keep going back to the word "gladdened" which is used in wedding vows in the Lutheran church. Now, how exactly would grape juice or fig juice have "gladdened" people? I also know that wine is symbolic of joy (Isaiah 55:1)

Next time I hear a pietist explain to me why wine is sinful, I will trot out Is. 55:1 and John 2 as well!

[Qrayze]

Back when I was a fundy, I heard this priest on the radio explain why the wine at the Last Supper was alcoholic. He said that since the grapes are harvested in the fall and the Last Supper was in the spring, they would have fermented since there was no way to stop fermentation in those days.

In my mind, I told myself that he was full of it and had no idea what he was talking about, but what he said always stayed with me. Thankful for that now.

[bean]

That's awesome Qrayze!
I learn more here in ten minutes of browsing than some people learn in years.

[usernametaken]

(01-01-2012 01:44 AM)HazelEyed Wrote:  ALSO the whole argument doesn't hold water. If we weren't supposed to go to movies because somebody might then we're seeing something bad, then by that logic we shouldn't rent videos at blockbuster (or netflix or redbox now, although we didn't have those at the time I was making these arguments), or have internet in our home, cable TV, or anything like that. Heck, we shouldn't even have radios. Who KNOWS what we're listening to on them?? And a library card... well, we could be checking out liberal-leaning books at the library! Or non-inspirational romance novels! Or stuff with cussing in it! There's no end to this kind of logic.

Maybe some fundies actually do avoid all those things, but I've never met any who did all.

I have actually known of only one person who was completely consistent in this way. I actually had quite a bit of respect for her.

[usernametaken]

(01-01-2012 06:06 PM)aisforazebra Wrote:  We weren't allowed to go to movies when I was a kid, but we rented movies. I was told various reasons for not going to the theater, from "they show previews for bad movies, even at the good movies," to "it's just not a good environment for a Christian," to "people talk and move around and are so annoying that you can't even pay attention; you don't really want to go," to "it's too expensive."

By the time I was 10 I had figured out that my parents were full of crap and had no real legitimate reason for not allowing us to go.

My favorite reason was that even if you go to a G rated movie, you are still supporting the industry and helping them to fund pornography. Whatever.


There is one reason that I can partially agree with as to why one shouldn't go to the movies, or at least certain ones. There is no way to fast forward scenes that are too violent or filled with nudity. This could be a concern especially for families of young kids. But nowadays, with the resources available on the internet, there is simply no excuse for going into a movie ignorantly.

[Qrayze]

(01-02-2012 09:48 PM)usernametaken Wrote:  

(01-01-2012 01:44 AM)HazelEyed Wrote:  ALSO the whole argument doesn't hold water. If we weren't supposed to go to movies because somebody might then we're seeing something bad, then by that logic we shouldn't rent videos at blockbuster (or netflix or redbox now, although we didn't have those at the time I was making these arguments), or have internet in our home, cable TV, or anything like that. Heck, we shouldn't even have radios. Who KNOWS what we're listening to on them?? And a library card... well, we could be checking out liberal-leaning books at the library! Or non-inspirational romance novels! Or stuff with cussing in it! There's no end to this kind of logic.

Maybe some fundies actually do avoid all those things, but I've never met any who did all.

I have actually known of only one person who was completely consistent in this way. I actually had quite a bit of respect for her.

yeah, my high school Bible teacher was the same way.

[Ricardo]

Ah, no. there is no way to be consistent. Unless you start picking and choosing what Mitzvot to ignore and which to follow.

Look at the games the ultra-orthodox Jews play with the rules: Oven timers so they don't have to press buttons or turn knobs during the Sabath. Same with motion sensor switches to control the lights and even elevators that stop at every floor for hospitals in Jewish quarters.

The Amish also have some peculiar traditions in order to survive supposedly without modern technology.

"Check everything out, keep the good stuff" would seem to be a reasonable way to go. Some people should refrain from any and all movies. Most of us can keep separate what reality is.

Today's blog entry is about Dating rules in Christian colleges. Most of us who were subjected to these rules can tell you that holding hands, or even simply looking at each other can be as erotic or as lascivious as we want it to be. No amount of chaperones or rules can prevent this.

Some of us became exceedingly good at doing exactly as we wanted, while complying with the letter of the law, or, to finally get to the point of this thread, to satisfy "what someone might think."

I think part of what got us out of Fundyland was precisely our unwillingness to continue playing this game.