response 1 of 106:

Jul 6 20:01 UTC 1999

PS.  Can anyone see about linking this to the GLB conf?

response 3 of 106:

Jul 6 23:26 UTC 1999

The other question?  Well, yes, i think that religions (whether church-, 
temple-, village-, tribe-, or whatever-centric) should have official
views on sexuality.  I also believe that such official views need to
be better founded in modern reality and real concern for the welfare of
the common people than has most of the stuff They've come up with so 
far......

response 5 of 106:

Jul 7 07:16 UTC 1999

<lol>

response 7 of 106:

Jul 7 20:08 UTC 1999

"Official stance" would be "the current codified form of the religion's
texts," IMHO.

Seriously, my own religion's official stance (we should all just make our own
religions, it would make the world that much crazier ;} ) reflects the Wiccan
Rede, which is, if it doesn't hurt anyone, go for it. Of course, "not hurting
anyone" is a huge freakin' can o' worms, but hey, life can't always be easy.
;}

response 9 of 106:

Jul 8 05:26 UTC 1999

<laugh>

response 11 of 106:

Jul 9 13:19 UTC 1999

<bow>
thank you, my cynicisim kung fu is strong indeed

response 13 of 106:

Jul 15 14:16 UTC 1999

There's no inherent reason why religions can't reflect current mores.
All religions began some time, after all, and usually reflected the mores of
the time that they were created.

response 15 of 106:

Jul 15 17:45 UTC 1999

Yes, but you're speaking of core tenets. Philosophies and religions are
complicated things; hence the number of sects of Christianity. To qualify as
"Christianity," for instance, a religious system only has to recognize certain
basic tenets -- that Jesus of Nazereth is the Saviour, and a Divinity through
which Heaven can be entered, that the New Testament is His word, etc. The
details are certainly up for grabs, especially where there are contradictions
or vagaries.

response 17 of 106:

Jul 15 20:55 UTC 1999

   sex 381 <---> glb 50

   sorry it took so long for the link...did anyone e-mail me about it?

response 19 of 106:

Jul 15 23:48 UTC 1999

Re:  Xianity references in #14, 15, 16
Actually, many of what are now considered "core" beliefs of Christianity
are stuff that was invented and/or mandated in the early centuries C.E.
as the Late Roman Empire worked to build a centralized, authoritarian
State Church out of the many diverse fractions & fragments which did
agree that Jesus was the most important religious teacher ever born.
Paul had a similar influence - through zeal and imagination instead of
State power - much earlier, especially after the core of followers of
Jesus around Jerusalem got crushed after the rebellions of the late 1st
century.  You can see much of this if you read the New Testament - the
teaching and actions of Jesus Himself are quite different from the tone
of the later NT, and far indeed from the later Romanized stuff.  (But
note that the books (and version of books) in the NT were chosen by 
the same human political processes that were proclaiming the doctrines
and dictating that the Earth was flat.)  If you get into fringe areas
or groups that *don't* trace their Xianity back to the Roman Church,
you'll see some *very* different versions of Xianity. 

The upshot: 

 - Almost any characterization you're likely to see of "Christian" is 
loaded with the unstated (and typically unimagined) presumption of a 
popular sub-type.
 - Xian sects have been using the formula "you can't be called a Xian 
unless you believe _____________" to vilify each other since the beginning.

Before anyone uses the word "Christian", i'd suggest that they check 
whether they're fitting into either of those two categories.  And refrain
if so.  

(:End Rant:)  

response 21 of 106:

Jul 16 14:15 UTC 1999

Um, Christianity and Islam differ from Judaism in their core tenets.
Christians, for instance, recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God, and
Jews don't (except for "Jews for Jesus," which I'm not at all familiar with).
So I fail to see how that example strengthens your argument.

The issue relevant here is whether sexual values qualify as "central tenets"
of Christianity, or whether they're "up for grabs" (actually, which portions
of sexual values are which). For instance, bans on adultery (i.e., sex
*outside* of marriage/committed relationships) seem universally
JudeoChristian, while bans on polygamy (i.e., sex with multiple partners
*within* marriage/committed relationships) aren't... polygamy (polygyny,
almost always) is allowed in Islam and Mormonism. And yet most "mainstream"
Christians place a higher stigma on polygamy/polyamory than they do on
extramarital affairs. Why?

response 23 of 106:

Jul 16 23:19 UTC 1999

For the record, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints outlawed 
polygamy in the mid 1800's.  Therefore, although it was a permitted 
practice for a time, it is currently *against* the religion.  In fact, 
if you want official doctrine on the matter, consult Jacob 2 in the Book 
of Mormon.  It states that polygamy is instituted only when the church 
needs to build a generation of people (I'm paraphrasing) and it is a 
divine commandment to do so; otherwise the rule is one spouse, and no 
more.

What do you mean, belief in a relatively modern prophet, John?  If you 
are referring to Joseph Smith, then yes, he should be noted, since he 
instituted the faith, but Mormons consider whoever is the current 
president to be a prophet.  The difference between the Mormon faith and 
all other religions (I don't think the Pope claims this) is that it is 
continually built upon by continuing revelation.  Usually the modern day 
prophets expound established scripture; what they say will have basis in 
that scripture and is often applications for present-day life.

Continuing revelation-- more so than the Book of Mormon itself-- is what 
distinguishes the Mormon church from others.