Again, this is a response to another comment that became a post. 

“I think terming one’s religion ‘progressive’ is more an act of seeking acceptance than anything else. Today’s society loves anything that is ‘progressive’ or ‘open minded’…but what about when these values dilute the truth because it is just easier to handle it that way?”

As much as progressive religions get accepted by people like me, I feel there would be more dismay (and anger) from the “pure” religions they were derived from. This could be a Christian fundamentalist calling another Christian not a “true Christian.” Half the Christians that come up with rubbish like “true Christian” and associated terms, are Protestant Christians and the Protestant Church exists because of a reformation; and at that time, I’m sure it would have been thought of as what people know consider “progressive.” So, instead of wine and bread being Jesus’ blood and flesh, they became a symbol for his blood and flesh. Like Shannon said, in that context, it was progressive and frowned upon by those outside of the movement, but not by those within it.

Why would people who are pushing for progressive religions actually try and do it because they are merely seeking acceptance? Wouldn’t they just pack up and have their own beliefs at home and tell their friends about it? Maybe some are looking for acceptance, but I think more are looking for harmony.

And using words like “truth” as one would use toilet paper, just makes me feel like throwing up. If someone actually believed it was truth, they wouldn’t attempt to dilute it. They must possess some doubt, otherwise they would not challenge it and they would not change it. If we are talking about absolutes, how can something you believe to be truth be easier to handle if it is “diluted” since it becomes something that is no longer the truth?

When talking about religion, relative truth only becomes false when one talks in absolutes. I really applaud those people who give anything such significant certainty about “truth” because they must have had some damn amazing experiences.

Regarding the second paragraph of James’ comment:

“This seems to tie in with an idea raised in another post of yours – loving God. “Fundamentalist’s Christians” have an idea of what is pleasing to God, and as an act of love, they want to fulfill that. They don’t think that they are earning God’s love, but are just showing him their returning love. It seems like that idea is wrong and close minded, but isn’t this just a reflection of the way love is played out in the physical world?” 

Perhaps I was implying that people are earning God’s love but didn’t say it, and it was intentional. Let’s use your reference to “fundamentalist Christians” to start. I was trying to say that when a person chooses to accept God through Jesus Christ, they thus love God and Jesus Christ and thus they believe that they receive the unconditional love from God. I also said that, it would be a fantastic feeling to have. I also said that such people follow scripture since they have the faith to believe the scripture is 100% accurate, and if they did not follow it as best as they could, they would indeed be contradicting the love they have for God. I was also implying that because you love God, he loves you back. Perhaps, in this line of Christian thinking, he loves you back anyway. That’d be great. Yet regardless of that love, if you don’t accept God and thus the Bible and Jesus Christ, he condemns you to a place where he does not reside – a place called Hell.

As much as you say that is how love is played out in real life, for some reason I think you’re wrong. Yes you try and do what you can to please someone you love and who loves you back. However even if I hate someone, I do not punish them so harshly and send them to a place like Hell which is apparently devoid of God but rather, full of evil. If I was watching someone who I loved, and they were trying their best to do what they thought was right, I would eventually help them – I would not send them to Hell. I wouldn’t turn my back on someone who doesn’t please me in the ways that I wanted but tries their best in whatever capacity they can - I would still be pleased. If I loved someone I wouldn’t turn my back on them when that person tries to do their best when my will is unclear in the midst of so many instructions on how to live life. Even if I hated a person, if I was indeed their creator, I wouldn’t be so harsh. So, these non-progressive but “pure” ideas can’t be compared to how love is played out in real life. I’m not cheating on God by thinking there is another way.

To stand up for Shannon a third time, I’d like to understand what James’ last comment actually means. Yes Shannon stated the obvious, but in a very concise way – he talks about the Protestant reformation without having to mention it. How can anyone really determine the desires of God, when they are being interpreted from a scripture? You can only answer that question after making a whole lot of assumptions which then makes your answer useless outside of that frame you began in.

I’m thinking about this in an Australian context because that’s where I live. The linked post asks a question that I think used to be far more important in Australian society some years back, however I haven’t really heard many people talk about it of late, although I acknowledge that there are sections of society that preach that sex before marriage is bad. It should probably be noted that the times that I’ve ever heard this topic being brought up, were with regards to religion, but obviously the topic can be discussed separate to religion also. Yet, I’m more interested in the assumption made in this argument/exploration/questioning/question, that a “perfect mate” exists somewhere out there.

The two comments left so far on the original blog-post are quite valid. The first comment seems to be from a point of view that sex before marriage is bad. If you’re comparing this question about sex to that of the theory of communism, it’s like you’re saying it would be great if we could hold on until marriage, but it’s not going to happen because society makes it difficult. It’s an amusing analogy but if you truly believe it’s not ”applicable” I don’t see why you would also say in theory it would be the best gift to your spouse, when you seem to also suggest in your comment, that you don’t think sex before marriage is a big deal. Perhaps being a virgin is a great gift to your future spouse, but then, the spouse will only truly care if they actually agree that sex before marriage is bad but inevitable. The second comment that people should all have a knowledge of the dangers etc is extremely true and I think schools in Australia, and definitely the one I went to, make sure that people are educated about the potential consequences of sex.

The original post reads: But I also believe that giving you[r] pure body to your new spouse is the greatest gift you could possibly give them. It says that “I knew I would find the perfect mate some day and I saved myself for you”. That is so much better than, “I got tired of waiting so I gave it away to three other guys before I met you”. “ Now, I was discussing this with a friend and a couple of thoughts came to me. Let’s assume for a second that sex is more than a bodily function. So, the quote above is only true if you believe that there is a “perfect mate”and that you can only love one person in your life. I don’t think I believe that, but it’d be interesting to hear people’s thoughts on that.

Secondly, there is the problem of marriage, children and divorce. To state the obvious, part of a healthy intimate relationship, is sex. A lot of people increasingly move in with each other and live life together for a long time before marrying and having children. This way, they can see whether they are truly compatible with each other; and they get a glimpse of whether the relationship will last. Wouldn’t that be better than rushing into a marriage, having children, only to then realise you’re not really happy with your partner? Of course, it should be noted that people do get married and both people haven’t had premarital sex, and they live on for decades being happy with each other, but at the same time, the opposite has often been true and then the kids are in the middle struggling. Marriage usually means a lot of commitment (although it seems marriages are getting shorter and shorter) and perhaps people should try and be more certain, especially before having kids.

I also think that previous relationships become irrelevant. You might say, “I got tired of waiting so I gave it away to three other guys before I met you,” but what if you truly had feelings for those people – what if you thought you loved them? I think far more people would be against a blog-post with the heading “random sex before marriage – right or wrong?” I really think things like “perfect mate” are far too ideal especially since you’re implying that one would actually know if and when they found such a person.

“God’s will sometimes doesn’t have the power to stop raging hormones or a deep love for someone.” – Raging hormones aside, I’m wondering how different your definition of “deep love” is to your definition of “perfect mate.” 

“So..  is it right or is it wrong?” – I don’t personally see it as an issue. It shouldn’t make a difference. I guess it would, if your religious views tell you otherwise. I think in some ways when you decide to settle down with someone for whatever reasons, your previous relationships, and the sex, become irrelevant. Unless the person you’re with is a virgin, they wouldn’t really be jealous of your previous experiences unless you keep referring to those times in your past. However, “right or wrong” really depends on the value one places on sex and virginity. Yes, I think right and wrong are relative, because I do not believe in an absolute truth that is present in a text. Would you be like “oh my god, wow, you saved yourself for me?” if the person you were with said that they’d abstained from sex until they found you? I personally wouldn’t care, but I’m sure there are people out there who would say that one shouldn’t have sex unless they are perfectly sure that they have found “the one” and obviously, for those people sex before marriage would be bad, and the “gift” you speak of, would be great.

Strange topic to talk about. Even stranger because I don’t think it’s a big deal and my opinion, it seems, is quite vague and, “do what you want!” I just don’t think people should really care about another’s past relationships when they get into a relationship with that person. If sex is just a bodily function, then no one should care; if it’s an expression of affection, or love, then only if someone has sex with another person while in a relationship, should someone care; if sex means that you have chosen that one mate for ever, well then, it’s time to put on the chastity belt.

It’d be great to hear some thoughts on this.

Caste system . You’re not better than me.

The [constructed] relationship between love (or human connection) and religion is something I really want to explore in the script I’m currently writing.

I found Farah’s story while rummaging through Jenny’s blog in the Transient Spaces category. It’s quite sad that people can’t be together for reasons such as these, and I find it hard to understand in many ways. As much as I can intellectually understand the reasoning behind such relationship incompatibility I don’t really understand since I can’t relate to it personally. Sure I have prejudices regarding people in certain professions and often find amusement in stereotypes, but I really don’t see a person to be better or worse than me or anyone else until I get to know them. The class system is an abused system – something I want to look into and write about in a following post – and it is useless to me when determining the quality of a human being. I have a feeling that all this rubbish leads back to some sort of bogus interpretation and/or unquestioning acceptance of something written in scripture, or something said by a person of decent “authority.”

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Hinduism (which I briefly scanned through) presented Hinduism as something more open-minded than Farah’s story illustrates, and my strongly Hindu friends are also quite open-minded. And moreover, any scripture that I have read doesn’t mention such discrimination. However, I have known for a long time, from stories that my parents and family have told me (and Tamil films ), that such ridiculous rules and ideas of caste and marriage between different religions exist in abundance. It makes me angry. If two people love each other and have similar values, the rest is superfluous. If anyone else thinks differently, please say so – I’d like to hear it.