Using sexual images to sell products

[NickKIELCEPoland]

In some countries, (well, rather a lot actually) it is quite common to see pictures of young, pretty women in bikinis, or underwear, with the hope of selling products. Also, in the same countries, you can go into newspaper shops, and on the top shelf, you can see pornographic magazines for sale. Then, at Eurovision (which is a singing competition between European nations) countries might have lighlty-clad young ladies as part of their acts, in the hope of winning points from the audience.

My question is, can a country that does this call themselves a staunchly Christian country?

[dilettante]

My question is, can a country that does this call themselves a staunchly Christian country?

Do any of the countries you have in mind call themselves "staunchly Christian"? If so, then the answer to your question, apparently, is "yes."

But beyond that, I'm not entirely sure what it would mean for a country to be "staunchly Christian," especially since "Christian" seems to be somewhat loosely defined these days.

Also, you left out the concept of the Booth Babe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booth_babe).

[NickKIELCEPoland]

So you can combine blatent attempts at making money, by using bikini-clad women on billboards, next to roads etc. with being a staunchly Christian country???

[Non Sequitur]

In some countries, (well, rather a lot actually) it is quite common to see pictures of young, pretty women in bikinis, or underwear, with the hope of selling products. Also, in the same countries, you can go into newspaper shops, and on the top shelf, you can see pornographic magazines for sale. Then, at Eurovision (which is a singing competition between European nations) countries might have lighlty-clad young ladies as part of their acts, in the hope of winning points from the audience.

My question is, can a country that does this call themselves a staunchly Christian country?

In communities which are majority Christian and based on Christian principles there are two different ways of dealing with sins in the larger community. The first is that all such activities should not be allowed. Generally, however, this doesn't work and ends up doing more damage then good. The other principle is called responsible freedom or evangelical freedom. Following Paul's principle of "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial" (1 Corinthians 10:23) the thinking is that such things are usually up to the community.

Also, I agree with Dil's question. What does it mean to be a staunchly Christian country. The only one I can think of is The Vatican.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Non-Sequitor,
If we're talking about the definition of a staunchly Christian country, my own personal one would be 'a country where the vast majority of the people are Christian, and put their religion high up in their list of things to be respected.'

ALso, I'm not talking about whether something is allowed or not.
I'm talking about whether something is widely practised or not.

[Donkey]

I don't think a country can practice something like that. A country is only an actor insofar as government policy dictates.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Donkey, I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about the people.

If I had meant the government, I would have said 'state'

Perhaps I should have said nation, since country includes mountains and hills and suchlike, but never mind. Now you know that I meant the people!

[Donkey]

Donkey, I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about the people.

If I had meant the government, I would have said 'state'

Perhaps I should have said nation, since country includes mountains and hills and suchlike, but never mind. Now you know that I meant the people!

Ok. So if I sell something using sexuality, it doesn't reflect on Non Sequitur.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Donkey, No, but it reduces your country's right to call itself a staunchly Christian country, in my opinion. Not by much, since you are probably a very small percentage of your own nation's population.

[Non Sequitur]

Non-Sequitor,
If we're talking about the definition of a staunchly Christian country, my own personal one would be 'a country where the vast majority of the people are Christian, and put their religion high up in their list of things to be respected.'

ALso, I'm not talking about whether something is allowed or not.
I'm talking about whether something is widely practised or not.

Ok well then all that proves is that people are sinful :shrug: It's hard to get it all right...

[Donkey]

Donkey, No, but it reduces your country's right to call itself a staunchly Christian country, in my opinion. Not by much, since you are probably a very small percentage of your own nation's population.

Again, society is not a single actor.

But it doesn't reduce the right whatsoever. Perhaps the credibility of the claim...

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Donkey, now we're in agreement. ;)

[dilettante]

Donkey, No, but it reduces your country's right to call itself a staunchly Christian country, in my opinion. Not by much, since you are probably a very small percentage of your own nation's population.

I think we'd do better to get away from trying to label entire national populations or treat them as single units, and also from focusing on what people can and cannot be be "called."

If the real issue is whether or not a Christian can use lust to sell products, then IMO the answer is yes, he probably can (I supposed his capability depends on his skills as a marketer). Should he? No.
But Christian's aren't perfect and Christianity isn't about perfectly following all the rules.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Non-Sequitor thank you for the answer you gave.
But myself and many others will often say things like Norway is a skiing mad country, or The Netherlands is a liberal country or India is a very Hindu country, when we know that we're only talking about a great majoirty of the people who are strongly leaning in a particular direction.

You may not like this, but it is the way popular parlance has become.

And I can't really see that it harms anyone. It's just a short way of seeing '76% of Norwegians have spent 5% of their lives watching or practising skiing.'

[Donkey]

Non-Sequitor thank you for the answer you gave.
But myself and many others will often say things like Norway is a skiing mad country, or The Netherlands is a liberal country or India is a very Hindu country, when we know that we're only talking about a great majoirty of the people who are strongly leaning in a particular direction.

You may not like this, but it is the way popular parlance has become.

And I can't really see that it harms anyone. It's just a short way of seeing '76% of Norwegians have spent 5% of their lives watching or practising skiing.'

So whence the "Staunch?"

[NickKIELCEPoland]

staunch
Origin:
1375–1425; late Middle English sta ( u ) nch < Middle French estanche (feminine), estanc (masculine), derivative of estancher to stanch (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stanch)1
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/staunch

[Donkey]

Origin:
1375–1425; late Middle English sta ( u ) nch < Middle French estanche (feminine), estanc (masculine), derivative of estancher to stanch (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stanch)1

:rolleyes:

[Daktoria]

Being that I've lived down south, I can say that Christian conservatives do have expectations of modesty when it comes to advertising. Part of religious (and family) values is about not spoiling the mind.

If anything, I'd say there's a lot more sexual advertising up north than down south.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

It sounds as if they practise what they preech, Daktoria.
I'm not a Christian myself, and can't say I'm very confortable among Bible-workshippers.

And I have nothing against modernist Christians, who want to be able to ignore certain parts of the Bible. Just don't do it for your own ends only.

[The Drunk Girl]

Being that I've lived down south, I can say that Christian conservatives do have expectations of modesty when it comes to advertising. Part of religious (and family) values is about not spoiling the mind.

If anything, I'd say there's a lot more sexual advertising up north than down south.

I have traveled north, south, east, and west here in the U.S. Just being home two days from Florida, it appears to be the same. There were signs all over the I-75 advertising "spas" (with pictures of little Asian girls on the billboards along with the message "Truckers Allowed"), strip clubs, etc the whole trip.

Point is people like sex. It is no longer taboo anymore. Besides, how can anyone judge expectations of modesty when we aren't with them 24/7/365? The internet provides a whole other world of sex right in your own home.

[Daktoria]

I have traveled north, south, east, and west here in the U.S. Just being home two days from Florida, it appears to be the same. There were signs all over the I-75 advertising "spas" (with pictures of little Asian girls on the billboards along with the message "Truckers Allowed"), strip clubs, etc the whole trip.

Point is people like sex. It is no longer taboo anymore. Besides, how can anyone judge expectations of modesty when we aren't with them 24/7/365? The internet provides a whole other world of sex right in your own home.

Well I won't deny that sex sells, but I think there's a difference between a billboard for a spa and a billboard with a scantily clothed bikini model.

I think the point is about sexual imagery rather than just sexual themes. It is possible to be discrete such that people won't take notice of what you're saying unless they're looking for it.

[Donkey]

Well I won't deny that sex sells, but I think there's a difference between a billboard for a spa and a billboard with a scantily clothed bikini model.

I think the point is about sexual imagery rather than just sexual themes. It is possible to be discrete such that people won't take notice of what you're saying unless they're looking for it.

If it's on a liminal level, it doesn't really matter if they are looking for it, does it?

I use "sex" to "sell" all the time.

[Daktoria]

Mmmm...

...everything doesn't have to be treated as an innuendo. It's up to the listener to choose whether or not to do so. Even if we can't control emotions, we can control perspective.

Something that doesn't require being treated as an innuendo (since perspective applies universally to it) is not discrete.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

This is what Jesus said on this matter...


Matthew 5:28-30

28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

[The Drunk Girl]

Well I won't deny that sex sells, but I think there's a difference between a billboard for a spa and a billboard with a scantily clothed bikini model.

I think the point is about sexual imagery rather than just sexual themes. It is possible to be discrete such that people won't take notice of what you're saying unless they're looking for it.

:lol:

I think you like to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.

It's pretty damn obvious when the billboards mention strippers. How can sex not be interpreted from a billboard for a spa with stripper like women on it? Other straight up spas do not advertise such things.

Have you been laid recently? You might need to get some fog out of your brain

[JHC]

1. Countries are not people and can't be staunch or Christian.
2. Any country or person can do all of which they are capable.


This is another shallow argument. It results in "any true Scotsman".

[NickKIELCEPoland]

FIne, if you believe countries can't be staunchly anything, then fortunately, you aren't obliged to take part in this discussion. If, on the other hand, you are one of the many people who have said to me "x is a staunchly Christian country" then I encourage you to take part.

[The Drunk Girl]

FIne, if you believe countries can't be staunchly anything, then fortunately, you aren't obliged to take part in this discussion. If, on the other hand, you are one of the many people who have said to me "x is a staunchly Christian country" then I encourage you to take part.

With all due respect, who are you to decide who is obliged to discuss anything on this forum?

[dilettante]

FIne, if you believe countries can't be staunchly anything, then fortunately, you aren't obliged to take part in this discussion. If, on the other hand, you are one of the many people who have said to me "x is a staunchly Christian country" then I encourage you to take part.

:ummm: Are any of those people here?

[MeMyselfAndI]

Well, not Orthodox Christian, I know that. I cannot say about Catholics or Anglicans. But true Orthodox Christian women would never do that.

They cover themselves almost like those Wahabi Muslim women
http://www.sostav.ru/articles/rus/2009/columns/efir/images/sterligov_5.jpg

Orthodox Christianity demans modesty from women. I imagine other forms of Christianity do as well. So, if a society had chosen to live a truly Christian lifestyle, no, the things you mention would not be possible there.

[Michael]

Being that I've lived down south, I can say that Christian conservatives do have expectations of modesty when it comes to advertising. Part of religious (and family) values is about not spoiling the mind.

If anything, I'd say there's a lot more sexual advertising up north than down south.

Given my extensive travels across the USA, it is always the US South where I have see the most blatant sexual images on display in public advertising. :shrug:

Doesn't surprise me at all.

[Donkey]

Given my extensive travels across the USA, it is always the US South where I have see the most blatant sexual images on display in public advertising. :shrug:

Doesn't surprise me at all.
We do have that interesting dichotomy. The more puritan we become, the more down'n'dirty sex obsessed we are.

[Daktoria]

:lol:

I think you like to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.

It's pretty damn obvious when the billboards mention strippers. How can sex not be interpreted from a billboard for a spa with stripper like women on it? Other straight up spas do not advertise such things.

Have you been laid recently? You might need to get some fog out of your brain

Yea, probably. It's been a while, heh.

Ads don't work well on me anyway. If an ad interests me, I'll write it down and go look or call up for some more details, but that's... I dunno, once out of every thousand or so. It's not a common event. My eyes don't drift much when I'm driving, and it doesn't take much to get me to turn off the radio or TV. Internet ads are frustrating too now. Ad-blocker used to be enough. Now, they have ads in videos which turn me off the instant I see them.

[Daktoria]

Given my extensive travels across the USA, it is always the US South where I have see the most blatant sexual images on display in public advertising. :shrug:

Doesn't surprise me at all.

I guess.

Where are you talking about? I think coastal areas tend to be more lewd than inland areas. It doesn't matter if you're talking about New Jersey or South Carolina then.

[Donkey]

I guess.

Where are you talking about? I think coastal areas tend to be more lewd than inland areas. It doesn't matter if you're talking about New Jersey or South Carolina then.
Well yeah. More tourism traffic = more eyes per billboard.

[Michael]

I guess.

Where are you talking about? I think coastal areas tend to be more lewd than inland areas. It doesn't matter if you're talking about New Jersey or South Carolina then.

Georgia and Flordia seem to be the most to my memory. Admittedly, Florida isn't "Old South" but statistically, it is very, very Christian.

And the counter-point, the 'northern' nations tend to be the most prudish and the most 'secular'. :shrug:

I'm referring to Scandanavia in Europe, or Canada in North America.

[Donkey]

Georgia and Flordia seem to be the most to my memory. Admittedly, Florida isn't "Old South" but statistically, it is very, very Christian.
Northern Florida is the deepest south possible though.


*shudder*

[NickKIELCEPoland]

The Drunk Girl, I never said I decided who posts on this thread. I just pointed out that no one was obliged to.

Dillettante, yes, someone on this board said that a specific country was getting very Christian indeed.

MeMyselfandI, aren't there adverts in Russia that have pretty women wearing bikinis or underwear etc. And we all know the striking similarity between Cossacks and tom cats, regarding morals.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Given my extensive travels across the USA, it is always the US South where I have see the most blatant sexual images on display in public advertising. :shrug:

Doesn't surprise me at all.
I see. Hypocrisy, in other words. And them pretending to be so Christian.

[The Drunk Guy]

I see. Hypocrisy, in other words. And them pretending to be so Christian.
Just because a region or nation is deemed to be "staunchly religious" doesn't make every person in the region "staunchly religious". Not everyone goes to those giant churches all over the region. That doesn't make them hypocrites for going to strip clubs instead.

Stereotypes may be a real time saver, but they're no good when trying to make a point.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

The Drunk Guy, I'm not talking about just one person, am I.
I'm talking about the fact that, according to Michael, the Southern States are actually more full of sexually toned billboards than the Northern States are. If a community doesn't like something, that something won't adorn the whole community on billboards. That is how capitalism works, for better or worse.

Or do you think there is one person, in some office, that has decided that whether they like it or not, the good Christians of Tennessee are going to have sex-billboards on every corner. No sirree!

[dilettante]

The Drunk Guy, I'm not talking about just one person, am I.
I'm talking about the fact that, according to Michael, the Southern States are actually more full of sexually toned billboards than the Northern States are. If a community doesn't like something, that something won't adorn the whole community on billboards. That is how capitalism works, for better or worse.

Or do you think there is one person, in some office, that has decided that whether they like it or not, the good Christians of Tennessee are going to have sex-billboards on every corner. No sirree!

So what do you take away from that?

I mean, what is it you're trying to establish or find out in this thread?
That country/region X is not "staunchly Christian"?
That "staunch Christians" use sexual images to sell products?
That country/region X and/or "staunch Christians" are hypocritical?

I'm just not sure what the point is.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Dillettante, The people I'm trying to reach are the people who think that it is okay to ignore what the Bible says when it suits them, but insist on dogmatism when they personally have nothing to fear from dogmatism.

I want them to see that when they call themselves Christian, but at the same time ignore certain aspects of the Bible, then that proves that they choose what to believe, and even if God exists, they are not letting him tell them what to conclude. In other words, I'm making them responsible for their own views.

Someone who adheres to the Bible to the letter, 100%, has not CHOSEN to be anti-gay, so gay rights people should excuse him or her. He or she has NOT chosen to be anti-gay, he or she is doing what he or she believes to be right, because that is what it says in the Bible.

However, if someone uses sex to sell a product, or is rich, then that someone has PROVED that they don't let God tell them how to think or live. If they are anti-gay, then they CAN'T blame their religion, the buck stops with them.

I hope that is clear;)

[The Drunk Girl]

FIne, if you believe countries can't be staunchly anything, then fortunately, you aren't obliged to take part in this discussion. If, on the other hand, you are one of the many people who have said to me "x is a staunchly Christian country" then I encourage you to take part.
:shrug::ummm:

[NickKIELCEPoland]

The Drunk Girl, Exactly. THey aren't obliged to take part, so if they don't like my (and many others') way of using the phrase 'staunchly Christian' they need not be bothered by it.

By the way dillitante, I hope you understood my explanation.

[Donkey]

Dillettante, The people I'm trying to reach are the people who think that it is okay to ignore what the Bible says when it suits them, but insist on dogmatism when they personally have nothing to fear from dogmatism.

I want them to see that when they call themselves Christian, but at the same time ignore certain aspects of the Bible, then that proves that they choose what to believe, and even if God exists, they are not letting him tell them what to conclude. In other words, I'm making them responsible for their own views.

Someone who adheres to the Bible to the letter, 100%, has not CHOSEN to be anti-gay, so gay rights people should excuse him or her. He or she has NOT chosen to be anti-gay, he or she is doing what he or she believes to be right, because that is what it says in the Bible.

However, if someone uses sex to sell a product, or is rich, then that someone has PROVED that they don't let God tell them how to think or live. If they are anti-gay, then they CAN'T blame their religion, the buck stops with them.

I hope that is clear;)
Then you are posting in the wrong forum, homeboy.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Donkey, how am I posting on the wrong forum?

[Donkey]

Donkey, how am I posting on the wrong forum?

There is not a single person on this forum that fits the description of who you are trying to reach.

The conversation seems to be going like this:

Nick: Do you think that conservative Christians are often hypocrites?
Most everybody: Yeah but we object to the way you phrase the question.
Nick: HAH! Gotcha!


:ummm:

[NickKIELCEPoland]

I don't know what it seems like to you, Donk, but, as I've tried to clarify, I'm trying to show that many people say it's because of Christianity that they are anti-gay, when in fact, they've chosen to be anti-gay, themselves, and if they didn't want to be gay, they wouldn't be, regardless of what God says.

[Donkey]

I don't know what it seems like to you, Donk, but, as I've tried to clarify, I'm trying to show that many people say it's because of Christianity that they are anti-gay, when in fact, they've chosen to be anti-gay, themselves, and if they didn't want to be gay, they wouldn't be, regardless of what God says.

No shit. But you're playing "gotcha" against people who simply do not post here. So what's your point?

[dilettante]

Thanks for the clarification earlier.

...I'm trying to show that many people say it's because of Christianity that they are anti-gay, when in fact, they've chosen to be anti-gay, themselves, and if they didn't want to be gay, they wouldn't be, regardless of what God says.

I'm fairly certain that few if any people here would dispute the claim that many such people do, in fact, exist. In that sense, at least, you're mostly among like-minded folks.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Donk I've explained my point. If you think I'm playing gotcha, then you're wrong.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Thanks for the clarification earlier.



I'm fairly certain that few if any people here would dispute the claim that many such people do, in fact, exist. In that sense, at least, you're mostly among like-minded folks.
Thank you dilletante.
Maybe you've got a point :)

[The Drunk Guy]

The Drunk Guy, I'm not talking about just one person, am I.
I'm talking about the fact that, according to Michael, the Southern States are actually more full of sexually toned billboards than the Northern States are. If a community doesn't like something, that something won't adorn the whole community on billboards. That is how capitalism works, for better or worse.

Or do you think there is one person, in some office, that has decided that whether they like it or not, the good Christians of Tennessee are going to have sex-billboards on every corner. No sirree!
I didn't say anything about one person, either. :rolleyes:

Communities, particularly those scattered across entire regions, are composed of many different facets. A majority of folks may be highly religious, but even that majority is shattered into segments of various denominations and beliefs. (There is even a difference between northern Southern Baptists beliefs and southern Southern Baptist beliefs.)

Also, in communities, there are varying groups and individuals who run things called businesses. When a business is located on a heavily traveled roadway, these business men will even create specialty businesses to attract travelers. This is especially true when an area doesn't have much to offer in way or tourism, but still hosts a great deal of tourist traffic headed to nearby locales. (And don't forget the immense amount of tractor-trailers on these busy highways.)

So, even though this risque business may not appeal to the local population, it may appeal greatly to truckers, college-aged tourists, and soldiers from nearby military installations. Sure, the religious majority may put up a fuss when the business comes into existence, but when the money starts coming in from restaurants and motels who have gained from this attraction, the faithful tend to forget the establishment exists.

This is just one of millions of examples of how different facets of a community coexist.

[The Drunk Guy]

I don't know what it seems like to you, Donk, but, as I've tried to clarify, I'm trying to show that many people say it's because of Christianity that they are anti-gay, when in fact, they've chosen to be anti-gay, themselves, and if they didn't want to be gay, they wouldn't be, regardless of what God says.
By the way, this is your first post in this thread to mention homosexuality. If that's what you wanted this thread to be about, perhaps you should have opened with, "Christians choose to be anti-gay the same as they choose to ignore sexy billboards."

'Bait and switch' posts were really cool when I was a kid, too.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

No, this is not baiting and switching. I asked a question in the initial posting, and I'm interested in the answer. I didn't see why I should bore people with my reason for asking the question, but as soon as someone asked me, I told them. That's the truth, if you want to believe it you can, if you don't, fine.

[Michael]

I don't know what it seems like to you, Donk, but, as I've tried to clarify, I'm trying to show that many people say it's because of Christianity that they are anti-gay, when in fact, they've chosen to be anti-gay, themselves, and if they didn't want to be gay, they wouldn't be, regardless of what God says.

As Donkey has pointed out, to the best of our knowledge, there is not a single member on this forum who is anti-gay based on Biblical reasons.

Indeed, our most fervently religious Christian members here seem to be quite accepting of homosexuality.

There are a small number of members here who express anti-gay views, but usually for traditionally social conservative reasons, rather than religious ones.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Thinking about it, I'd say this thread is more general than just about homosexuality.
I think it is more a case of trying to show that often we think that religion is to blame for bigotry and intolerance, when in fact it is religious people who are intolerant, and their religion is no excuse.

So even though I'm no great fan of religion, this can be seen as a sort of defense of religion against the accusation, of making bigots where there were none.

Of course, holy books may express views that we don't like, but many of their adherents, would be anti-whatever-is-abnormal, and they let us think it's their religion that makes them so (it kind of gives them an excuse).

[The Drunk Guy]

Thinking about it, I'd say this thread is more general than just about homosexuality.
I think it is more a case of trying to show that often we think that religion is to blame for bigotry and intolerance, when in fact it is religious people who are intolerant, and their religion is no excuse.

So even though I'm no great fan of religion, this can be seen as a sort of defense of religion against the accusation, of making bigots where there were none.

Of course, holy books may express views that we don't like, but many of their adherents, would be anti-whatever-is-abnormal, and they let us think it's their religion that makes them so (it kind of gives them an excuse).Just because the printing press allowed people to read the Bible on their own doesn't mean that they do that. Most religious messages are passed down from pulpits that host liars, bigots, and other nefarious creatures. That is just one of the many reasons I began my path to atheism. Its also the main reason I avoid people with renewed religious vigor: they fall in love with a minister, not the religion.

[JHC]

FIne, if you believe countries can't be staunchly anything, then fortunately, you aren't obliged to take part in this discussion. If, on the other hand, you are one of the many people who have said to me "x is a staunchly Christian country" then I encourage you to take part.

I hadn't realized that you'd responded to me. If you use the quote button I get a notification. I would have been back sooner had I known.

Clearly I am not obliged but neither are any of the "many people who have said...x is a staunchly Christian country". In addition, if those are the only people you intended to address, you could probably list them. I'm 46 years old, living in the deep south and I don't think I recall a single individual making that claim.

If you can't argue the devil's advocate, then it wouldn't hurt you to get exercised. (All pun intended).

If I were a Christian claiming that the US were a Christian nation, I would merely argue that God gave us free will, we are not perfect (only God is perfect), and those that partake will answer to God.

Then I would turn around and throw my objective morality in your face by saying "at least we know the difference between right and wrong because we have the Bible".

[Michael]

Just because the printing press allowed people to read the Bible on their own doesn't mean that they do that. Most religious messages are passed down from pulpits that host liars, bigots, and other nefarious creatures. That is just one of the many reasons I began my path to atheism. Its also the main reason I avoid people with renewed religious vigor: they fall in love with a minister, not the religion.

I find that religious people are more often 'in love' with their own idea of religion, as opposed to the actual doctrinal religion they allegedly follow.

This may be personified and projected onto a favored minister, televangelist, spiritual guru or religious leader, but not necessarily so.

For example, if/when I do engage in a discussion with a professed Christian who is making a 'Christian-based' argument, I like to challenge them to defend other 'less popular' parts of Christian doctrine. It really is amazing how fast and easy they will disavow certain parts of that doctrine they don't like - but still insist upon the parts that they do like. :shrug:

[Non Sequitur]

I find that religious people are more often 'in love' with their own idea of religion, as opposed to the actual doctrinal religion they allegedly follow.

This may be personified and projected onto a favored minister, televangelist, spiritual guru or religious leader, but not necessarily so.

For example, if/when I do engage in a discussion with a professed Christian who is making a 'Christian-based' argument, I like to challenge them to defend other 'less popular' parts of Christian doctrine. It really is amazing how fast and easy they will disavow certain parts of that doctrine they don't like - but still insist upon the parts that they do like. :shrug:

I agree that many people do not have full knowledge of doctrine. However, not all doctrine is equal and not all doctrine is dogma. There is a lot of doctrine that is adiaphora.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Non-Sequitor, what do you mean by 'not all doctrine is equal'?
Could you give an example of two pieces of doctrine that are not equal, and explain why they are not equal?

[Non Sequitur]

Non-Sequitor, what do you mean by 'not all doctrine is equal'?
Could you give an example of two pieces of doctrine that are not equal, and explain why they are not equal?

Ok here are a couple examples of Dogma. Variation from these doctrines means you are in serious error:

1. An easy one (and fitting since it is the season of easter): Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

2. The Holy Trinity. God's nature is understood to be triune. Three persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

These two doctrines are considered foundational statements of the faith. That status has been determined by Ecumenical Councils where the entire church was represented. These councils wrote creeds (namely the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed) to establish what was absolutely necessary and what wasn't. Most importantly, these doctrines have clear Biblical support that articulates them as necessary beliefs (in support of example 1: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" 1 Corinthians 15:14). Both scripture and Church tradition agree that these are dogma.

Examples of doctrines that are not dogma:

1. free will/predestination

2. The endless variations of atonement theologies (what and how Christs death on the cross accomplishes)

No where does scripture or tradition articulate a clear answer on doctrines like these. The free will vs predestination argument is a good example. Scripture is not clear on the subject. Also, the Ecumenical Councils never mention the subject in their creeds. Therefore, one can believe in either predestination or free will and still be within the realm of right belief as articulated by scripture and tradition.

Using this system we can see that there is a relatively limited list of doctrines that are actual dogma. They are basically the following:
1. God is creator in some fashion
2. Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine
3. Jesus really did die on the cross
4. Jesus was really resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven
5. Jesus will come again
6. The Holy Spirit is one of the main ways God is present with us today
7. The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic (catholic here meaning universal)
8. there is only one baptism
9 the dead will be resurrected one day
10. The world will made right

Those 10 beliefs are absolutely mandatory. Everything else holds varying degrees of importance depending on denomination and interpretation.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

What about the doctrine which isn't dogma. Does it carry varying degrees of importance?

[The Drunk Guy]

What about the doctrine which isn't dogma. Does it carry varying degrees of importance?
You mean like making a menstruating woman sleep in separate building from the rest of the family?


;)

[JHC]

I agree that many people do not have full knowledge of doctrine. However, not all doctrine is equal and not all doctrine is dogma. There is a lot of doctrine that is adiaphora.
Oh yes. This is a major difference between Christianity and Islam. The Hadiths clear all that adiophora up. Cool word.

Whereas many Christians have difficulty sorting out when they should try to act like Jesus and when they should just do as He says (rather than as He does), Muslims no that they should emulate everything that Mohammad did based on all the stories gathered about him.

This adiophora is also a difference between Christianity and traditional some forms of Judaism. The OT was more clear.

So the NT gave Christianity a chance to evolve by pruning - snipping off bits that might snag someone and endorsing bits that allow people to conform without conforming. Very convenient - and successful.

[Donkey]

Oh yes. This is a major difference between Christianity and Islam. The Hadiths clear all that adiophora up. Cool word.

Whereas many Christians have difficulty sorting out when they should try to act like Jesus and when they should just do as He says (rather than as He does), Muslims no that they should emulate everything that Mohammad did based on all the stories gathered about him.

This adiophora is also a difference between Christianity and traditional some forms of Judaism. The OT was more clear.

So the NT gave Christianity a chance to evolve by pruning - snipping off bits that might snag someone and endorsing bits that allow people to conform without conforming. Very convenient - and successful.

Yes the difference between Jesus and Mohammed is important because you can properly emulate Mohammed, a man, but not Jesus, because he is God.

[JHC]

Yes the difference between Jesus and Mohammed is important because you can properly emulate Mohammed, a man, but not Jesus, because he is God.

Do you think that is coincidental or by design?

"Cleanliness is next to Godliness" and other such phrases seem to indicate that we should strive to behave as close to godly as possible. And yet, isn't that often considered blasphemous to even consider?

[JHC]

I can't believe I just confused no and know. What the f?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

JHC, it's good that some people have time to conduct such ridiculous discussions in 2011, ;)

Do you think that is coincidental or by design?

"Cleanliness is next to Godliness" and other such phrases seem to indicate that we should strive to behave as close to godly as possible. And yet, isn't that often considered blasphemous to even consider?

[JHC]

JHC, it's good that some people have time to conduct such ridiculous discussions in 2011, ;)

The choice is ours. ;)

[The Drunk Guy]

I can't believe I just confused no and know. What the f?
My god is not omnipotent. That's cool. I can deal. Still praying to you. ;)

[Non Sequitur]

What about the doctrine which isn't dogma. Does it carry varying degrees of importance?

That is what I meant. Those 10 points (and some things associated with them) are dogma. Everything else is doctrine with varying degrees of importance. This importance depends on a whole host of factors (biblical interpretation method, history, denominational background, what part of the globe you are from, etc...)

[NickKIELCEPoland]

So could you give an example of two pieces of doctrine (not dogma) which have different levels of importance, and explain why they have different levels of importance?

And one more thing, how does a person's geographical origin come into it? Example?

Cheers,
:)

[Non Sequitur]

So could you give an example of two pieces of doctrine (not dogma) which have different levels of importance, and explain why they have different levels of importance?

And one more thing, how does a person's geographical origin come into it? Example?

Cheers,
:)

Well, predestination is a good example again. For people in the Reformed tradition, it makes a huge difference. It's one of their key doctrines. Lutherans just don't care about it. This is because Reformed theology seeks to answer a slightly different set of questions then Lutheran theology does due to history.

Evangelical/Charismatic Christianity has a focus on eschatology (theology of the end times). The rest of Christianity generally doesn't have this heavy focus. This is because of differences in reading scripture (namely, is it literal or not)

As for geography, all I can say is that different regions look at theology differently. I don't know entirely why, but they do. The South, broadly speaking, tends to be more conservative then the North. Farming communities have a different set needs and prayers (and therefore a slightly different theology) then the inner city.