• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Excellent

About secondeve

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 02/21/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://wordwench dot org

Profile Information

  • Gender Female
  • Location Australia
  • Interests Writing, reading, politics, fantasy, poetry.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,891 profile views

secondeve's Activity

  1. secondeve added a topic in Outer Court   

    Mark Driscoll and New Calvinism;_r=1&em

    Just wondering what people thought of the new Calvinists and their message.
    • 16 replies
  2. secondeve added a topic in Outer Court   

    Gay Couples Can Now Adopt In Miami,...1862189,00.html
    • 18 replies
  3. secondeve added a topic in Apologetics   

    God and Mortgages
    Hi guys,

    I was just wondering what people think of this article in Time:,00.html

    It's basically about prosperity churches encouraging congregations to get mortgages just prior to the sub-prime crisis, or, rather, the idea that individuals were praising God for getting a mortgage despite their poor credit rating when we see now that it was the result of shonky banking policies designed to fleece consumers.

    Any thoughts?
    • 18 replies
  4. secondeve added a topic in Outer Court   

    Rape Inside Marriage

    I just read this article on rape inside marriage, and apart from being horrified, there was one quote which really got me. One victim, when going to her priest to confide about the rape and abuse, was told only to pray about it; and when the woman asked, quite reasonably, what if her husband were to kill her first, the priest's reply was: 'at least you'll go to heaven.'

    Now that, to me, is a special breed of insanity. Clearly, the priest isn't representative of the entire churchgoing populace, but it was an awful enough response that it made me wonder what the Biblical position on rape inside marriage is - i.e., can it actually take place? Obviously it can and does, but for centuries, the law stated that there was no such thing as rape inside marriage, because being married 'entitled' the husband to his wife's body, regardless of whether or not she was interested. It's only relatively recently that laws have changed, and in other countries, the old attitude still prevails.

    So what's the actual position on this?
    • 46 replies
  5. secondeve added a topic in Outer Court   

    Sex Offender Wins Lottery Jackpot,...1816202,00.html

    Just wondering what people made of this story, either socially or religiously.
    • 7 replies
  6. secondeve added a post in a topic What type of poster are YOU?   

    Lol, that's awesome!

    I'm probably a mix of Big Cat and Diplomat, though I'll 'fess up to having had moments of Artiste and Jekyl & Hyde in the past.
    • 0
  7. secondeve added a post in a topic A comparison.   

    Here's where the logic of Christianity both works and falls down for me. On the one hand, humanity - all humanity - is flawed. It's part of the definition. But there are still degrees of flawedness: if offered the choice between two soiled shirts, we can still declare one to be 'cleaner' than the other. Similarly with people: once you take our base limits into account, you've got room for discussion.

    Christianity says that even though all men are flawed, God still loves them, and that obediance to God's will - and belief in God - is the path to heaven. Equally important is that even though God loves all men, some will still go to hell; and this is my point. By abstracting the OP's question to 'God loves everyone', you're not actually giving an answer. You're copping out of the harder question, viz: if all men sin, and all men are equal in sinning, then what good behaviours will lead to heaven? Which man, here, seems closer to God in his actions?

    Some have said that it's not their place to judge. I submit that having an opinion is not judgement, because your reaction either way condemns nobody. Ultimately, if the OP's uncles were folk you knew, you'd have an opinion. You might seek forgiveness for it, or acknowledge that God's will was higher, or that your reasoning could be faulty because - after all - you're only human; but you'd nonetheless have an opinion. Here, it seems, you are taking the highground only because the question is an abstract, or because (perhaps) you suspect a trick. You don't know these people, true. But it seems dishonest to pretend that, even if you did, you'd still shrug and feel nothing.
    • 0
  8. secondeve added a topic in Outer Court   

    Daughter in Cellar

    This disturbs me on about every possible level.
    • 24 replies
  9. secondeve added a post in a topic "Mercy Ministries"   

    This, to me, is potentially one of the most powerful and confusing aspects of Christanity: the no-man's land between innate human sinfulness and demonic and/or divine influence. On the one hand, human beings have free will: as a flawed but functional species, we're capable of savage cruelty and awesome grace almost in the same breath. But then there's the question of whether our actions originate internally, or are the result of a higher power. In the case of evil, we blame the Devil; and in the case of benevolence, we credit God. Between these two extremeties, there must logically be a place where human beings are exclusively responsible for their own actions; or where, as in this instance, there is no 'action' at all, and we are simply discussing the consequences of living in the world. Scripturally, however, there is no definitive line in the sand to make these distinctions for us: regardless of what is said about this scenario or that, the matter is ultimately left up to human interpretation. Which leads to trouble: quite aside from the horrors of the article (where people treat everything as possession), there is the reverse scenario (which I've also seen on Worthy) where some Christians become appallingly sunk in depression and poor self-esteem, trapped by the perception that every failing in their life is theirs alone, while all their successes rightfully belong to God.
    • 0
  10. secondeve added a post in a topic "Mercy Ministries"   

    • 0
  11. secondeve added a post in a topic "Mercy Ministries"   

    That's awful! What always appals me about this approach is the subjective arrogance of assuming that the person is afflicted because they're weak; that if they only tried hard enough it would go away. From there, it's a short step to saying that the person chooses to be ill (or 'possessed') - good on you for having the courage to walk away from such stupidity and not be overcome by it. The saddest of all outcomes is when someone in your position starts to believe what those people tell them.

    I wonder it doesn't occur to more people that if you tell someone - particularly an unwell or fragile someone - over and over again that they're evil, unclean and bad, they'll start to believe it themselves; and, worse, act accordingly.
    • 0
  12. secondeve added a post in a topic "Mercy Ministries"   

    Thanks for the responses so far!

    Damo: I didn't know what you were talking about until I read an article in today's Brisbane Times ( which talks about Mercy and Hillsong. As a side note, I find it interesting that the Brisbane article is essentially adding more detail to the original SMH piece, but at the same time placing an entirely different emphasis on the story (the role of Hillsong). While I'm not a huge fan of the Hillsong concept, there isn't any evidence that the church officials there had anything to do with what went on at Mercy - they seem to have drawn the link just because they take a similar stance on homosexuality, and because an American Christian vocal on the issue has been mentioned by both groups.

    ApplePi: That answer does help. Essentially, what perplexes me is that some Christians seem to place mental illness, depression and sometimes homosexuality in a different category to normal human conditions - that is to say that, while a broken leg can clearly be caused by the day-to-day hazards of living in the world, these other things, to them, can only occur as the result of demonic interference, and not because of brain chemistry. It's almost as if the invisibility of what causes someone to be bi-polar (compared to the visibility of a car crash) leads them to think that nothing 'natural' or 'real' - resulting from normal life - has caused it. So logically, then, they can see no value in any cure other than prayer: medicine and hospitals are for injuries, whereas something like depression is inflicted by external, demonic agencies. Although how this logic then crosses over to problems like abortion and drug use is beyond me - maybe they think that no normal person, unaided by the influence of demons, could possibly do these things? Which, for a group that also believes powerfully in the innately sinful nature of humanity, seems absurd: instead of trying to redeem innate sin by encouraging good behaviour and treatment, they're effectively sourcing all ills to the Devil.
    • 0
  13. secondeve added a topic in Outer Court   

    "Mercy Ministries"

    This is an article describing the abuse of young women at a Christian psychology clinic in Australia. I'd be very interested to know how people react; however, as the article is 7 pages long (about a 10 minute read - they aren't full A4 pages) and as there's a bit of editorialising early on, I'd ask that nobody comment unless they have read the whole thing.

    Essentially, my interest in the story comes from the idea of trying to cure mental illness exclusively through prayer. During my time on Worthy, I've participated in a number of threads where some members have suggested that the way to 'cure' (for instance) homosexuality, epilepsy and bipolar disorder is to pray for the invocation of the holy spirit - an idea which has always troubled me. Here, then, is an example of a clinic doing just that, with evidently disasterous and cruel results. So I'm wondering what people think.
    • 15 replies
  14. secondeve added a post in a topic Spirit or Letter   

    For my part, I understood the guy was looking to the rules, but what made me so mad was his flat-out acknowledgement that it was a glitch in his system: he knew we were allowed to be there, but because the computer didn't, we had to leave. If he hadn't known about the error, I would've acquiesced, but as things stood, I got ticked off.
    • 0
  15. secondeve added a post in a topic Spirit or Letter   

    Personally, I tend to lean on the side of the spirit (when it comes to everyday law as well as moral).

    What sparked off this topic for me was a run-in with a security guard at university. My husband is enrolled as a PhD student, and subsequently has access to the philosophy study after hours and on weekends (he has a key to the door). However, a security guard showed up midday Saturday and tried to turf us out of the building, on the grounds that, due to an administrative error, my husband's enrolment wasn't confirmed, and therefore he had to treat us as tresspassers, even though he (a) was aware that the error was purely administrative because it had happened to several other postgrads (who he'd also kicked out) and (b) could plainly see my husband had both a valid student ID and a key to the building. Eventually, a lecturer came along and vouched for us, but the whole thing took about half an hour.

    Anyway, I got really riled up about the incident as a clear example of the spirit of law versus the letter. The whole point of the security guard (spirit) is to keep people who aren't allowed out of the building, and look after the people who are allowed in. The letter of the law is administrative - their system tells them who is allowed in, and who's not. In this case, the letter of the law was actually defeating the spirit of the law (I felt) because even though he knew we were people who had a right to the building, he persisted in trying to kick us out in accordance with the letter.

    What made me post the question here was the dichotomy I often perceive when two Christians differ in interpretation of Biblical verses (i.e. one takes it strictly literally, and the other interprets through a more general understanding of God). This, to me, has big ramifications on the integrity of the Bible as viewed by individual Christians, because it effectively creates a clause-of-faith. i.e. if a literal statement proves distressing, it can be overruled by the spirit of the law without being proven incorrect. This means that even where a given Biblical statement might be called untrue if literal, they still believe that the Bible is inerrant. And that, I think, puts a very interesting emphasis on whether the spirit or the letter of the law is more important, because while this principle works well for the majority of the text, there are still some issues which push at the edges.

    So which consideration is more important to interpreting the Bible?
    • 0