NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sorry,but I gotta ask this and if it's against the rules to ask this kinda question, please tell me and I'll delete this post.


I'm just curious. A guy giving out fliers yesterday said Masturbation was a sin. He said it's in the bible but he forgot the page. Now I'm curious if I was a sinner back in my younger days or if this guy was lying. Where in the book does it say it's wrong to do this?

I don't think masturbation is even mentioned in the Bible. But I'm not 100% sure, so don't quote me on that.

They say that regular male masturbation stops protrate cancer.
If that was true, there would be no prostrate cancer.

Masturbation is not mentioned by name in the Bible, however conservative and traditional Christians often point to the story of Onan in Genesis.

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of Jehovah: and he slew him also (Gen 38:8-10 ).

An example of finding what you are looking for...or at least making what is there fit the message you want to send.

Masturbation is not mentioned by name in the Bible, however conservative and traditional Chrsitians often point to the story of Onan in Genesis.

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of Jehovah: and he slew him also (Gen 38:8-10 ).

An example of finding what you are looking for...or at least making what is there fit the message you want to send.
That's pretty damn vaugue. It could mean almost anything.

They say that regular male masturbation stops protrate cancer.
If that was true, there would be no prostrate cancer.
Actually, it might be true that the cleansing of seminal fluids and excercise of the muscles in that area might help to prevent prostate cancer.

And I thought, I'm not joking, that this thread would be about masturbating with the Bible. I think that would have been a much more interesting thread.

I'm too lazy to search for the passage, but it's probably in Leviticus.

I rememeber i something along the lines of "Do not waste seed"

basically since every sperm has the potential for life, only ejaculate inside the woman.

I'm too lazy to search for the passage, but it's probably in Leviticus.

I rememeber i something along the lines of "Do not waste seed"

basically since every sperm has the potential for life, only ejaculate inside the woman.
What if they mean grain? That's technically seed.

The Onan passage refers to a sin... but that sin is not masturbation.

In Hebrew law, if a man's brother died without child, the man (the brother of the brother) had to attempt to impregnate the dead-brother's wife.

Onan refused to go through with it, and 'withdrew'.

Because he refused to impregnate his dead-brother's wife, he was perceived to have sinned against god.

Masturbation is never mentioned.

Yeah it's in Leviticus somewhere all the sexual laws are. Did you know your only suppose to make love to woman one week out the month when she's considered "Clean"? You're not suppose to make love the week before, during, or the week after menstruation.

I wonder how many Christian Fundies slip up on that one. Married and committing an abomination. In Leviticus making love to your wife out of cycle is as bad as being Gay, masturbateing, shaveing, or cutting your hair.

And I thought, I'm not joking, that this thread would be about masturbating with the Bible. I think that would have been a much more interesting thread.

If you are looking for hot and steamy read Ezekiel 23:

Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah....

Oholah engaged in prostitution while she was still mine; and she lusted after her lovers, the Assyrians-warriors clothed in blue, governors and commanders, all of them handsome young men, and mounted horsemen. She gave herself as a prostitute to all the elite of the Assyrians and defiled herself with all the idols of everyone she lusted after. She did not give up the prostitution she began in Egypt, when during her youth men slept with her, caressed her virgin bosom and poured out their lust upon her....

Her sister Oholibah saw this, yet in her lust and prostitution she was more depraved than her sister. She too lusted after the Assyrians-governors and commanders, warriors in full dress, mounted horsemen, all handsome young men. I saw that she too defiled herself; both of them went the same way.

But she carried her prostitution still further....

...she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled....

I remember something about the fact that "wasting" semen is a sin for a man, but can't tell you where it is precisely.

(now I'm intrigued, I'll search it)

However, I don't think there is anything in the Bible about female masturbation. :) :) (me so lucky)

After a quick search: it seems that there is finally no direct referrence to masturbation in the Bible, though both jewish and christian tradition have considered it a grave sin.

Interesting link: http://home.earthlink.net/~thogmi/jack/jack.html

Ogiek. . .that was. . .interesting.

Ogiek. . .that was. . .interesting.

Yea, I was particularly fascinated by the many men who stroked the "virgin bosoms" of these two prostitutes.

Must be a kind of renewable virginity.

You find that in the Old laws, when one had a nocturnal emission, he was shamed and put outside the camp. This is just for something one can't help.

Also, one has to consider that God want's our thoughts pure. The sin along with the physical one is one of impurity of thought. Yes, I am not ignorant, I know there are impure thoughts all the time, but this is why it is against the rules so to speak.

Maybe it's time I post. Thanks a lot for the posts, this is all very interesting and more thought provoking than I thought it'd be. Thank you guys and gals.

I looked at the link Freedomfrize posted, it mentions the Onan passage and denounces it. This is a very interesting link to say the least.


Please keep posting what you think.

And I thought, I'm not joking, that this thread would be about masturbating with the Bible. I think that would have been a much more interesting thread.

I thought the same. I was like wtf...

You find that in the Old laws, when one had a nocturnal emission, he was shamed and put outside the camp. This is just for something one can't help.

Also, one has to consider that God want's our thoughts pure. The sin along with the physical one is one of impurity of thought. Yes, I am not ignorant, I know there are impure thoughts all the time, but this is why it is against the rules so to speak.

I'm curious. Why would people assume God thinks sex and sexuality are impure? Presumably God created human beings with a capacity to have and enjoy orgasms. Certainly God could have created humans with a capacity for procreation that did not include pleasure.

Why do so many Christians see the human body and natural human functions of sexuality as impure? Personally I think much of that type of thinking goes back to the writings of Augustine, who enjoyed himself to the fullest as a young man and spent much effort as an old man condemning sex. His influence pervaded Medieval Christianity and continues to shape many modern Christians' distorted sense of the body and its natural functions.

Sometimes I get the impression that there are those who believe that the entire message of Christianity is no more than a simple instruction manual telling people how to use their penises and vaginas correctly.

It is conservatively belived that masterbation is in fact a sin, becuase man (being humans) are only suppose to feel sexual pleasure with their husband/wife... however, a little known fact about this interpretation is that mastermation is teh same level sin as homosexuality. Neither of which are as bad as Adultery which is a capital sin(essentially by commiting a capital sin unless you repent (Catholic faith) you go striaght to hell).

Also, one has to consider that God want's our thoughts pure. The sin along with the physical one is one of impurity of thought. Yes, I am not ignorant, I know there are impure thoughts all the time, but this is why it is against the rules so to speak.

i dont know about anyone else but if i could never get my sexual tensions relieved then all of my thoughts would be "impure"

i would rather have the sin of masterbation that the capital sin of

:fluffle: "do not covet thy nabors wife"

Yea, I was particularly fascinated by the many men who stroked the "virgin bosoms" of these two prostitutes.

Must be a kind of renewable virginity.
No they had never had children.

its not a waste of seed, its a mere survival of the fittest thing.
a man senses if his seeds getting bad (for instance by being unused for too long), and thus gets rid of it.
some man are having bad seed faster then others and thus wank more:)

my, totally unproven and unscientific, philosophy on wanking.

on the other hand i cant be arsed with the bibles restrictions as an atheist.

No they had never had children.

What so, if you don't have children you're still a virgin? :D

Fine. Don't masturbate. Don't have sex. See what I care.

I don't.

...And it was Onan, by the way.

I have a friend who named his budgie "Onan" - because he spills his seed on the ground. Boom Boom - but a true story.

Genesis 38: 9-10

They say that regular male masturbation stops protrate cancer.
If that was true, there would be no prostrate cancer.

More like they say 'it reduces the risk', not 'stops'

I'm sorry,but I gotta ask this and if it's against the rules to ask this kinda question, please tell me and I'll delete this post.


I'm just curious. A guy giving out fliers yesterday said Masturbation was a sin. He said it's in the bible but he forgot the page. Now I'm curious if I was a sinner back in my younger days or if this guy was lying. Where in the book does it say it's wrong to do this?

Masturbation is as much a sin as putting two pieces of bubble gum in your mouth at the same time is(gluttony).

Anyone here seen Monty Python's meaning of life? I remember the sperm song as if I had seen it yesterday:

"Every time is sacred, every sperm is great"
"If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate"

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good"
"Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood!"

Hilarious stuff.

I think I remember a story about the Pope saying that masturbation wasn't a sin as long as you didn't think about another person while you were doing it. I guess this leaves open certain possabilities for th truly sick and twisted out there. --

OHH ! OHH MY GOD!! MY CARRR!!!! MY CARRRRRARARAR!!!

Nah. Think I stick with doing it sinfully.

I think I remember a story about the Pope saying that masturbation wasn't a sin as long as you didn't think about another person while you were doing it. I guess this leaves open certain possabilities for th truly sick and twisted out there. --

OHH ! OHH MY GOD!! MY CARRR!!!! MY CARRRRRARARAR!!!

Nah. Think I stick with doing it sinfully.
I'm the Messiah, and I say it's alright by me. Be my guests, wank away.

I'm the Messiah, and I say it's alright by me. Be my guests, wank away.

Well, if it's okay with the part-time Messiah of Pie, who am I to argue. :D

They say that regular male masturbation stops protrate cancer.
If that was true, there would be no prostrate cancer. It doesn't stop it, it merely reduces the risk.

What I want to know is, if God struck Onan down while he was wailing away, why doesn't God strike down all the rest of us?

Or was God really striking him down because he was wanking instead of taking advantage of the woman available to him?

I see. If you have a woman who's willing, and you don't get busy, God will strike you dead. It really has nothing to do with masturbation.

Everyone masturbates. If you put everyone in the world in one room & said "Raise your hand if you don't masturbate," only a handful of people would raise their hands, and those people would be committing another sin, which is lying.

The only way it might be bad is if you don't repent for your masturbation. God obviously does not like it, but he knows if you give a monkey a pile of crap then that monkey will throw it. Much like if you give a man a penis he will wack it until ejaculation occurs.

Everyone masturbates. If you put everyone in the world in one room & said "Raise your hand if you don't masturbate," only a handful of people would raise their hands, and those people would be committing another sin, which is lying.

The only way it might be bad is if you don't repent for your masturbation. God obviously does not like it, but he knows if you give a monkey a pile of crap then that monkey will throw it. Much like if you give a man a penis he will wack it until ejaculation occurs.

Repent? For what?

God obviously doesn't like it? Who told you that? What is this silly obsession Christians have with the human body?

They say that regular male masturbation stops protrate cancer.
If that was true, there would be no prostrate cancer.
It doesn't stop it, but it does reduce the chances of it occurring.

I'm sorry,but I gotta ask this and if it's against the rules to ask this kinda question, please tell me and I'll delete this post.


I'm just curious. A guy giving out fliers yesterday said Masturbation was a sin. He said it's in the bible but he forgot the page. Now I'm curious if I was a sinner back in my younger days or if this guy was lying. Where in the book does it say it's wrong to do this?


OMFG, don't you know you can go blind doing that!? Hahaha

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/obscene/eck02.gif

OMFG, don't you know you can go blind doing that!? Hahaha

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/obscene/eck02.gif


Why is it only guys can get blind doing that? :(

That's unfair! I call upon equality of sexe, dammit! :P

Why is it only guys can get blind doing that? :(

That's unfair! I call upon equality of sexe, dammit! :P

Hahaha, rotfl!

Girls just pretend it's itchy.. and if it is really itchy.. be very, very careful..haha http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/obscene/eck24.gif

Repent? For what?

God obviously doesn't like it? Who told you that? What is this silly obsession Christians have with the human body?

Masturbation is sexually pleasuring yourself. Why would He like it? :confused:

Masturbation is sexually pleasuring yourself. Why would He like it? :confused:

Right, because God is opposed to pleasure. Sorry, I forgot humans were created to experience nothing but pain and suffering and anything which brings pleasure is just a temptation created by God to test us.

My bad.

Right, because God is opposed to pleasure. Sorry, I forgot humans were created to experience nothing but pain and suffering and anything which brings pleasure is just a temptation created by God to test us.

My bad.

If men were meant to experience pleasure,
a) they wouldn't have to choose between a woman and a man's hairy ass to find love
b) they could all lick their own scrotum

Someone raised the point of 'wasting seed'...

Now, EVERYONE here KNOWS that a man's 'seed' only live for a couple of days, right? They are built on a biological production line, constantly, because the little buggers get old and die real quick.

What that means is... if a guy doesn't 'reprimand his naughty ape'... he's going to be wasting those seed within the next few hours anyway - unless he has full penetrative sex, within marriage, for the express purpose of creating foetuses. (The marriage part is just for the sake of religious 'non-wasting'.)

I'm curious. Why would people assume God thinks sex and sexuality are impure? Presumably God created human beings with a capacity to have and enjoy orgasms. Certainly God could have created humans with a capacity for procreation that did not include pleasure.

Why do so many Christians see the human body and natural human functions of sexuality as impure? Personally I think much of that type of thinking goes back to the writings of Augustine, who enjoyed himself to the fullest as a young man and spent much effort as an old man condemning sex. His influence pervaded Medieval Christianity and continues to shape many modern Christians' distorted sense of the body and its natural functions.

Sometimes I get the impression that there are those who believe that the entire message of Christianity is no more than a simple instruction manual telling people how to use their penises and vaginas correctly.

The psychology behind it is very complex and not all that helpful without a great deal of political and social background, but to put it simply, the repression of healthy drives causes unhealthy drives to appear. These drives include greed and power hunger and are thus what maintain social hierarchy.

People subconsciously know this, though they won't admit it, probably not even to themselves. Fearing the fall of hierarchy and the burden of total freedom, they continue advocating sexual repression so they can live in their Republican father-knows-best state, so they will never have to rely on their own moral fiber to resist the temptation to smoke pot.

Right, because God is opposed to pleasure. Sorry, I forgot humans were created to experience nothing but pain and suffering and anything which brings pleasure is just a temptation created by God to test us.

My bad.

In a way, you're right. We are not supposed to experience much pleasure in this life. This life is basically a test. If you pass it, you get the reward of eternal life in Heaven with the greatest thing in the universe, God. If you fail the test, you don't get a chance to retake it. You go straight to hell, your eternal detention, only much hotter and much worse.

In a way, you're right. We are not supposed to experience much pleasure in this life. This life is basically a test. If you pass it, you get the reward of eternal life in Heaven with the greatest thing in the universe, God. If you fail the test, you don't get a chance to retake it. You go straight to hell, your eternal detention, only much hotter and much worse.


Was your journey from Medieval Europe a difficult one?

Was your journey from Medieval Europe a difficult one?

What do you mean? :confused:

JESUS said lusting after another woman/man is the same as adultery.And what do you think about when you masturbate?If you are unmarried it is still sinful because you are not to have sex unless you are married and marriage is for children.

Therefor sex out marriage,masturbation,and porn are all purgatory level sins.Now if you are married and do these things it is a mortal sin.

73h 0rg0n3-w0 ph34r!!!!!!!!!1111

I'm sorry,but I gotta ask this and if it's against the rules to ask this kinda question, please tell me and I'll delete this post.


I'm just curious. A guy giving out fliers yesterday said Masturbation was a sin. He said it's in the bible but he forgot the page. Now I'm curious if I was a sinner back in my younger days or if this guy was lying. Where in the book does it say it's wrong to do this?
It doesn't. This is a misinterpretation of what fundamentalists call "the sin of Onan." Onan lived early in Old Testament times and was suppose to marry his dead brother's wife, which was a normal practice in that time and place, so that his brother could have heirs. Onan rebelled and "spilled his seed on the ground" ( coitus interruptus ). God struck him dead, NOT because he spilled his seed on the ground, but because he was disobedient. Some fundamentalists have interpreted this to mean that masturbation is a sin. Go figure! :(

And what do you think about when you masturbate?

Niñas jovenes, I mean I hope I didn't say that outloud. :D

What do you mean? :confused:

I mean that your attitudes toward this world being no more than a veil of tears and the human body nothing more than a vessel of corruption and sin are very typical of Medieval Christian beliefs.

One of the changes that occurred in society and the Christian Church during the Renaissance was the idea that God's creations, including the human body, are good and should be appreciated and enjoyed. I'm paraphrasing Alice Walker, but I too believe God gets pissed when you walk by a field of purple and don't stop to appreciate its beauty.

Anyone here seen Monty Python's meaning of life? I remember the sperm song as if I had seen it yesterday:

"Every time is sacred, every sperm is great"
"If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate"

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good"
"Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood!"

Hilarious stuff.

Oh my god, yes. I love Monty Python. That's the complete Religious one. And the Protestant woman is shocked because she finds out that the reason Christians have so many kids is because they aren't allowed to use birth control. And then finds out that she is a Protestant.

MAN: That's not the point... We *could* have it any time we
wanted.
WOMAN: Really?
MAN: Oh yes. And, what's more, because we don't believe in
all that Papist claptrap we can take precautions.
WOMAN: What, you mean lock the door...?
MAN: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with
you...
WOMAN: Oh, yes... Harry...
MAN: And by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller I
could ensure that when I came off... you would not be
impregnated.
WOMAN: Ooh!


Sorry. It's too funny.

Masturbation is safe because you don't get STDs.

Christian beliefs (both real and heavily skewed misinterpritations, but especially the latter) both amuse and annoy me. Now, I can readily appreciate that life is a test, but I cannot believe that indulging in harmless pleasures, such as by sexually stimulating yourself while looking at naked women, is a way to fail this test. Indulging in pleasures at another's expense (such as committing rape, adultery, or lying in order to get someone into bed for example) I can very much agree is an act worthy of damnation, but not masterbation.

Masturbation is safe because you don't get STDs.
Unless you don't wash your hands.

It's just sex with someone you love...

We laugh at the humans with their multitude of religions based on myths and lies. We were there we saw the truth we know all are false :)
We cry to see humans manipulated by those evil ones who control all the religions to make themselves important, rich or to rule the stupid believers.
We are angry at those who deliberately make changes in the doctrines to cause pain and anguish as believers try to follow impossible rules.

Christian beliefs (both real and heavily skewed misinterpritations, but especially the latter) both amuse and annoy me. Now, I can readily appreciate that life is a test, but I cannot believe that indulging in harmless pleasures, such as by sexually stimulating yourself while looking at naked women, is a way to fail this test. Indulging in pleasures at another's expense (such as committing rape, adultery, or lying in order to get someone into bed for example) I can very much agree is an act worthy of damnation, but not masterbation.

Yes, I agree. It's just like getting points counted off for not putting your name on your paper. ;)

Hi! I've been following this topic for a few days now. There were some good points and is very pleasuring that you dicussed it without any slang words and without pornographic pictures. In my opinion masturbation is a sin. So, why do you feel guilt feelings?! Jesus Christ even goes beyond it. However, in teenage years it is normal to do it, but then you must virtually eliminate this as soon as possible or you might risk going to hell!
SEX SHOULD BE DONE WITH ONE WOMAN AFTER MARRIAGE ONLY! If everyone obeyed this law there would be no sexual diseases!

Therefor sex out marriage,masturbation,and porn are all purgatory level sins.Now if you are married and do these things it is a mortal sin.


Says who? You? Who are you to tell the rest of us where we are going for what we do in life? Is that your job to decide? No, because you're not God. You don't know what He's going to do, so don't make the assumption.

This is why it amuses me to no end when people rabble on about who's going to Hell for what reason.

You find that in the Old laws, when one had a nocturnal emission, he was shamed and put outside the camp. This is just for something one can't help.


You're referring to Deuteronomy, here's the passage:

When the host goeth forth against thine enemies, then keep thee from every wicked thing.
If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp:
But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again.


Of course, Paul's Epistle to the Galatians renders that irrelevant to Christians. And it's a pretty silly thing for God to bother himself with in the first place. But he was much more into micro-management those days, now he's a more monetarist God.

Therefor sex out marriage,masturbation,and porn are all purgatory level sins.Now if you are married and do these things it is a mortal sin.
there's no purgatory
what the hell?

just from reading the title:


how can you beat off on genesis?

Hi! I've been following this topic for a few days now. There were some good points and is very pleasuring that you dicussed it without any slang words and without pornographic pictures. In my opinion masturbation is a sin. So, why do you feel guilt feelings?! Jesus Christ even goes beyond it. However, in teenage years it is normal to do it, but then you must virtually eliminate this as soon as possible or you might risk going to hell!
SEX SHOULD BE DONE WITH ONE WOMAN AFTER MARRIAGE ONLY! If everyone obeyed this law there would be no sexual diseases!

...
Some are transmitted through genetics. Sorry, but we've got some STDs that are here to stay with the human race until it's gone.

...
Some are transmitted through genetics. Sorry, but we've got some STDs that are here to stay with the human race until it's gone.


what stds are genetic?

just from reading the title:


how can you beat off on genesis?

I bet it's a sin...
I mean, really, it's the Holy Book and all...
It can't be right to cover it with...

Oh, that's not what you meant?
:p

I bet it's a sin...
I mean, really, it's the Holy Book and all...
It can't be right to cover it with...

Oh, that's not what you meant?
:p

i mean, cmon... ITS GENESIS! what do you get out ofthat?

i mean, cmon... ITS GENESIS! what do you get out ofthat?

I dunno, some people are a bit off-center...

Hee.

I dunno, some people are a bit off-center...

Hee.


what is genesis, anyway?

i dont even know who wrote the bible :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

what stds are genetic?

Actually, I'm not quite sure anymore that what I said was true...

But I had heard that if someone had HIV and birthed a child that it could get HIV as well, and I thought I'd heard the same about hepatitis.

Actually, you know what? I'm an idiot. I didn't mean genetic. Sorry about that.

I'm going to go google this and try to figure out what the fuck I -do- mean.
:confused:

Actually, I'm not quite sure anymore that what I said was true...

But I had heard that if someone had HIV and birthed a child that it could get HIV as well, and I thought I'd heard the same about hepatitis.

Actually, you know what? I'm an idiot. I didn't mean genetic. Sorry about that.

I'm going to go google this and try to figure out what the fuck I -do- mean.
:confused:


um, i said that, it is true, and its not genetic...

ahlzeihmers is genetic.

figuring both sides of my family got it... what day is it?

Who cares? I stopped listening to plenty of rules in the Bible a long time ago when I found out it was a sin to eat certain types of seafood and be who I am. I honestly don't care if masturbation is a sin -- it's healthy and fun.

If you are looking for hot and steamy read Ezekiel 23 :Baby, I'm so THERE now ...lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.Quick, to the time machine !

<.<

>.>

( Now we know why most bible lack illustrations for the most part ... )

They say that regular male masturbation stops protrate cancer.
If that was true, there would be no prostrate cancer.
It helps perevnt it since it reduces the tension in the prostate. Masturbation has lots of benefits and is a natural thing. However they call it shakin hands with the devil because its a temptaion. Everything is a sin, has anyone of you read the bible...its technically a sin to crap. The bible is wrong MAN! if it ain't then alcohol is good and we should all drink when we are sad :) yet alcoholism is a sin. wtf if we drink every time we are sorrow we would all be alcoholics...

AH. THE SEED THING!
That has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with masturbation and EVERYTHING to do with Jewish law. Something about how if a woman is widowed without a child, her former husband's brother has to give her a child. And that guy didn't do that.
Someone's probably already explained that. I only read the first page because I have a really short attention span. And I think anyone who thinks masturbation is wrong is really stupid and really hypocritical and I actually feel very sorry for him or her.
*sniff* I don't know what I'd do without my vibrator.
I used to be really religious. And I thought it was bad. So I'd stop. One time I actually didn't do it for like 3 months. And then I slipped up... and ended up doing it like 50 times that weekend.
It's a normal, natural HEALTHY thing. Some people will quote that DP(B)D (I think it is?) stuff... but in actuality, for women, that can be released however the hymen is broken, and it's not uncommon for it to break during completely non-sexual activities like running (I guess you could make running sexual... hm... anyone wanna go for a jog? :cool: ). And with regular check ups it's totally preventable.
Did you know that some children will start masturbation as early as 5 or younger?
I don't see why a God would be upset over something as completely natural as that. You're human. You have human instincts. God MADE you to have those. :headbang:

i mean, cmon... ITS GENESIS! what do you get out ofthat?

I dunno, some people might find Phil Collins kindof sexy.

I dunno, some people might find Phil Collins kindof sexy.

That's just sick... :(

*must . . . resist urge to . . . hijack . . . thread!* Ah, I won't resist anymore

AH. THE SEED THING!
By any chance, are you refering to the 'Superior Evolutionary Element Destined (AKA SEED) factor? :D

Because that has nothing to do with mastrubation, and everything w/evolution - it allows ppl to go berserk on their enemies if subjected to enough stress/pain.

Okay... Given that the male body produces millions of sperm EVERY DAY, and we let loose on an 'outing,' as my old biology teacher once so kindly put it, to the tune of about 500 million sperm at once, some of those are bound to go to waste NO MATTER WHAT because only one or two (maybe more if nature's fucked up) sperm can actually impregnate the sole egg (two if nature's fucked up) and develop into an embryonic stage.

So does that mean that every time we have sex, we commit a sin because 499 million potential babies die?

Furthermore, is a woman sinful when she enters her period after dropping an egg out of her body?

Even further on this topic, what can you wack off to in Genesis? The gold-leafed picture of Adam and Eve getting it on in the garden? (BTW, if they were so pure, and they didn't need clothes in the garden, why are there leaves over his and hers?).

So does that mean that every time we have sex, we commit a sin because 499 million potential babies die?

It is 499 999 999 potential babies. Oh my... God.

According to Christians, before they ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Even didn't know they were naked.

Only once they had eaten this forbidden fruit did they see they were naked, feel ashamed and make clothes from fig leaves.

7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.


I find it interesting that Adam's god told him that if he ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would die that day(Genesis 2:17) and the serpent told Eve that they wouldn't die from eating the fruit, but that their god didn't want them to know the difference between good and evil which, the serpent told Eve, would make her and her husband "like gods." (Genesis 3:5)

So their god lied to them, and the serpent told them the truth... So why does the serpent get called the prince of lies?

It is 499 999 999 potential babies. Oh my... God.

Sounds like a bit of a twisted god, doesn't it?

I eman what is the big deal about one 'vicarious substitution', when the guy designs things so that AT LEAST 5 billion children have to die (effectively), for one single child to be born?

I mean... that's just messed up!

Sounds like a bit of a twisted god, doesn't it?

I eman what is the big deal about one 'vicarious substitution', when the guy designs things so that AT LEAST 5 billion children have to die (effectively), for one single child to be born?

I mean... that's just messed up!

Ah there's my big brained English friend.....someone said that Mary had a C-section when christ was born. Do you know anything about it Grave? :confused:

Ah there's my big brained English friend.....someone said that Mary had a C-section when christ was born. Do you know anything about it Grave? :confused:

I've not heard that one before... but I can tell you WHY that story started, if you wish?

The reason the story STARTED, is because there are SOME people who believe that Jesus never did ANYTHING 'bad' in his entire life... they even use biblical verses to support the idea that he never used the restroom! (Believe it or not.)

Now... think about the sort of person who thinks like that... and then imagine how their minds would deal with the idea of Jesus being born in the usual, conventional way.... with all the attendant anatomy, and messes...

THAT is why some people argue Jesus was born by Caesarian section.

Of course, if he HAD been, it is fairly unlikely that Mary would have lived... let alone had more children... I mean... can you imagine how 'hygenic' it would be, giving a C-Section in a stable?

Ah there's my big brained English friend.....someone said that Mary had a C-section when christ was born. Do you know anything about it Grave? :confused:

Oh, by the way... heya darlin'...

How YOU doin'?

:fluffle:

The birth of Jesus, you know, the Bethlehem (spelled wrong?) and stuff, might be a myth. Bethlehem is said to be Saviour's birthplace so that profecies could have come true.

The birth of Jesus, you know, the Bethlehem (spelled wrong?) and stuff, might be a myth. Bethlehem is said to be Saviour's birthplace so that profecies could have come true.

So little is verifiable outside of the bible, about the only thing we can be SURE of is that a guy called "Jesus" might have been in, or near, the area, about 2000 years ago.

Almost everything else is ONLY supported by biblical scripture... with no other, more objective, records.

So little is verifiable outside of the bible, about the only thing we can be SURE of is that a guy called "Jesus" might have been in, or near, the area, about 2000 years ago.

Almost everything else is ONLY supported by biblical scripture... with no other, more objective, records.
HOW DARE YOU!!! THE BIBLE IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!!!
Sorry (caps stuck)

Mornin gravy

:fluffle:

So little is verifiable outside of the bible, about the only thing we can be SURE of is that a guy called "Jesus" might have been in, or near, the area, about 2000 years ago.

Almost everything else is ONLY supported by biblical scripture... with no other, more objective, records. Indeed. But there has also been a huge flood. It didn't kill everyone except Noah and his family, but it has happened. Huge flood. Yep.

I've not heard that one before... but I can tell you WHY that story started, if you wish?

The reason the story STARTED, is because there are SOME people who believe that Jesus never did ANYTHING 'bad' in his entire life... they even use biblical verses to support the idea that he never used the restroom! (Believe it or not.)

Now... think about the sort of person who thinks like that... and then imagine how their minds would deal with the idea of Jesus being born in the usual, conventional way.... with all the attendant anatomy, and messes...

THAT is why some people argue Jesus was born by Caesarian section.

Of course, if he HAD been, it is fairly unlikely that Mary would have lived... let alone had more children... I mean... can you imagine how 'hygenic' it would be, giving a C-Section in a stable?

I'm doing well sweet thang! :fluffle:

See thats what I thought too. A C-section back then would almost be certain death. I think the discussion was up there in the "I think too much" thread. But being this is questions about the bible, I figured I could ask in here. I asked the person who posted it howd they know or where does it say that rather-no response yet. The discussion was something about Mary(ha! not cameron diaz) having conceived as a virgin, but they said she also gave birth as a virgin so to avoid breaking to hymen, Jesus had to be a C section. I find that really hard to believe.

"And God said, let US make man after OUR likeness and after OUR image..."

Why US and OUR? Why it isn't ME or I or MY? God is one, right?

I'm doing well sweet thang! :fluffle:

See thats what I thought too. A C-section back then would almost be certain death. I think the discussion was up there in the "I think too much" thread. But being this is questions about the bible, I figured I could ask in here. I asked the person who posted it howd they know or where does it say that rather-no response yet. The discussion was something about Mary(ha! not cameron diaz) having conceived as a virgin, but they said she also gave birth as a virgin so to avoid breaking to hymen, Jesus had to be a C section. I find that really hard to believe.
Lol if so at that point why did god not just take mary's egg and "Create" the baby (maybe surogate mother) without interfering with mary's hymen (would still be mary's kid)

"And God said, let US make man after OUR likeness and after OUR image..."

Why US and OUR? Why it isn't ME or I or MY? God is one, right?

God is one. God is also three, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit).

As a human, some of us are unable to comprehend one as being able to exist as three. In quantum physics, however, it has been shown that one can exist as three, and that what exists now can also exist in the past and the future at the same "time." Since God created time, for whatever purpose, we humans have a problem understanding infinity as well.

Sometimes, one has to just concede that certain truths are beyond our comprehension. You see there I used the editorial "we." Therefore, when one looks at written language, one must remember the limits of our language as well as the limits of our ability to understand concepts.

I'm doing well sweet thang! :fluffle:

See thats what I thought too. A C-section back then would almost be certain death. I think the discussion was up there in the "I think too much" thread. But being this is questions about the bible, I figured I could ask in here. I asked the person who posted it howd they know or where does it say that rather-no response yet. The discussion was something about Mary(ha! not cameron diaz) having conceived as a virgin, but they said she also gave birth as a virgin so to avoid breaking to hymen, Jesus had to be a C section. I find that really hard to believe.

Well... to give the answer that a christian MIGHT give... with god, all things are possible.

Of course, making that assumption, it is much more likely that god would have just 'transported' Jesus straight out of Mary (played here by Cameron Diaz), so as to avoid all of the horrible grossness.

But - if we go back to scripture... Matthew just says that 'Jesus was born'... no other commentary... nothing about how, or where... and you'd have thought a Caesarian Section would have been worth mentioning... or a teleporting baby?

And, Luke 2:7 says "she brought forth her firstborn son" - again no miraculous descriptions, no teleports, no magic, no surgery.

Also - if we look to the Greek, 'brought forth' is derived from the Greek 'tikto', meaning "To bring forth, bear, or produce. Especially of a woman giving birth, or of the earth bringing forth fruits".

So - the Greek version doesn't mention anything other than the same old, messy and anatomically compromising, route into the world.

HOW DARE YOU!!! THE BIBLE IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!!!
Sorry (caps stuck)

Mornin gravy

:fluffle:

Morning, Mr 'Thrust'. :)

How's you?

:fluffle:

Morning, Mr 'Thrust'. :)

How's you?

:fluffle:
Good ... Getting a gigle out of imagining fundy's reactions if I tell them that Jesus was really a marry clone using a cow/sheep as a sorogate mother so that mary could remain pure and hymen intact :D

:fluffle:

Yeah- I think she had him the regular old way. I'm sure there would have been a story about it in the Bible if not. LOL

Morning UT! :fluffle:

Yeah- I think she had him the regular old way. I'm sure there would have been a story about it in the Bible if not. LOL
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

"And God said, let US make man after OUR likeness and after OUR image..."

Why US and OUR? Why it isn't ME or I or MY? God is one, right?

Well, the prime answer has to be, because it wasn't written by monotheists.

What we have in Genesis, are various holdovers from the pan-theistic origins of the Hebrew faith.

So - the name for god in Genesis 1, is "elohiym", which I've often seen translated as, roughly "Spirits of the sky"..., or just as "rulers"; "angels"; or "gods".

If you know Hebrew, the 'im' ending is a dead giveaway of plurality - like in Cherubim, Seraphim, for example.

A close examination clearly describes the Genesis 1 account to be recording SEVERAL entities creating the world.

Now - some christians have said this means the Trinity... but there are problems in that theory:

1) The Hebrews were writing their scripture one thousand years before Jesus was born... they had no knowledge of 'the Trinity' as a concept... so they wouldn't have recorded it.

2) The Hebrews never accepted Jesus as being part of their faith - he isn't THEIR Messiah... so, they wouldn't have made him part of the Trinity.

3) Elements of the 'elohiym' are clearly described - such as 'Ruwach'... the 'spirit' of God. This is the life-giving force. This is what MAKES life, and shapes the world. But, unfortunately for Trinity-ists... 'Ruwach' is of femenine gender... which isn't conventionally 'allowed' in the classic 'trinity'.

Good ... Getting a gigle out of imagining fundy's reactions if I tell them that Jesus was really a marry clone using a cow/sheep as a sorogate mother so that mary could remain pure and hymen intact :D

:fluffle:

:D

Oooh, you're going to BURN for that one.... :)

:D

Oooh, you're going to BURN for that one.... :)
what I thought god liked sheep? makin them and all (that and all the biblical refferences)

what I thought god liked sheep? makin them and all (that and all the biblical refferences)

:0

You CAN'T go around making claims like "God LIKES Sheep"!

They'll send the blasphemy/blass-for-you police around!

:0

You CAN'T go around making claims like "God LIKES Sheep"!

They'll send the blasphemy/blass-for-you police around!
Blass-for-you ... lol thats great I got to remember that one.

And would it be better if I said god LOVES sheep?

and if so how does that effect the statement that

"God LOVES all his children"?

I'm curious. Why would people assume God thinks sex and sexuality are impure? Presumably God created human beings with a capacity to have and enjoy orgasms. Certainly God could have created humans with a capacity for procreation that did not include pleasure.

Why do so many Christians see the human body and natural human functions of sexuality as impure? Personally I think much of that type of thinking goes back to the writings of Augustine, who enjoyed himself to the fullest as a young man and spent much effort as an old man condemning sex. His influence pervaded Medieval Christianity and continues to shape many modern Christians' distorted sense of the body and its natural functions.

Sometimes I get the impression that there are those who believe that the entire message of Christianity is no more than a simple instruction manual telling people how to use their penises and vaginas correctly.

It is definitely a problem. God did create us to be sexual beings. He gave us guidelines as to what the circumstances are for a pure, healthy, happy sex life would be and many Christians have distorted this and made all sex appear to be evil, selfish or dirty, but Paul says very plainly that the marriage bed is undefiled. Sex within the context of marriage is not only acceptable, it is encouraged.

Blass-for-you ... lol thats great I got to remember that one.

And would it be better if I said god LOVES sheep?

and if so how does that effect the statement that

"God LOVES all his children"?

Oh, there's going to be trouble....

Of course, that does kind of fit in with the idea that Jesus is going to 'marry' ALL OF THE CHURCH.... that would mean men, women and children... right?

So, what's the big fuss about gay marriage?

It is definitely a problem. God did create us to be sexual beings. He gave us guidelines as to what the circumstances are for a pure, healthy, happy sex life would be and many Christians have distorted this and made all sex appear to be evil, selfish or dirty, but Paul says very plainly that the marriage bed is undefiled. Sex within the context of marriage is not only acceptable, it is encouraged.

Of course, Paul also said that any guy who was 'brave enough', should cut off their testicles...

I'd look to Jesus, rather than Paul, for teaching.... I think.

Oh, there's going to be trouble....

Of course, that does kind of fit in with the idea that Jesus is going to 'marry' ALL OF THE CHURCH.... that would mean men, women and children... right?

So, what's the big fuss about gay marriage?
I dont know ... with the obvious president of christ there should be no issue!

Of course, Paul also said that any guy who was 'brave enough', should cut off their testicles...

I'd look to Jesus, rather than Paul, for teaching.... I think.


LOL......

LOL......

Oh my god.

You know what... I just checked it again... and you know who really said it?

Well, there goes my "Paul's a wacko, listen to the J-Man" policy.

Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

I stand corrected... It was none other than Jesus HIMSELF, who said that anyone 'man enough' should snip them off...

:0

Oh my god.

You know what... I just checked it again... and you know who really said it?

Well, there goes my "Paul's a wacko, listen to the J-Man" policy.

Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

I stand corrected... It was none other than Jesus HIMSELF, who said that anyone 'man enough' should snip them off...

:0
So does that mean J-Man is a wacko?

Oh my god.

You know what... I just checked it again... and you know who really said it?

Well, there goes my "Paul's a wacko, listen to the J-Man" policy.

Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

I stand corrected... It was none other than Jesus HIMSELF, who said that anyone 'man enough' should snip them off...

:0

Actually, both said it, but both also condoned and supported the institution of marriage. "What God hath joined let no man put assunder."

I realize you aren't fond of the Bible or Christianity, but at least you do your research, even when I disagree with some of your conclusions, I respect that.

Actually, both said it, but both also condoned and supported the institution of marriage. "What God hath joined let no man put assunder."

I realize you aren't fond of the Bible or Christianity, but at least you do your research, even when I disagree with some of your conclusions, I respect that.

How was I not doing my research? I asserted it was Paul first... then I CHECKED, and found Jesus was the FIRST to say it, and then I CORRECTED myself.

So, I made a claim, researched it, and corrected my mistake... where's the 'no research'?

I appreciate both 'condoned marriage'... but they also advocate self-emasculation, with, as I read it, all other choices coming in second.

Seems like a somewhat blinkered approach to suggest they were pro-marriage, when their BETTER idea is to whack off your wedding tackle.

Oh my god.

You know what... I just checked it again... and you know who really said it?

Well, there goes my "Paul's a wacko, listen to the J-Man" policy.

Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

I stand corrected... It was none other than Jesus HIMSELF, who said that anyone 'man enough' should snip them off...

:0

Could this not be interpreted as another of Jesus's oblique criticisms of Mosaic law, namely the passage in Deuteronomy (can't be arsed to check the reference, will post if asked) that states "He who hath been wounded in the stones or hath had his privvy member cut off shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven"?

Could this not be interpreted as another of Jesus's oblique criticisms of Mosaic law, namely the passage in Deuteronomy (can't be arsed to check the reference, will post if asked) that states "He who hath been wounded in the stones or hath had his privvy member cut off shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven"?

I know that those who were injured in 'the stones' weren't allowed to do some of the tabernacle stuff... I don't think the Mosaic Hebrews mentioned anything 'Kingdom of Heaven' related, about it...

Could be connected... but why would Jesus be picking out an impure vessel in Mosaic Law, to hold up as the paragon of Christian Law?

How was I not doing my research? I asserted it was Paul first... then I CHECKED, and found Jesus was the FIRST to say it, and then I CORRECTED myself.

So, I made a claim, researched it, and corrected my mistake... where's the 'no research'?

I appreciate both 'condoned marriage'... but they also advocate self-emasculation, with, as I read it, all other choices coming in second.

Seems like a somewhat blinkered approach to suggest they were pro-marriage, when their BETTER idea is to whack off your wedding tackle.

Actually, I was praising your proclivity for researching that which you say about the Bible. I think we're so used to being on opposite sides of an issue it's pretty easy to have a knee jerk response. I apologize if this statement could in anyway be taken as other than a compliment.

Now, back to the subject at hand...
I believe in both Christ and Paul's case, when they make referrence to "being eunich's for the gospel's sake" they are referring figuratively to the voluntary, permenant abstinence from sex and total dedication to the proclaimation of the gospel, rather than literal castration. And, while this is ideal, it is considered by Paul a gift that not everyone possesses nor should, based on the passages about gifts and how they relate to the human body and that we each have gifts for the edification of the body/church.

Could this not be interpreted as another of Jesus's oblique criticisms of Mosaic law, namely the passage in Deuteronomy (can't be arsed to check the reference, will post if asked) that states "He who hath been wounded in the stones or hath had his privvy member cut off shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven"?

I see it a little differently. He seems more to be criticizing the "hardness" of people's hearts than the law itself IMO.

Actually, I was praising your proclivity for researching that which you say about the Bible. I think we're so used to being on opposite sides of an issue it's pretty easy to have a knee jerk response. I apologize if this statement could in anyway be taken as other than a compliment.

Now, back to the subject at hand...
I believe in both Christ and Paul's case, when they make referrence to "being eunich's for the gospel's sake" they are referring figuratively to the voluntary, permenant abstinence from sex and total dedication to the proclaimation of the gospel, rather than literal castration. And, while this is ideal, it is considered by Paul a gift that not everyone possesses nor should, based on the passages about gifts and how they relate to the human body and that we each have gifts for the edification of the body/church.

AH! MY BAD. I'm re-reading you now... you are right... I'm completely mis-reading you... I was thinking you were demanding MORE research from me, because my point was somehow flawed... but, looking back...

My apologies... for being dense!

Like you say, perhaps we are TOO used to being on opposite ends of the same issues... :)

I had considered the possibility that they mean a 'non-literal' castration - but, it's in a passage about what SEEMS to be, very real, very physical.... surgery.

That's not to say that the metaphor option isn't valid... I just can't (personally) support it, in the context.

You have kind of headed in the same direction I was headed... regarding Paul's discourse on the 'gifts' we can't all possess (I'm seeing it as a 'second choice' option - against your mitigation of physical emasculation).

It's a thorny one, how does one CHOOSE to interpret the verse non-physically?

OK,

If I'm reading this thread correctly, then some claim it is a sin to masturbate, because the mans' 'seed' will be wasted and that ejaculation should only occur inside a woman.

So, does it still count if she swallows it?

OK,

If I'm reading this thread correctly, then some claim it is a sin to masturbate, because the mans' 'seed' will be wasted and that ejaculation should only occur inside a woman.

So, does it still count if she swallows it?


thats a fair question....

do you think they had oral sex in the Bible days? i wonder who the first people were to have oral sex? hmmm

thats a fair question....

do you think they had oral sex in the Bible days? i wonder who the first people were to have oral sex? hmmm

Yes, sweety... they had oral sex in Bible times... I can show you specific verses...

Try Song of Solomon 2:3 "As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste".

So - the lovely young lady sits 'under' the handsome fellow's 'shadow', with great delight.... not TOO difficult to work out what we are describing here...


Oh - and yes... it works the other way too:

Song of Solomon 8:2 "I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother's house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate".

What girl DOESN'T want her beloved to "drink the spiced wine of the juice of" (her) "pomegranate"?

So, does it still count if she swallows it?

It only matters if it's kosher.

It only matters if it's kosher.

I must have skipped that... I can't seem to recall a verse that defines whether it's kosher or not... :)

Yes, sweety... they had oral sex in Bible times... I can show you specific verses...

Try Song of Solomon 2:3 "As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste".

So - the lovely young lady sits 'under' the handsome fellow's 'shadow', with great delight.... not TOO difficult to work out what we are describing here...


Oh - and yes... it works the other way too:

Song of Solomon 8:2 "I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother's house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate".

What girl DOESN'T want her beloved to "drink the spiced wine of the juice of" (her) "pomegranate"?


*blushes*

and who says reading the Bible is boring? *fans self*

i mean, cmon... ITS GENESIS! what do you get out ofthat?

Well, there's Rei from Neon Genesis Evangelion who I could get off to, but that isn't the same thing.

I must have skipped that... I can't seem to recall a verse that defines whether it's kosher or not... :)

Well, it's a product from a mammal, but the human is not cloven hooved and a cud chewer, so - technically - it isn't kosher. However, it is the seed of life, so there must be a rider in there somewhere about it.

Try Song of Solomon

Solomon had a lot to sing about. :D

AH! MY BAD. I'm re-reading you now... you are right... I'm completely mis-reading you... I was thinking you were demanding MORE research from me, because my point was somehow flawed... but, looking back...

My apologies... for being dense!

It's a thorny one, how does one CHOOSE to interpret the verse non-physically?

No apologies necessary on your part. It's easy to get locked into that mentality here. Been guilty a time or two myself.

As for the choise to interpret the verse in this light, and with many other Biblical teachings it is important to compare to other verses. If you believe, like I do, that the Bible is a consistant revelation given by inspiration, it is important to look for the manner in which a passage makes the most sense as compared to other related passages.

If you buy the Genesis account of Creation, God created human kind and specifically male Adam and female Eve on the same day and gave them direct instruction to have a sexual relationship and defined the circumstances, man leaving parents to become one flesh with his wife, of marriage. When you add passages like Prov. 5:18&19, and Eccl. 9:9 to Paul's comments on the marriage bed being undefiled and husbands and wife's rendering to each other the affection "due" one another as well as Christ attending and blessing a wedding with His first miracle, it seems there is a preponderence of evidence to suggest that marriage is a good thing.

I seem to have gotton a bit off topic there and I can't remember where I was going with that as it pertains to whether or not a literal intrepretation is better. If you go back to the Mosaic law and throughout biblical history though, you don't see any other refrences to doing onesself physical harm as being taught as a normal religious practice. Self-denial yes, but not self-mutilation. Again, this is an interpretation, and until God can be asked directly, subject to fallibility.

Yes, sweety... they had oral sex in Bible times... I can show you specific verses...

Try Song of Solomon 2:3 "As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste".

So - the lovely young lady sits 'under' the handsome fellow's 'shadow', with great delight.... not TOO difficult to work out what we are describing here...


Oh - and yes... it works the other way too:

Song of Solomon 8:2 "I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother's house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate".

What girl DOESN'T want her beloved to "drink the spiced wine of the juice of" (her) "pomegranate"?

Interesting interpretation. Requires a fair amount of inferrence, but as, I don't see the Bible as being for or against oral sex, its at least interesting. The only verse I can think of that carries similar potential refference to oral sex is in Proverbs I think, but I can't seem to find it at the moment... something to the effect of a prostitute wiping her mouth and not being ashamed though she should have been...

No apologies necessary on your part. It's easy to get locked into that mentality here. Been guilty a time or two myself.

As for the choise to interpret the verse in this light, and with many other Biblical teachings it is important to compare to other verses. If you believe, like I do, that the Bible is a consistant revelation given by inspiration, it is important to look for the manner in which a passage makes the most sense as compared to other related passages.

If you buy the Genesis account of Creation, God created human kind and specifically male Adam and female Eve on the same day and gave them direct instruction to have a sexual relationship and defined the circumstances, man leaving parents to become one flesh with his wife, of marriage. When you add passages like Prov. 5:18&19, and Eccl. 9:9 to Paul's comments on the marriage bed being undefiled and husbands and wife's rendering to each other the affection "due" one another as well as Christ attending and blessing a wedding with His first miracle, it seems there is a preponderence of evidence to suggest that marriage is a good thing.

I seem to have gotton a bit off topic there and I can't remember where I was going with that as it pertains to whether or not a literal intrepretation is better. If you go back to the Mosaic law and throughout biblical history though, you don't see any other refrences to doing onesself physical harm as being taught as a normal religious practice. Self-denial yes, but not self-mutilation. Again, this is an interpretation, and until God can be asked directly, subject to fallibility.

Did someone just open the door, windows and take the roof off of this house and let some fresh air in ( intelligent comments for those who can't read between the lines), or what?

*blushes*

and who says reading the Bible is boring? *fans self*
Oh has someone not read the song of Solomon :D lots of fluffles in there!

Oh has someone not read the song of Solomon :D lots of fluffles in there!

Check out Proverbs 5:18 and 19.

Oh has someone not read the song of Solomon :D lots of fluffles in there!

Heck I guess not. I heard there are some parts of the Bible that are kind of spicy though. Who'd have thought?

Check out Proverbs 5:18 and 19.
Proverbs 5:18(kjv)
Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth


Proverbs 5:19(kjv)
Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love


Interesting :)

Heck I guess not. I heard there are some parts of the Bible that are kind of spicy though. Who'd have thought?
7 years of catholic school and another 6 of being active Christian and the first time I heard about it was in a public higschool bible as lit class :p (after that I started ACTUALY reading the bible … not something that was encouraged really in any of my schools or parishes)

Heck I guess not. I heard there are some parts of the Bible that are kind of spicy though. Who'd have thought?

Amazingly, it's God's idea for use to have a healthy, entrapturing love life albeit monogamus for the most part...

Proverbs 5:18(kjv)
Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth


Proverbs 5:19(kjv)
Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love


Interesting :)

I do my best to live up to this in my marriage. I really like the NKJV of the last line better, it says "and always be enraptured with her love", though ravished is fun too.

*blushes*

and who says reading the Bible is boring? *fans self*

Hey, I never said it was boring...

In fact, if you read through the Song of Solomon with an eye open to the fact that it is largely metaphorical, and is definitely a kind of love letter... the whole thing takes on something of a rosy glow! :)

I do my best to live up to this in my marriage. I really like the NKJV of the last line better, it says "and always be enraptured with her love", though ravished is fun too.
I just picked the KJV because it seems to be an accepted standard

god i finally made it back.

yeah i might have to go home and read some of the word tonight

Hey, I never said it was boring...

In fact, if you read through the Song of Solomon with an eye open to the fact that it is largely metaphorical, and is definitely a kind of love letter... the whole thing takes on something of a rosy glow! :)
mmm glowing warm warming glow

god i finally made it back.

yeah i might have to go home and read some of the word tonight
As you take a "bath " ;)

As you take a "bath " ;)

i am so going to hell

Yeah it's in Leviticus somewhere all the sexual laws are. Did you know your only suppose to make love to woman one week out the month when she's considered "Clean"? You're not suppose to make love the week before, during, or the week after menstruation.


Probably because that is the time in a woman's cycle she can get pregnant.

i am so going to hell
Really masturbating to the bible is bad?

i am so going to hell

Hey... all the fun people are, apparently...

(of course... by my reading... hell isn't all that bad a prospect...)

Hey... all the fun people are, apparently...

(of course... by my reading... hell isn't all that bad a prospect...)
Will there be naked people there?

Really masturbating to the bible is bad?

You know... when you phrase it like THAT... :0

Will there be naked people there?

Depends if I remember to pack my trunks... :D

Depends if I remember to pack my trunks... :D
*crosses fingers* please let gravy forget!

GI and UT you two really have to take this to the lowest common denominator don't you. You just can't resist. Is there any way we could just start you your own thread so you don't have to do this to all the others?

Just asking. I know its a free world and you enjoy the heck out of embarassing those of us who do have consciences about such things, but would it really be too much to ask? :confused:

God is one. God is also three, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit).

As a human, some of us are unable to comprehend one as being able to exist as three. In quantum physics, however, it has been shown that one can exist as three, and that what exists now can also exist in the past and the future at the same "time." Since God created time, for whatever purpose, we humans have a problem understanding infinity as well.

Sometimes, one has to just concede that certain truths are beyond our comprehension. You see there I used the editorial "we." Therefore, when one looks at written language, one must remember the limits of our language as well as the limits of our ability to understand concepts.

There's actual no Biblical support of the Trinity, no matter how you try to twist it to make it so. "Us" and "Our" are used because Abraham was not truely monotheistic.
The Concept of the Trinity was established far after the Nicene Creed.

GI and UT you two really have to take this to the lowest common denominator don't you. You just can't resist. Is there any way we could just start you your own thread so you don't have to do this to all the others?

Just asking. I know its a free world and you enjoy the heck out of embarassing those of us who do have consciences about such things, but would it really be too much to ask? :confused:
About what joking? you do know both of us are compleatly strait right?

Or maybe you want a :fluffle: too? I think maybe that is it!

GI and UT you two really have to take this to the lowest common denominator don't you. You just can't resist. Is there any way we could just start you your own thread so you don't have to do this to all the others?

Just asking. I know its a free world and you enjoy the heck out of embarassing those of us who do have consciences about such things, but would it really be too much to ask? :confused:

I'm not intending to offend... when the conversation assumes one level... there I am... when it slacks of a little... well, is there a reason why I shouldn't be light-hearted in a sleeping thread?

Like I say - I'm not out to embarrass anyone...

About what joking? you do know both of us are compleatly strait right?

Or maybe you want a :fluffle: too? I think maybe that is it!

I didn't know that you were both strait, not that it really matters. Yes, I realize you were joking. I don't mind being congenial, but a fluffle might be more than I'm comfortable with.

I know you are just having fun, and there was a time, a long time ago, that I'd have joined you. But, the truth is, I find jokes of that nature to be in poor taste and would prefer not to be exposed to them. As a result, I made a serious request. You can take it with a grain of salt. I know I always have the option of going elsewhere. You two both seem like intellegent and interesting guys and I enjoy debating you, but sometimes the crassness of your comments can become offensive, IMO. Do with that information as you see fit.

I didn't know that you were both strait, not that it really matters. Yes, I realize you were joking. I don't mind being congenial, but a fluffle might be more than I'm comfortable with.

I know you are just having fun, and there was a time, a long time ago, that I'd have joined you. But, the truth is, I find jokes of that nature to be in poor taste and would prefer not to be exposed to them. As a result, I made a serious request. You can take it with a grain of salt. I know I always have the option of going elsewhere. You two both seem like intellegent and interesting guys and I enjoy debating you, but sometimes the crassness of your comments can become offensive, IMO. Do with that information as you see fit.
I know they can … but simple as this we are here to be who we are … sometimes that is joking. We are not here to fit in your version of morals … I do not try to insult you nor threaten you.

I find lack of sense of humor to be uncomfortable myself, if you can not laugh even at your own ingrained traits and opinions I feel sorry for you. Life is much to hard to take it with a strait face all the time.

You can choose not to respond to our posts … you do not have to involve yourself in any way. (I know this equates to you choose to be here but …) I am not forcing or infringing on any of your rights. Never do you have to feel threatened by me or anyone else. But if you choose not to expand your mind to humor that is your fault not mine … I am not here to keep you in your comfort zone nor am I required to

I don’t do it on purpose (well occasionally some insanely hateful person will get a fluffle cause I know they will dislike it) but I will not sensor myself unless I am breaking rules of this board which I choose to be on. It is MY right

I didn't know that you were both strait, not that it really matters. Yes, I realize you were joking. I don't mind being congenial, but a fluffle might be more than I'm comfortable with.

I know you are just having fun, and there was a time, a long time ago, that I'd have joined you. But, the truth is, I find jokes of that nature to be in poor taste and would prefer not to be exposed to them. As a result, I made a serious request. You can take it with a grain of salt. I know I always have the option of going elsewhere. You two both seem like intellegent and interesting guys and I enjoy debating you, but sometimes the crassness of your comments can become offensive, IMO. Do with that information as you see fit.

Now THAT is a thorny one... since I also enjoy greatly the serious debate, and I'd hate to think that I was 'infringing' on that in some way...

Obviously - I don't want to be chasing serious debate out of threads I want to debate seriously...

But, then... I'm not entirely sure how I can determine when I am offending, either... I have been told before that my mere existence in a thread was offensive... I have been told that my views in some threads are offensive... I have been told that my comments are offensive, or that my 'in-character' actions are offensive.

See, I'm not even sure in THIS thread what would be my 'descent'...

Obviously, I don't want to stop debating with either UpwardThrust OR Personal Responsibilit... so, I'm in something of a quandry.

Now THAT is a thorny one... since I also enjoy greatly the serious debate, and I'd hate to think that I was 'infringing' on that in some way...

Obviously - I don't want to be chasing serious debate out of threads I want to debate seriously...

But, then... I'm not entirely sure how I can determine when I am offending, either... I have been told before that my mere existence in a thread was offensive... I have been told that my views in some threads are offensive... I have been told that my comments are offensive, or that my 'in-character' actions are offensive.

See, I'm not even sure in THIS thread what would be my 'descent'...

Obviously, I don't want to stop debating with either UpwardThrust OR Personal Responsibilit... so, I'm in something of a quandry.

Simple … serious debate for serious questions and concerns jokes when people are kidding around. That’s how I do it … (or jokes when a post does not deserve a serious response … such as termy’s)

I know they can … but simple as this we are here to be who we are … sometimes that is joking. We are not here to fit in your version of morals … I do not try to insult you nor threaten you.

I find lack of sense of humor to be uncomfortable myself, if you can not laugh even at your own ingrained traits and opinions I feel sorry for you. Life is much to hard to take it with a strait face all the time.

You can choose not to respond to our posts … you do not have to involve yourself in any way. (I know this equates to you choose to be here but …) I am not forcing or infringing on any of your rights. Never do you have to feel threatened by me or anyone else. But if you choose not to expand your mind to humor that is your fault not mine … I am not here to keep you in your comfort zone nor am I required to

I don’t do it on purpose (well occasionally some insanely hateful person will get a fluffle cause I know they will dislike it) but I will not sensor myself unless I am breaking rules of this board which I choose to be on. It is MY right

You are correct about it being your right. Even if I wanted to, I can't take that from you. I do have a sense of humor and am able to laugh at myself. As previously stated, I used to have a similar, sexual sense of humor. I have since learned that it is/was in poor taste and have begun to see it as having a derrogatory effect on a genuinely healthy perspective of relationships and sexuality. There are certainly other subjects upon which a positive sense of humor can be based.

I recognize that you are free to do as you chose. I was asking a favor and as you have chosen not to grant me that favor, I have no choice but to tolerate it. I know you aren't intending to intimidate, nor am I very intimidateable. I appreciate your candor on the subject.

There's actual no Biblical support of the Trinity, no matter how you try to twist it to make it so. "Us" and "Our" are used because Abraham was not truely monotheistic.
The Concept of the Trinity was established far after the Nicene Creed.
Actually the Nicene Creed only codified what Christians already believed. Creeds such as Nicea and Athanasia and the Calcedonian Definition were established not to force a doctrine not previously embraced and understood but to protect that which already was and is. In the same way that the books of the Bible were assembled not BY any council but rather were recognized and included as being authoritative and accepted by the church.

As for the doctrine of the Trinity, the Word of God is FULL of references and inferences to the Triune God. There is scarcely a chapter that does not in one way or another establish the One true God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Your accusations against Abraham are not only stupid but wicked. Abraham was chosen by God. Abraham was a wandering idolotor, lost like the rest of us, and God chose him, not because of anything good in Abraham, but out of His mere good pleasure, in the same manner in which He chooses each of His people from the mass of sinners.

Abraham was not monotheistic before the Call, but immediately following the Call, he was forever monotheistic.

Besides that, Abraham has nothing to do with the "Us" references concerning God in the Pentatuech. Moses is the human author of the first five books of the Bible and God Almighty, the Triune is the Sovereign Lord who moves the heart of the king whithersoever He wills, and even through the agency of human "free will", does no violence to that will but sovereignly causes every jot and tittle to work out to be the exact Word that He wants His people to hear.

Repent.

You are correct about it being your right. Even if I wanted to, I can't take that from you. I do have a sense of humor and am able to laugh at myself. As previously stated, I used to have a similar, sexual sense of humor. I have since learned that it is/was in poor taste and have begun to see it as having a derrogatory effect on a genuinely healthy perspective of relationships and sexuality. There are certainly other subjects upon which a positive sense of humor can be based.

I recognize that you are free to do as you chose. I was asking a favor and as you have chosen not to grant me that favor, I have no choice but to tolerate it. I know you aren't intending to intimidate, nor am I very intimidateable. I appreciate your candor on the subject.
I can change my actions but my sense of humor is what it is ... less on sexual more because it is silly and random and light hearted ... whatever actual words it takes , some people find truly sexual jokes funny ... I am much to shy for that specialy in person. But being silly in all its forms (sexual or not) is deffinatly my thing

Now THAT is a thorny one... since I also enjoy greatly the serious debate, and I'd hate to think that I was 'infringing' on that in some way...

Obviously - I don't want to be chasing serious debate out of threads I want to debate seriously...

But, then... I'm not entirely sure how I can determine when I am offending, either... I have been told before that my mere existence in a thread was offensive... I have been told that my views in some threads are offensive... I have been told that my comments are offensive, or that my 'in-character' actions are offensive.

See, I'm not even sure in THIS thread what would be my 'descent'...

Obviously, I don't want to stop debating with either UpwardThrust OR Personal Responsibilit... so, I'm in something of a quandry.

Those who would say that your existance is offensive are relatively closed minded individuals and I can't really speak for them.

I am sorry for creating a quandry for you, that was not my intent. If you want to know if I find something offensive feel free to ask. I don't want to stop you or anyone else from being yourself, at the same time, I find sexual humor to be offensive, just as I find racism as witnessed in some other threads offensive and just as I find personal attacks and name calling offensive.

You are not required to live a life, or carry on conversation here that is in-offensive to me. I merely made a request. Do with it as you see fit. I appreciate that you are/were willing to at least consider my perspective on this matter.

I can change my actions but my sense of humor is what it is ... less on sexual more because it is silly and random and light hearted ... whatever actual words it takes , some people find truly sexual jokes funny ... I am much to shy for that specialy in person. But being silly in all its forms (sexual or not) is deffinatly my thing

And I have to confess, you are very good at it. Though, in my teenage years I'd have given you a run for your money. You can do as you see fit. I just wanted you to be aware of my feelings on the matter and allow you the opportunity to be courteous on the subject. Even if things continue as they are, I will hold no grudge or hard feelings, though I may have to start jokingly referring to you as a "potty mouth" :p :) from time to time if things get out of hand.

Thanks again for at least considering the subject. Carry on...

And I have to confess, you are very good at it. Though, in my teenage years I'd have given you a run for your money. You can do as you see fit. I just wanted you to be aware of my feelings on the matter and allow you the opportunity to be courteous on the subject. Even if things continue as they are, I will hold no grudge or hard feelings, though I may have to start jokingly referring to you as a "potty mouth" :p :) from time to time if things get out of hand.

Thanks again for at least considering the subject. Carry on...
Lol I am a few years past my teenage years (not much but 22 is not really teen anymore) in-fact last 3 years or so i started geting more silliar (got out of the teen angst years where I was all quiet) ehh havin fun is the essence of life sometimes

Those who would say that your existance is offensive are relatively closed minded individuals and I can't really speak for them.

I am sorry for creating a quandry for you, that was not my intent. If you want to know if I find something offensive feel free to ask. I don't want to stop you or anyone else from being yourself, at the same time, I find sexual humor to be offensive, just as I find racism as witnessed in some other threads offensive and just as I find personal attacks and name calling offensive.

You are not required to live a life, or carry on conversation here that is in-offensive to me. I merely made a request. Do with it as you see fit. I appreciate that you are/were willing to at least consider my perspective on this matter.

Okay... give me quick pointers about what tipped you 'over' in this thread (I assume this IS the thread...)... of course, I still might end up in the same position... since I might make a similar comment in a thread you are NOT in, and you might then enter THAT thread, and then BAM, same problem again...

Hmmm.

Now - We agree on somethings... I don't like it when people call names... and I think I pretty much rise above that (although it may have been close today, with a certain troll...), and I have NO tolerance for racism, sexism, or any of the other commercially available -isms.

I'm not big on prejudice.

So - what qualifies as sexual humour? I don't indulge (I don't believe) in derogatory sexual humour... in as much as I don't think anyone is devalued by it.

Do some people just have a much more 'precious' view of what sex 'is' than I do? Do some people just not talk about it?

See - the thing is... even if I have only agreed with you once ever (I think it's probably at LEAST a couple of times...), I still value the input - and the opposition when we are at different ends of the table...

UpwardThrust knows I want to continue debating with him, and I want you to know I want to continue debating with you.

Maybe we just have to see how well we can bump along...?

Lol I am a few years past my teenage years (not much but 22 is not really teen anymore) in-fact last 3 years or so i started geting more silliar (got out of the teen angst years where I was all quiet) ehh havin fun is the essence of life sometimes

Perhaps I had to grow up to fast when my father died and I had to take care of my sibs when my mom went to work. I've never really fit in with my peers, particularly young men. I've always found them to be a bit on the crass side, even when I was participating in off color humor. Don't know why, but its always been easier to be friends and have real connections with members of the opposite gender.

Maybe its just me :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

There's actual no Biblical support of the Trinity, no matter how you try to twist it to make it so. "Us" and "Our" are used because Abraham was not truely monotheistic.
The Concept of the Trinity was established far after the Nicene Creed.



Jenn Jenn Land you might be interested in the what the Baha'i Faith teaches on this subject.

THE TRINITY

Question. -- What is the meaning of the Trinity, of the Three Persons in One?

Answer. -- The Divine Reality, which is purified and sanctified from the understanding of human beings and which can never be imagined by the people of wisdom and of intelligence, is exempt from all conception. That Lordly Reality admits of no division; for division and multiplicity are properties of creatures which are contingent existences, and not accidents which happen to the self-existent.

The Divine Reality is sanctified from singleness, then how much more from plurality. The descent of that Lordly Reality into conditions and degrees would be equivalent to imperfection and contrary to perfection, and is, therefore, absolutely impossible. It perpetually has been, and is, in the exaltation of holiness and sanctity. All that is mentioned of the Manifestations and Dawning-places of God signifies the divine reflection, and not a descent into the conditions of existence.

God is pure perfection, and creatures are but imperfections. For God to descend into the conditions of existence would be the greatest of imperfections; on the contrary, His manifestation, His appearance, His rising are like the reflection of the sun in a clear, pure, polished mirror. All the creatures are evident signs of God, like the earthly beings upon all of which the rays of the sun shine. But upon the plains, the mountains, the trees and fruits, only a portion of the light shines, through which they become visible, and are reared, and attain to the object of their existence, while the Perfect Man is in the condition of a clear mirror in which the Sun of Reality becomes visible and manifest with all its qualities and perfections. So the Reality of Christ was a clear and polished mirror of the greatest purity and fineness. The Sun of Reality, the Essence of Divinity, reflected itself in this mirror and manifested its light and heat in it; but from the exaltation of its holiness, and the heaven of its sanctity, the Sun did not descend to dwell and abide in the mirror. No, it continues to subsist in its exaltation and sublimity, while appearing and becoming manifest in the mirror in beauty and perfection.

Now if we say that we have seen the Sun in two mirrors -- one the Christ and one the Holy Spirit -- that is to say, that we have seen three Suns, one in heaven and the two others on the earth, we speak truly. And if we say that there is one Sun, and it is pure singleness, and has no partner and equal, we again speak truly.

The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality -- that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes -- became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied -- for the Sun is one -- but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, "The Father is in the Son," meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent. *

This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity. If it were otherwise, the foundations of the Religion of God would rest upon an illogical proposition which the mind could never conceive, and how can the mind be forced to believe a thing which it cannot conceive? A thing cannot be grasped by the intelligence except when it is clothed in an intelligible form; otherwise, it is but an effort of the imagination.

It has now become clear, from this explanation, what is the meaning of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The Oneness of God is also proved. **

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 114)

Perhaps I had to grow up to fast when my father died and I had to take care of my sibs when my mom went to work. I've never really fit in with my peers, particularly young men. I've always found them to be a bit on the crass side, even when I was participating in off color humor. Don't know why, but its always been easier to be friends and have real connections with members of the opposite gender.

Maybe its just me :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Me too ... but it is mosly my shyness in person off collored humor makes me embarased (I hate being embarased for other people ... it happens to me all the time ... part of the reason I cant watch hidden camera shows) but online I can still be silly :D

Depends if I remember to pack my trunks... :D

"You know... when you phrase it like THAT... :0 "

Okay, that was got things generally headed that direction. And, no, that wasn't all that bad, just the conversation was degenerating at that point and I figured I'd say something before it went further.

As for being derogatory, I don't believe you were being derogative toward anyone. I do believe that trivializing sex/sexuality with illicit implications is derogatory of healthy sexuality. Yes, I'm a bit prudish about the subject by secular standards.

The bumping process is a part of any relationship, and I will be patient and tolerant. Even if you say something I find offensive, that doesn't mean I'll stop talking to you. You'd have to get excessively and intentionally mean and cruel for that to happen, which I have not found you to be, though the troll comment was pushing that envelope, even if the guy deserved it.

Anyway, don't let it worry you too much and if you ever wonder if something is boarding on offensive to me, feel free to ask. I promise not to throw things...

Me too ... but it is mosly my shyness in person off collored humor makes me embarased (I hate being embarased for other people ... it happens to me all the time ... part of the reason I cant watch hidden camera shows) but online I can still be silly :D

Well you guys can have at it. I am heading home to my beloved (quick Song of Songs ref. there :rolleyes: :p ;) :D ), and well, this place just doesn't rate as high as she does on my list of priorities. It's been a pleasure, mostly... ;) Have a good evening. :)

Perhaps I had to grow up to fast when my father died and I had to take care of my sibs when my mom went to work. I've never really fit in with my peers, particularly young men. I've always found them to be a bit on the crass side, even when I was participating in off color humor. Don't know why, but its always been easier to be friends and have real connections with members of the opposite gender.

Maybe its just me :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No - not just you... much the same family situation, much the same social situation, much the same preference for company.

I find most men, in communal settings, to be somewhere between crude and barbaric.

You, UT and I seem to be arriving at much the same point, through fairly similar routes... which makes me suspect the REAL difference here must JUST be a matter of degree....

Actually the Nicene Creed only codified what Christians already believed. Creeds such as Nicea and Athanasia and the Calcedonian Definition were established not to force a doctrine not previously embraced and understood but to protect that which already was and is. In the same way that the books of the Bible were assembled not BY any council but rather were recognized and included as being authoritative and accepted by the church.

As for the doctrine of the Trinity, the Word of God is FULL of references and inferences to the Triune God. There is scarcely a chapter that does not in one way or another establish the One true God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Your accusations against Abraham are not only stupid but wicked. Abraham was chosen by God. Abraham was a wandering idolotor, lost like the rest of us, and God chose him, not because of anything good in Abraham, but out of His mere good pleasure, in the same manner in which He chooses each of His people from the mass of sinners.

Abraham was not monotheistic before the Call, but immediately following the Call, he was forever monotheistic.

Besides that, Abraham has nothing to do with the "Us" references concerning God in the Pentatuech. Moses is the human author of the first five books of the Bible and God Almighty, the Triune is the Sovereign Lord who moves the heart of the king whithersoever He wills, and even through the agency of human "free will", does no violence to that will but sovereignly causes every jot and tittle to work out to be the exact Word that He wants His people to hear.

Repent.

AH GD I lost my entire post.
Okay.
Uhm, first of all, I'm not going to sink down to your level and I don't think any true followers of the God you claim to worship would have done what you did. This is an indication of lack of confidence in your cause.
And I'm just going to link you to everything i quoted cause I'm not typing that up again.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_tri.htm#2
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/monoot.htm
http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/history/nicene.htm

People have twisted the Bible to say what they want to say. The Trinity is no exception. It's possible, I don't deny it. But it has no real scriptural basis. Remember the KKK, the misogynists that tried to keep women from voting. Remember how many different Christian denominations there are. And remember the political agenda of many religious leaders today. Be careful what you believe.

And to those who don't... to those who blindly follow I quote Jesus.
"Blind fools!"

No - not just you... much the same family situation, much the same social situation, much the same preference for company.

I find most men, in communal settings, to be somewhere between crude and barbaric.

You, UT and I seem to be arriving at much the same point, through fairly similar routes... which makes me suspect the REAL difference here must JUST be a matter of degree....


possible... have a good evening.

You'd have to get excessively and intentionally mean and cruel for that to happen, which I have not found you to be, though the troll comment was pushing that envelope, even if the guy deserved it.

I wonder if you encountered the particular 'series-of-incidents' to which I refer... (Also - you know that 'Trolls' are people that post deliberately inflamatory remarks, right? Not neanderthal gobins....).

I don't recall if you were there... it seems that you wouldn't have NOTICED what UT and I were debating in this thread, if you had seen the OTHER thread....

(If you want to see what I mean, find a thread like the "Do Gays even deserve Civil Union" (or whatever it is called) thread... find the name Terminalia, right-click on his name, and search for posts by that poster.)

If you DO do that search, I would advise you may need a strong stomach. Some of his 'florid' language was grossly offensive to me (especially what he has directed towards female posters), and I'm not sure you would actually WANT to see the kind of stuff he was posting.

Hence, "troll".

Well you guys can have at it. I am heading home to my beloved (quick Song of Songs ref. there :rolleyes: :p ;) :D ), and well, this place just doesn't rate as high as she does on my list of priorities. It's been a pleasure, mostly... ;) Have a good evening. :)

Lol.

Godspeed, Sirrah.

Of course, the 'beloved' MUST take precedence over mere forum-ality. :)

Am I the only one who finds some of the biblical commentary to be more arousing than most modern porn? Alot of :fluffle:, and a WHOLE lot of :eek: effect. Especially Songs of Solomon... Holy crap, that man could get it on. :cool:


Anyways, I'm not sure where this thread is going. Could someone give me a map?

I wonder if you encountered the particular 'series-of-incidents' to which I refer... (Also - you know that 'Trolls' are people that post deliberately inflamatory remarks, right? Not neanderthal gobins....).

I don't recall if you were there... it seems that you wouldn't have NOTICED what UT and I were debating in this thread, if you had seen the OTHER thread....

(If you want to see what I mean, find a thread like the "Do Gays even deserve Civil Union" (or whatever it is called) thread... find the name Terminalia, right-click on his name, and search for posts by that poster.)

If you DO do that search, I would advise you may need a strong stomach. Some of his 'florid' language was grossly offensive to me (especially what he has directed towards female posters), and I'm not sure you would actually WANT to see the kind of stuff he was posting.

Hence, "troll".

Actually, I've been intentionally avoiding that thread. I believe the guy deserved the title, there are several here that do, but at the same time, I believe that name calling as a response, no matter how desperately someone deserves it, lowers one to that level. I might be appropriate to let that individual know that he is behaving in a shameful manner and that you are dissappointed with his gross language, but I still wouldn't call him names.

Actually, I've been intentionally avoiding that thread. I believe the guy deserved the title, there are several here that do, but at the same time, I believe that name calling as a response, no matter how desperately someone deserves it, lowers one to that level. I might be appropriate to let that individual know that he is behaving in a shameful manner and that you are dissappointed with his gross language, but I still wouldn't call him names.

I don't think I DID call him names.... but, that is the only instance I can think of where I MIGHT have done such a thing.

Unless you mean 'troll' as the name... I'm just using the forum term (it's in the Frequently Asked Questions, somewhere, I think) that describes that action... flamers-for-instigation... are 'trolls', and what they are doing is 'trolling'.

Believe me, I asked him to stop, even warned him that moderators would shut him down. In the end, I walked away from it all (although the lovely fellow proceeded to say some things to the ladies present, that just DON'T bear repeating... so perhaps I shouldn't have left...), and 30 minutes later, it was a locked thread, and he was enjoying a forum ban...

I don't think I DID call him names.... but, that is the only instance I can think of where I MIGHT have done such a thing.

Unless you mean 'troll' as the name... I'm just using the forum term (it's in the Frequently Asked Questions, somewhere, I think) that describes that action... flamers-for-instigation... are 'trolls', and what they are doing is 'trolling'.

Believe me, I asked him to stop, even warned him that moderators would shut him down. In the end, I walked away from it all (although the lovely fellow proceeded to say some things to the ladies present, that just DON'T bear repeating... so perhaps I shouldn't have left...), and 30 minutes later, it was a locked thread, and he was enjoying a forum ban...
Yeah remember when I joked around and :fluffle: him once :)

I think I ended up being acused of raping my non existant dog to death
That was intresting

I don't think I DID call him names.... but, that is the only instance I can think of where I MIGHT have done such a thing.

Unless you mean 'troll' as the name... I'm just using the forum term (it's in the Frequently Asked Questions, somewhere, I think) that describes that action... flamers-for-instigation... are 'trolls', and what they are doing is 'trolling'.

Believe me, I asked him to stop, even warned him that moderators would shut him down. In the end, I walked away from it all (although the lovely fellow proceeded to say some things to the ladies present, that just DON'T bear repeating... so perhaps I shouldn't have left...), and 30 minutes later, it was a locked thread, and he was enjoying a forum ban...


Makes sense, except I'd be cautious with that term as it is very fraught with potential for double meaning. :)

Yeah remember when I joked around and :fluffle: him once :)

I think I ended up being acused of raping my non existant dog to death
That was intresting

Yep... Terminalia... Colourful character...

Makes sense, except I'd be cautious with that term as it is very fraught with potential for double meaning. :)


Go read what the other guy was saying and then tell me about it. I actually made this face for real---> :eek:

Makes sense, except I'd be cautious with that term as it is very fraught with potential for double meaning. :)

I am generally careful with the terminology I use... here, I am only conforming to (my recognition of) NS 'rules', if you will.

I'm not likely to call someone a 'troll' in real life... unless they are, well, unless they are being a troll.. I guess... but even then, they'd have to get my 'dander up' somewhat... it's just not my 'style'.

:)

Tribes needed children to increase their power. If a person was engaging in sexual pleasure without having children, they were not being a productive member of the tribe. Thus masterbation could well be seen as a waste of resources. In an odd way it is like not eating pork which was likely prohibited not because the animal is unclean but because pigs eat grains people can eat and thus were not an efficent use of food unlike animals who ate grass. The goal is tribal survival. That which does not help my tribe is evil and that which helps my tribe is good.

I know that those who were injured in 'the stones' weren't allowed to do some of the tabernacle stuff... I don't think the Mosaic Hebrews mentioned anything 'Kingdom of Heaven' related, about it...

Yeah, you're right. Checked the passage again and it's the congregation of the Lord, not the kingdom of heaven:


He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Could be connected... but why would Jesus be picking out an impure vessel in Mosaic Law, to hold up as the paragon of Christian Law?

I dunno, maybe it could be interpreted as a clarification; that is, that those eunuchs who sacrifice their "bits" in the name of God shouldn't be cast out of the temple/church. Really, I'm grasping a little here, and can't for the life of me remember what the original context of the Dueteronomy passage was (whether it was about eunuchs of other faiths or those who commit the act for Jehovah). I just read "eunuchs" and it created an instant association in my mind with the passage in Deuteronomy. Bah, too tired to keep this up, will probably go to bed now. It made sense at one point.

I see it a little differently. He seems more to be criticizing the "hardness" of people's hearts than the law itself IMO.

Plus what he said. It seems somewhat in keeping with the anti-Pharisee line of not interpreting the laws overly strictly, ie supervening all other considerations.

I dunno, maybe it could be interpreted as a clarification; that is, that those eunuchs who sacrifice their "bits" in the name of God shouldn't be cast out of the temple/church. Really, I'm grasping a little here, and can't for the life of me remember what the original context of the Dueteronomy passage was (whether it was about eunuchs of other faiths or those who commit the act for Jehovah). I just read "eunuchs" and it created an instant association in my mind with the passage in Deuteronomy. Bah, too tired to keep this up, will probably go to bed now. It made sense at one point.


Well, the GENERAL intention of that part of Deuteronomy, was to define who could enter the Tabernacle... basically.

And, the general point of Jesus' proclamation... was about resisting the flesh, wasn't it?

Erm... maybe there is a connection... but... ?

I don't think I DID call him names.... but, that is the only instance I can think of where I MIGHT have done such a thing.
Unless you mean 'troll' as the name... I'm just using the forum term (it's in the Frequently Asked Questions, somewhere, I think) that describes that action... flamers-for-instigation... are 'trolls', and what they are doing is 'trolling'.
Believe me, I asked him to stop, even warned him that moderators would shut him down. In the end, I walked away from it all (although the lovely fellow proceeded to say some things to the ladies present, that just DON'T bear repeating... so perhaps I shouldn't have left...), and 30 minutes later, it was a locked thread, and he was enjoying a forum ban...

Ohhh diddums, did you miss me? ;) :)