NationStates Jolt Archive

you decide!

sexual freedom, freedom triumps religious extreamism.

"God" law or "good" law?

Freedom. A good law must protect freedom, so if your "god law" is in conflict with that it is a bad law.

I guess for me it depends on what the context is. If you mean in regard to what the laws of a country should be, I would say that sexual freedom is preferable. People should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies, even when their actions are immoral, stupid or disgusting. If God wanted people to be forced to follow his commands, he could force them to follow his commands. He doesn't need some government acting as his sword arm.

On the other hand, I believe that on a personal level, sexual freedom can be very dangerous. There are good reasons why most religions place restrictions on sexuality (STDs spring readily to mind). Sexual freedom is a bit like hitting yourself in the face: it should not be illegal, but its practice is inadvisable.

I am a Christian and I believe that God really has told us that sex is only appropriate between a man and woman who have an exclusive, lifelong commitment to each other, but I have no intention of forcing non-Christians to follow God's laws (It would do them no good anyway, as salvation is through grace, not works).

Whichever one lets me do more than just the missionary with a girl I'm not married to. :D

I guess for me it depends on what the context is. If you mean in regard to what the laws of a country should be, I would say that sexual freedom is preferable. People should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies, even when their actions are immoral, stupid or disgusting. If God wanted people to be forced to follow his commands, he could force them to follow his commands. He doesn't need some government acting as his sword arm.

On the other hand, I believe that on a personal level, sexual freedom can be very dangerous. There are good reasons why most religions place restrictions on sexuality (STDs spring readily to mind). Sexual freedom is a bit like hitting yourself in the face: it should not be illegal, but its practice is inadvisable.

I am a Christian and I believe that God really has told us that sex is only appropriate between a man and woman who have an exclusive, lifelong commitment to each other, but I have no intention of forcing non-Christians to follow God's laws (It would do them no good anyway, as salvation is through grace, not works).
Freedom doesn't mean doing all the stupid things in the book. It only means that you are allowed to do it, eg if you think something is good and I think it is bad, then if that thing does not involve me you can follow your conscience and not mine.

Freedom doesn't mean doing all the stupid things in the book. It only means that you are allowed to do it, eg if you think something is good and I think it is bad, then if that thing does not involve me you can follow your conscience and not mine.

Amen.

Whichever one lets me do more than just the missionary with a girl I'm not married to. :D

Including videotaping sticking a plunger...

you decide!


No choice to make - as there is no such thing as god how can there be any laws made by him/her/it?

Sexual freedom! :)

A little of both, but you cannot have anything like the ancient greeks....for the love of God, you don't need fucking everything in sight or orgies of 30+ people.

A little of both, but you cannot have anything like the ancient greeks....for the love of God, you don't need fucking everything in sight or orgies of 30+ people.
Why?

I guess for me it depends on what the context is. If you mean in regard to what the laws of a country should be, I would say that sexual freedom is preferable. People should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies, even when their actions are immoral, stupid or disgusting. If God wanted people to be forced to follow his commands, he could force them to follow his commands. He doesn't need some government acting as his sword arm.

On the other hand, I believe that on a personal level, sexual freedom can be very dangerous. There are good reasons why most religions place restrictions on sexuality (STDs spring readily to mind). Sexual freedom is a bit like hitting yourself in the face: it should not be illegal, but its practice is inadvisable.

I am a Christian and I believe that God really has told us that sex is only appropriate between a man and woman who have an exclusive, lifelong commitment to each other, but I have no intention of forcing non-Christians to follow God's laws (It would do them no good anyway, as salvation is through grace, not works).
hey that's what I was going to say... oh well thanks for saving me from having to type it. :)

GOD'S LAW is perfect and designed for our benefit.

GOD'S LAW is perfect and designed for our benefit.
Which god?

Which god?

The only true GOD of all Creation :)

The only true GOD of all Creation :)
Which one's that? Christianitys god? Islams god? Hindu gods?

Which one's that? Christianitys god? Islams god? Hindu gods?

The GOD of Abraham, Issac, Moses; the Father of Jesus Christ.

The only true GOD of all Creation :)

And that would be...no, seriously, who is it really? The Christian God? Muslim? Jehovah? Jehovah's third cousin Jack? Come on, we all know God's a bit more of a wise guy than to just make everything perfect.

Sexual freedom with a heaping side of common sense and knowledge is the best solution. Such courses as teaching only abstinence are asking for trouble. My school system taught abstinence with a whole sampler platter of backup plans, as if to say, "Don't go screwing everything in sight, but if you must, at least protect yourself, and here's how." As a result (well, it was partially due to this, anyway, I imagine) we hardly had ANY people getting pregnant in high school. I heard of one and that wasn't really confirmed. No one with a bun in the oven at graduation...yes, at my high school graduation, the pregnant grads were outnumbered by grads wearing chef hats (1-0, as far as I know.)

Education is the way. Give people knowledge already. It makes people smarter, more inclined ot make good decisions, and it bugs the hell out of people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. And in the end, isn't that the most important thing of all?

And that would be...no, seriously, who is it really? The Christian God? Muslim? Jehovah? Jehovah's third cousin Jack? Come on, we all know God's a bit more of a wise guy than to just make everything perfect.

Sexual freedom with a heaping side of common sense and knowledge is the best solution. Such courses as teaching only abstinence are asking for trouble. My school system taught abstinence with a whole sampler platter of backup plans, as if to say, "Don't go screwing everything in sight, but if you must, at least protect yourself, and here's how." As a result (well, it was partially due to this, anyway, I imagine) we hardly had ANY people getting pregnant in high school. I heard of one and that wasn't really confirmed. No one with a bun in the oven at graduation...yes, at my high school graduation, the pregnant grads were outnumbered by grads wearing chef hats (1-0, as far as I know.)

Education is the way. Give people knowledge already. It makes people smarter, more inclined ot make good decisions, and it bugs the hell out of people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. And in the end, isn't that the most important thing of all?

If the bible principles on sexual morality were applied, there would'nt be an AIDS Crisis in the world, Teenage pregnancy would not be an issue, std's, prostitution, paedophilia, abortions, bigamy, adultery, divorce, rape........The list goes on, and for what a few minutes of pleasure! :headbang:

Sexual Freedom and education, obviously. Not everyone believes in God, to dictate laws based on the teachings of a deity that may or may not exist is more than a little foolish. Not that there aren't some very practical and good things that the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God (for those who don't know, all 3 religions believe in the same one) supposedly wants for us, there are, but they should be translated into the secular world. Like don't kill people, obvious but you get the point.

You can't make homosexuality/BDSM/masterbation/anything else like this that the church disagrees with illegal, that would be immoral. If I respect your religious beliefs, you should respect mine/lack of mine :)

If the bible principles on sexual morality were applied, there would'nt be an AIDS Crisis in the world, Teenage pregnancy would not be an issue, std's, prostitution, paedophilia, abortions, bigamy, adultery, divorce, rape........The list goes on, and for what a few minutes of pleasure! :headbang:

The nations suffering most from the HIV crisis are the African ones. So what you are effectively saying is that if they were taught Christian values and forced to follow them, they wouldn't be facing the crisis? *rolls eyes* That's bit naive. It's much more complicated than that.

Sex for pleasure is natural, if it weren't we wouldn't enjoy it! Humans have been around a heck of a lot longer than Christianity, to come along and impose your views on others is nothing the Church hasn't tried before and it remains just as unethical as it was during the Inquisition.

The nations suffering most from the HIV crisis are the African ones. So what you are effectively saying is that if they were taught Christian values and forced to follow them, they wouldn't be facing the crisis? *rolls eyes* That's bit naive. It's much more complicated than that.

Sex for pleasure is natural, if it weren't we wouldn't enjoy it! Humans have been around a heck of a lot longer than Christianity, to come along and impose your views on others is nothing the Church hasn't tried before and it remains just as unethical as it was during the Inquisition.

I have always upheld peoples right to believe what they choose, if I said you must worship my way, I take away your free will, I do not believe in imposing my views on others through false teachings as some have the custom, and I am an ex-catholic.

how bout if we make "god law" be the laws of the god dionysus? then we get BOTH!

you decide!
neither! remove them both.

This is like asking whether the Tooth Fairy's law trumps liberty.

Even if God existed, wasn't he the inventor of free will to begin with?
If you choose to follow his law, you're rewarded in the next life.

Here, liberty is the highest law.

I guess for me it depends on what the context is. If you mean in regard to what the laws of a country should be, I would say that sexual freedom is preferable. People should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies, even when their actions are immoral, stupid or disgusting. If God wanted people to be forced to follow his commands, he could force them to follow his commands. He doesn't need some government acting as his sword arm.

On the other hand, I believe that on a personal level, sexual freedom can be very dangerous. There are good reasons why most religions place restrictions on sexuality (STDs spring readily to mind). Sexual freedom is a bit like hitting yourself in the face: it should not be illegal, but its practice is inadvisable.

I am a Christian and I believe that God really has told us that sex is only appropriate between a man and woman who have an exclusive, lifelong commitment to each other, but I have no intention of forcing non-Christians to follow God's laws (It would do them no good anyway, as salvation is through grace, not works).

I'm for sexual freedom, but I'm also for sexual education... I'm also gay, and i see you said a man and a woman. That's not unexpected from a christian. Do you feel there has to be restrictions put upon me because I'm gay?

Abistence (SP?) is one of the biggest jokes... we should rather be teaching sexual education, and then one would choose not to be sleeping around with a bunch of people. I feel that people have the right to do what they want with their bodies, and christianity or any other religion has no right to infringe.

Look at it this way: I'm not a christian and I do not want christian morals pushed on me.

And christian values did not bring a halt to HIV spreading in Uganda... there are strong reports out showing that it was in fact condoms that halted it. Sex education is more important, then religious indoctrination.

I'm not going to let one dictate to me either about homosexuality and whether I should do it or not because their bible says it is wrong.

Freedom should trump 'morality law', in all cases. Morality laws just shouldn't exist, period.

Remember, with Freedom comes Responsibility... at least, it ought to.

Alright, here is a little something for you to chew on.

Let us assume that there is no God. Many people make this assumption; ironically these same people tend to rail on religious organizations that assume otherwise. This is ironic because if in fact there is no God, then there is no "higher basis" for these organizations and they are nothing more then humans getting creative. Point being, all the rules, regulations, morals, virtues, and beliefs of theistic organizations are entirely Human constructs that (logically based on the previous assumption being true) would have had to naturally evolve into human thought without any divine assistance.

If there is no God then all religious thought (which of course, undeniably exists :p ) would have had to evolve naturally and secularly. This means that the rules, regulations, morals, virtues, and beliefs of theistic organizations are the natural course of human evolution. In fact, as much so as government, law, civil order and other social constructs.

After all this, we are forced to conclude that the only difference between the Ten Commandments (or in this instance, religious sex laws) and traffic laws (both totally Human constructs) is that you can't be ticketed for using thy lord God's name in vain. :D

(On an odd tangent, the original Hebrew text specified “in vain oath” which is much more specific. Saying “God Damnit” when you smash your finger with a hammer is totally fine while saying “I swear to God that the leaf is green” when the leaf is obviously green is a sin because such a statement, or “oath,” was totally pointless, or “vain.”

Also, swearing to do something in God’s name and not actually doing it is also a sin in that respect.... but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.)

This means that the rules, regulations, morals, virtues, and beliefs of theistic organizations are the natural course of human evolution. In fact, as much so as government, law, civil order and other social constructs.

Um, sexuality is not infringed upon in the upcoming years, so it just shows that these religious "morals, virtues, and beliefs" don't mean much at all any more. For example in Europe, the catholic church is pretty much ignored.

That depends, if your GOD/god/God/Gawd/goddess/Immortal Enitity of Phil is willing to smite all people demonstrating PDAs (Public Displays of Affection) that last longer than 5 seconds and go past kissing, then I'll worship him all the way (oh, and he has to stop exhibitionists).
Otherwise, people's sexual relations really isn't in my judicial purview.

There is no "God's law". There are laws made by the general society (being that kings, governments, landlors... whatever) and laws made by the religious entities. I don't recall also a prophet like Jesus Christ ever being quoted being against sexual freedom - the first christian laws only came many centuries after...

sexual freedom is encouraged by a great many Gods throughout the ages. So, God's law can be interpreted to be for, depending on which god you follow.

As such, I choose sexual freedom since god's law is not well defined.

There is no "God's law". There are laws made by the general society (being that kings, governments, landlors... whatever) and laws made by the religious entities. I don't recall also a prophet like Jesus Christ ever being quoted being against sexual freedom - the first christian laws only came many centuries after...

GOD'S law on sexual conduct is listed in Leviticus Chapter 18

GOD'S law on sexual conduct is listed in Leviticus Chapter 18
Why on earth would we want to base our laws on your fairty tale?

Sexual freedom is much more important than "god's" laws. Of course it should be restricted in some cases to protect children and prevent rape, but otherwise the law should work to increase freedom for all. Basing law on religious beleif only serves to discriminate against the non-religious and those who don't beleive in the dominant religion.

Why on earth would we want to base our laws on your fairty tale?

Sexual freedom is much more important than "god's" laws. Of course it should be restricted in some cases to protect children and prevent rape, but otherwise the law should work to increase freedom for all. Basing law on religious beleif only serves to discriminate against the non-religious and those who don't beleive in the dominant religion.


Alright, here is a little something for you to chew on.

Let us assume that there is no God. Many people make this assumption; ironically these same people tend to rail on religious organizations that assume otherwise. This is ironic because if in fact there is no God, then there is no "higher basis" for these organizations and they are nothing more then humans getting creative. Point being, all the rules, regulations, morals, virtues, and beliefs of theistic organizations are entirely Human constructs that (logically based on the previous assumption being true) would have had to naturally evolve into human thought without any divine assistance.

If there is no God then all religious thought (which of course, undeniably exists :p ) would have had to evolve naturally and secularly. This means that the rules, regulations, morals, virtues, and beliefs of theistic organizations are the natural course of human evolution. In fact, as much so as government, law, civil order and other social constructs.

After all this, we are forced to conclude that the only difference between the Ten Commandments (or in this instance, religious sex laws) and traffic laws (both totally Human constructs) is that you can't be ticketed for using thy lord God's name in vain. :D

If there is no God then all laws, "religious" or secular in nature, are all the work of humans. Period.

Why on earth would we want to base our laws on your fairty tale?

Sexual freedom is much more important than "god's" laws. Of course it should be restricted in some cases to protect children and prevent rape, but otherwise the law should work to increase freedom for all. Basing law on religious beleif only serves to discriminate against the non-religious and those who don't beleive in the dominant religion.

The dominant religion Cannot claim supremacy on this subject, recent news reports tell us that, but you talk about discrimination; Where does it end? Everyone from Prostitutes to Nechrophilliacs can claim that one!

you decide!

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom.
Laws are made to be challenged. In a way God is acting as a dictator as we can not take him to court/senate to question the constitutionality of said law.

If you meant God's law, then it is more important by far.

Well… I'd of course prefer it if God's law was followed more… but I've decided freedom should be kept. I mean, what's the point actually banning something that doesn't harm others? I do think unrestricted sex is immoral - but I don't see the point in banning it. Discouraging, maybe - but not banning.

However, I don't think the government should spend money along with the sexual freedom… you know, supplying condoms and suchlike. That's almost as bad.

Why on earth would we want to base our laws on your fairty tale?

Sexual freedom is much more important than "god's" laws. Of course it should be restricted in some cases to protect children and prevent rape, but otherwise the law should work to increase freedom for all. Basing law on religious beleif only serves to discriminate against the non-religious and those who don't beleive in the dominant religion.




Why on earth would we want to base our laws on your delusional nihilistic sensuality?


God's law is much more important than sexual "freedom" (aka, primal urges). Basing law on purely secular belief serves to discriminate against the religious and those who don't believe in atheism or humanism.

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom.
Laws are made to be challenged. In a way God is acting as a dictator as we can not take him to court/senate to question the constitutionality of said law.

We have Free Will!

GOD'S law on sexual conduct is listed in Leviticus Chapter 18
So you don't eat shellfish? Leviticus condemns that too. Ever eaten rabbit? Whoops, that's an abomination. Worn fabric made of more than one kind of cloth? Go directly to Hell. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Eaten pork? You'll burn for that. If you're female, have you worn pants? No heaven for you. Have you slept on the bed of a menstruating woman? It's the Lake of Fire for you.

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom.
Laws are made to be challenged. In a way God is acting as a dictator as we can not take him to court/senate to question the constitutionality of said law.

Errm, we can also choose not to obey most of his laws so your point is umm... pointless.

Why on earth would we want to base our laws on your delusional nihilistic sensuality?


God's law is much more important than sexual "freedom" (aka, primal urges). Basing law on purely secular belief serves to discriminate against the religious and those who don't believe in atheism or humanism.
Explain how allowing something for everyone is discriminating against a specific religious doctrine.

Explain furthermore why we should follow one God's law (Christian) but not another (Dionisus).

Explain how allowing something for everyone is discriminating against a specific religious doctrine.

Explain furthermore why we should follow one God's law (Christian) but not another (Dionisus).

But if there is no Christian God and no Dionisus then both of their rules are as human as traffic ordinance. On that token, we can't have ANY law at all because it would conflict with someone elses.

So you don't eat shellfish? Leviticus condemns that too. Ever eaten rabbit? Whoops, that's an abomination. Worn fabric made of more than one kind of cloth? Go directly to Hell. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Eaten pork? You'll burn for that. If you're female, have you worn pants? No heaven for you. Have you slept on the bed of a menstruating woman? It's the Lake of Fire for you.

Well the law of GOD given through Moses, was concluded by JESUS, however the laws that are still in force are repeated in the new Covenent found from Matthew through Revelation. This includes Sexual Conduct.

There is no "God's law". There are laws made by the general society (being that kings, governments, landlors... whatever) and laws made by the religious entities. I don't recall also a prophet like Jesus Christ ever being quoted being against sexual freedom - the first christian laws only came many centuries after...



Matthew 5:32 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.


Matthew 5:27-30 27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.


Matthew 15:16-20 16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "



John 8:1-12 1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 Now early[a] in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught[b] in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded[c] us that such should be stoned.[d] But what do You say?”[e] 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.[f]
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[g] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience,[h] went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,[i] “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?[j] Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and[k] sin no more.”
12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

But if there is no Christian God and no Dionisus then both of their rules are as human as traffic ordinance. On that token, we can't have ANY law at all because it would conflict with someone elses.
Kids, the above is a logical fallacy known as a non sequitor, in which the inference made does not logically stem from the assumption.

Explain how allowing something for everyone is discriminating against a specific religious doctrine.

Explain furthermore why we should follow one God's law (Christian) but not another (Dionisus).



Because God's law is demonstrably good for society, where as the revelry of Dionysius would lead to disorder?

Explain how allowing something for everyone is discriminating against a specific religious doctrine.

Explain furthermore why we should follow one God's law (Christian) but not another (Dionisus).

Maybe Neo Rogolia believes that a law allowing freedom (in this case, freedom of sexuality) discriminates against those whose religion speaks out against such a freedom. Hmmm...perhaps such a law would simply be upholding the separation of church and state. The law does not say "you must have sex this often, in this many different ways," so her complaint is rather ridiculous. It does not discriminate against anyone, it simply allows freedom to do certain things - whereas the opposite, a law that made certain sexual acts illegal, would be quite discriminatory.

Do you feel there has to be restrictions put upon me because I'm gay?

No. Homosexuality is a sin, but no more so than any of the other sins listed in the Bible. Everyone has sinned, so if we start making sinning illegal, we're all going to wind up in jail.

Look at it this way: I'm not a christian and I do not want christian morals pushed on me.

I am a Christian and I do not want Christian morals pushed on me. Pushing Christian morality on people does no one any good. A person must choose to believe and to follow God's law.

Well the law of GOD given through Moses, was concluded by JESUS, however the laws that are still in force are repeated in the new Covenent found from Matthew through Revelation. This includes Sexual Conduct.
Where? And don't give me Corinthians. That was written by Paul, and is mistranslated besides. (Arsenokotai means "male temple prostitutes", not "homosexuals".)

Also, where does Yeshua say that the Mosiac laws are no longer valid?

Because God's law is demonstrably good for society,
Which is why the Roman Empire is still in existance.

Why on earth would we want to base our laws on your delusional nihilistic sensuality?


God's law is much more important than sexual "freedom" (aka, primal urges). Basing law on purely secular belief serves to discriminate against the religious and those who don't believe in atheism or humanism.
Why does it matter to you?

Can you not live by God's laws on your own accord and let those who don't want to live how they want?

Why does what another person chooses to do affect you and your relationship with your god in any way?

Because God's law is demonstrably good for society, where as the revelry of Dionysius would lead to disorder?
How is God's law of banning certain sexual practices good for society?

Surely a god's edict must be followed or else you are sinful. If Dionysus want disorder, then disorder there should be. Who are you to deny my god's ideology and want? Who died and made you the one who gets to decide which god is the best?

If there is no God then all laws, "religious" or secular in nature, are all the work of humans. Period.
I agree. All laws are human laws.

Gods law

The dominant religion Cannot claim supremacy on this subject, recent news reports tell us that, but you talk about discrimination; Where does it end? Everyone from Prostitutes to Nechrophilliacs can claim that one!
Prostitutes are just enterprising business people and don't need some arbitrary religious law interfering with their business. Necrophilliacs, as long as they get permission from the corpse before it dies, aren't doing anything wrong either.

Why on earth would we want to base our laws on your delusional nihilistic sensuality?

God's law is much more important than sexual "freedom" (aka, primal urges). Basing law on purely secular belief serves to discriminate against the religious and those who don't believe in atheism or humanism.

You know, as a Christian, I find this line of thought offensive and potentially destructive. Have you utterly forgotten the concept of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars?

The laws of God are exactly that, the laws of God. They are not now nor should they ever be the laws of man. There may be parallel development, but when you start to use one as the basis for the other then it always ends in trouble and usually people dying.

The fact that you can sit here and post your opinion is the result of the laws of man. It is disconcerting that you are so quick to give up the freedoms of others while wantonly wallowing in your own. To support the ability of others to make their own choices regarding their person is Christian, whereas to pridefully and boastfully claim to know more about someone's personal relationship with God than they themselves do is not.

It is incomprehensible to me how many fellow Christians are willing to apply slippery slope rationale to everything except themselves. Do you really believe that you are invulnerable? Sure, it's easy to say we should outlaw things on the basis that we find them objectionable to our religions, but what about when other religions find YOU offensive? What about when your own religion finds you offensive? What about when the laws are passed against you and how you worship or what you believe or, most laughably, what you feel?

Recently an entire sect of Christianity voted to recognize and support same-sex marriages. Are you going to again show how much pride lurks in your heart and say that they are wrong because you know more about their relationship with God than they do? Or are you going to humbly admit that, while you may not agree with it, you can not say they are wrong because you are not them and that in order for you to exercise your right to believe that same-sex relationships are wrong you must support their right to believe differently?

The laws of man should never be based on religious principle for the simple reason that the laws of man should never be used to govern religion. Once you open the door, the restrictions can go both ways. It is not descriminatory to any religious institution to develop laws this way. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, then don't. But for the love of all that's holy, leave God out of it because, if given everything going on in the world today, this is at the top of his priority list then he is NOT paying attention!

But if there is no Christian God and no Dionisus then both of their rules are as human as traffic ordinance. On that token, we can't have ANY law at all because it would conflict with someone elses.
So you agree that God's law is not a good basis for societal conduct.

I'm glad you agree with us that sexual freedom is better.

Which is why the Roman Empire is still in existance.



....which had a law, when Christians managed to actually have a public voice after the pagans stopped feeding them to the lions, that lasted a short while until wickedness set in once more. Name a society that followed His law strictly and collapsed from internal disorder :)

Where? And don't give me Corinthians. That was written by Paul, and is mistranslated besides. (Arsenokotai means "male temple prostitutes", not "homosexuals".)

You're going to discount both books of Corinthians because they were written by Paul? I guess that means you don't like his other works either. There goes half the New Testament . . .

Also, where does Yeshua say that the Mosiac laws are no longer valid?

Peter was specifically instructed by God (who is one and the same with Yeshua according to mainstream Christian theology) to eat "unclean" animals:

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

(Acts 10:9-16)

Why on earth would we want to base our laws on your delusional nihilistic sensuality?


God's law is much more important than sexual "freedom" (aka, primal urges). Basing law on purely secular belief serves to discriminate against the religious and those who don't believe in atheism or humanism.
Bullshit. The religious wouldn't be prevented from abstaining before marriage or avoiding gay sex under secular law that values liberty over arbitrary and useless religious law. The religious would be free under such secular law. The non-religious would also be free.

But if there is no Christian God and no Dionisus then both of their rules are as human as traffic ordinance. On that token, we can't have ANY law at all because it would conflict with someone elses.
Well we could have secular laws based on the idea of maximizing freedom for all.

....which had a law, when Christians managed to actually have a public voice after the pagans stopped feeding them to the lions, that lasted a short while until wickedness set in once more. Name a society that followed His law strictly and collapsed from internal disorder :)
The Roman Empire was Christian when it collapsed. It was Christian from the time of Constantine onward. Also, don't discount the Eastern Roman Empire, which was Christian from its beginning to its end.

Well the law of GOD given through Moses, was concluded by JESUS, however the laws that are still in force are repeated in the new Covenent found from Matthew through Revelation. This includes Sexual Conduct.
You can live by those rules if you want to, but why should anyone else be forced to?

You're going to discount both books of Corinthians because they were written by Paul? I guess that means you don't like his other works either. There goes half the New Testament . . .

Well, since Paul wasn't a prophet, his words cannot be taken as those of YHWH.

Because God's law is demonstrably good for society, where as the revelry of Dionysius would lead to disorder?
I don't see how opression based on religious beleif and sexual orientation can be good for society and freedom for all is bad.

....which had a law, when Christians managed to actually have a public voice after the pagans stopped feeding them to the lions, that lasted a short while until wickedness set in once more. Name a society that followed His law strictly and collapsed from internal disorder :)
There have been no nations that follow "His" law strictly. Why?
1) Nobody can really agree what "His" laws are because he's apparently incapable of explaining himself clearly. I guess omnipotence is overrated.

2) "His" laws are unworkable because they violate man's natural genetic tendencies.

you decide!
No question. Sexual freedom.
Let everyone decide for themselves. If God really exists, then those who disobey His law will answer to Him in the end. If He doesn't, it makes no matter.

If He does exist, He will not hold you or anyone else accountable for failing to stop another individual from breaking His laws. God doesn't work that way.

The only person that EVER paid for sins not his own was Jesus. So how about the rest of you religious zealots quit worrying about the sins of others? God, if He exists, will not hold YOU accountable for the sins of others, because you sure as hell ain't Jesus!

There is not usually a societal interest in restricting sexual freedom, so I say allow it. There is societal interest in banning it with children and animals, so there freedom should not reign supreme.

If the bible principles on sexual morality were applied, there would'nt be an AIDS Crisis in the world, Teenage pregnancy would not be an issue, std's, prostitution, paedophilia, abortions, bigamy, adultery, divorce, rape........The list goes on, and for what a few minutes of pleasure! :headbang:
Actually since the Biblical ideas about sex are followed in many parts of Africa, such as no contraception, there are more STDs there.

gods law... freedom isnt no rules or america and every other "free" country would have murderers every where because they are "free". god gives you the chance to choose, but he lays a rules also. if you want to kill someone that doesnt make the law a bad law, and what would u think if u were on the other end of the gun barrel

Well, since Paul wasn't a prophet, his words cannot be taken as those of YHWH.

2 TIM 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired of GOD..."

gods law... freedom isnt no rules or america and every other "free" country would have murderers every where because they are "free". god gives you the chance to choose, but he lays a rules also. if you want to kill someone that doesnt make the law a bad law, and what would u think if u were on the other end of the gun barrel
One doesn't need to base law on "god" in order to ban murder. A murderer is horribly violating the rights of his victims, therefore one can make secular laws to ban it.

2 TIM 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired of GOD..."
Circular logic.

The Roman Empire was Christian when it collapsed. It was Christian from the time of Constantine onward. Also, don't discount the Eastern Roman Empire, which was Christian from its beginning to its end.
we arent arguing about the empires that were christain that collapsed, freedom is part of seperating church from state, but in the 1700s i dont think they foresaw people not having any religion at all whether it be buddhism, shintoism, hinduism, christrianity, judaism, ect.

gods law... freedom isnt no rules or america and every other "free" country would have murderers every where because they are "free". god gives you the chance to choose, but he lays a rules also. if you want to kill someone that doesnt make the law a bad law, and what would u think if u were on the other end of the gun barrel

False analogy. Sex between consenting adults bears no comparison to murder.

One doesn't need to base law on "god" in order to ban murder. A murderer is horribly violating the rights of his victims, therefore one can make secular laws to ban it.

yeah but what we're debating is one fo the 10 commandments, and so is murder, so it is a valuable connection, and if we have the freedom to choose i think we should choose what god would want, has anyone forgotten WWJD?

if u rnt religious i dont think this should really apply to you

yeah but what we're debating is one fo the 10 commandments, and so is murder, so it is a valuable connection, and if we have the freedom to choose i think we should choose what god would want, has anyone forgotten WWJD?

if u rnt religious i dont think this should really apply to you

What would Jesus do?

What WOULDN'T Jesus do?

You know, as a Christian, I find this line of thought offensive and potentially destructive. Have you utterly forgotten the concept of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars?

The laws of God are exactly that, the laws of God. They are not now nor should they ever be the laws of man. There may be parallel development, but when you start to use one as the basis for the other then it always ends in trouble and usually people dying.

The fact that you can sit here and post your opinion is the result of the laws of man. It is disconcerting that you are so quick to give up the freedoms of others while wantonly wallowing in your own. To support the ability of others to make their own choices regarding their person is Christian, whereas to pridefully and boastfully claim to know more about someone's personal relationship with God than they themselves do is not.

It is incomprehensible to me how many fellow Christians are willing to apply slippery slope rationale to everything except themselves. Do you really believe that you are invulnerable? Sure, it's easy to say we should outlaw things on the basis that we find them objectionable to our religions, but what about when other religions find YOU offensive? What about when your own religion finds you offensive? What about when the laws are passed against you and how you worship or what you believe or, most laughably, what you feel?

Recently an entire sect of Christianity voted to recognize and support same-sex marriages. Are you going to again show how much pride lurks in your heart and say that they are wrong because you know more about their relationship with God than they do? Or are you going to humbly admit that, while you may not agree with it, you can not say they are wrong because you are not them and that in order for you to exercise your right to believe that same-sex relationships are wrong you must support their right to believe differently?

The laws of man should never be based on religious principle for the simple reason that the laws of man should never be used to govern religion. Once you open the door, the restrictions can go both ways. It is not descriminatory to any religious institution to develop laws this way. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, then don't. But for the love of all that's holy, leave God out of it because, if given everything going on in the world today, this is at the top of his priority list then he is NOT paying attention!




1. Psalm 19:7-14

2. Matthew 22:21 is referring to taxation. Not only have you taken it out of context, you used it to support a statement that could not even be supported by the verse, in context or not!

3. Jude 1:5-11

4. 2 Peter 2:1

5. Romans 1:18-28

6. Matthew 15:16-20

7. 2 Chronicles 26:5

8. Job 28:28

9. Psalm 111:10

10. Psalm 128

11. Proverbs 3:7

12. Proverbs 8:13

13. Proverbs 14:26

14. Proverbs 15:16

15. Proverbs 15:33

16. Proverbs 24:21-15

17. Jeremiah 26:19

18. Colossians 2:8

Your last statement sounded very un-Christian, to the point of heresy and blasphemy. Perhaps Matthew 7:15 applies to you?

MATT 24:37 - "For just as the days of NOAH were, so the presenceof the Son of Man will be."

Well, since Paul wasn't a prophet, his words cannot be taken as those of YHWH.

he was a disciple... isnt that good enough for you?

yeah but what we're debating is one fo the 10 commandments, and so is murder, so it is a valuable connection, and if we have the freedom to choose i think we should choose what god would want, has anyone forgotten WWJD?

if u rnt religious i dont think this should really apply to you
Ok, religious law is fine for religious people, but the law of the land shouldn't be based on religion. If that's what you're saying, I agree. It's kinf of hard to understand exactly what you're getting at because of the way you spell and your grammar.

False analogy. Sex between consenting adults bears no comparison to murder.



It does if it is condemned by God.

Circular logic.



Backed up by miracles, fulfilled prophecy, and unrivaled wisdom.

What would Jesus do?


snipped original

WWJD?

1) quit his job
2) wander around with 12 unemployed guys and an ex-hooker
3) preach in hard to understand parables
4) give to anyone who asks and never expect payment in return
5) get convicted of a capital crime and die

It does if it is condemned by God.
Only if you can prove god exists and prove that he's condemned it.

Bullshit. The religious wouldn't be prevented from abstaining before marriage or avoiding gay sex under secular law that values liberty over arbitrary and useless religious law. The religious would be free under such secular law. The non-religious would also be free.



We would be prevented from living in a godly society where His will is followed, which is one of the most important human rights.

It does if it is condemned by God.

Well then, I guess I gotta be damned to be free.

Sounds good.

snipped original

WWJD?

1) quit his job
2) wander around with 12 unemployed guys and an ex-hooker
3) preach in hard to understand parables
4) give to anyone who asks and never expect payment in return
5) get convicted of a capital crime and die
Sounds almost...'fun'.

Backed up by miracles, fulfilled prophecy, and unrivaled wisdom.
I've seen no evidence of miracles. The "prophecies" refered to in the bible were so vague that one can find almost any event at almost any time to "fulfill" them. The Buddhists' wisdom is at least as good as Jesus', so were the teachings of other good people.

Only if you can prove god exists and prove that he's condemned it.



Then prove that God does not exist and your secular system of law should be followed instead of God's law :)

snipped original

WWJD?

1) quit his job
2) wander around with 12 unemployed guys and an ex-hooker
3) preach in hard to understand parables
4) give to anyone who asks and never expect payment in return
5) get convicted of a capital crime and die
you are thick headed

he was a disciple... isnt that good enough for you?
Perhaps you should read your Bible more. Paul wasn't a disciple.

he was a disciple... isnt that good enough for you?
Judas was a disciple too, you know.

your secular system of law should be followed instead of God's law :)
Amendment I. That's all the reason needed not to legislate religious laws in the U.S.

We would be prevented from living in a godly society where His will is followed, which is one of the most important human rights.
That isn't as important a right as the right to live one's life as one chooses without harming others. Therefore the law must balance your right to a "godly" society and other's rights to live as they choose. Other's rights win.

I've seen no evidence of miracles. The "prophecies" refered to in the bible were so vague that one can find almost any event at almost any time to "fulfill" them. The Buddhists' wisdom is at least as good as Jesus', so were the teachings of other good people.



I don't know, it seems to me that someone being born of a virgin in Bethlehem and fulfilling all the other prophecies of the Old Testament by Himself would be rather improbable....but I guess that's just me :rolleyes:

you are thick headed
What did Jesus do? What did he say to do? I think my list is very accurate from a biblical standpoint.

It does if it is condemned by God.
I've asked this before but got no response...

Why does it matter to you if another person is condemned if it doesn't matter to them?

Why does what another person does affect your relationship with your god?

i would love to find out how drunk commies deleted would propose to tell us god isnt real...he keeps banging his head against the wall :headbang:

I don't know, it seems to me that someone being born of a virgin in Bethlehem and fulfilling all the other prophecies of the Old Testament by Himself would be rather improbable....but I guess that's just me :rolleyes:
Unfortunately it's not just you. Others are just as easily fooled and just as easy to convince without hard evidence.

That isn't as important a right as the right to live one's life as one chooses without harming others. Therefore the law must balance your right to a "godly" society and other's rights to live as they choose. Other's rights win.



The right to live in a godly society is more important than the right to live one's life as one pleases, which isn't even a God-given right. Your "rights" are derived from some man who lives several centuries ago. My rights are derived from the omniscient Creator of the universe who originated the standards of morality. I'll take the word of the latter.

Then prove that God does not exist and your secular system of law should be followed instead of God's law :)
no.

you need to prove something exist before basing your arguments on it. Just as you need a good excuse to ban something.

There is no such thing as "proove that Saddam didn't have WMD". The fact that God (or WMD) are not found will never be accepted as proof of his inexistence.

Then prove that God does not exist and your secular system of law should be followed instead of God's law :)
Then prove that God does exist and your God's system of law should be followed instead of secular law :)


Or, you know, not.

Unfortunately it's not just you. Others are just as easily fooled and just as easy to convince without hard evidence.


But there is historical evidence reinforcing the claims of the Bible. Want to see it when I get back from picking my brother up from school?

i would love to find out how drunk commies deleted would propose to tell us god isnt real...he keeps banging his head against the wall :headbang:
The difference is I'm not trying to pass laws that say that you must stop beleiving in god. You seem to think that you have the right to legislate religious beleif without any evidence that your god even exists.

Perhaps you should read your Bible more. Paul wasn't a disciple.
hehe just cuz i dont really pay attention in bible skool i know what im talking about though so... in this case who the hell cares lol

i would love to find out how drunk commies deleted would propose to tell us god isnt real...he keeps banging his head against the wall :headbang:
How do you propose to show us God is real?

MATT 24:37 - "For just as the days of NOAH were, so the presenceof the Son of Man will be."
Thanks, because that vague verse really cleared things up. :rolleyes:

Then prove that God does exist and your God's system of law should be followed instead of secular law :)


Or, you know, not.


He cannot prove that I am wrong, therefore his law does not take precedence over mine at all. Which means I have just as much right as he does to pursue the implementation of my statutes :D

The right to live in a godly society is more important than the right to live one's life as one pleases, which isn't even a God-given right. Your "rights" are derived from some man who lives several centuries ago. My rights are derived from the omniscient Creator of the universe who originated the standards of morality. I'll take the word of the latter.
If that is true, then we should all live in a society under the rules set forth by Set, Horus and RA (among others). Now where does Ra says that sexual freedom is not allowed?

The right to live in a godly society is more important than the right to live one's life as one pleases, which isn't even a God-given right. Your "rights" are derived from some man who lives several centuries ago. My rights are derived from the omniscient Creator of the universe who originated the standards of morality. I'll take the word of the latter.
1) In order to prove that there are any god given rights you need to prove first that god exists. Good luck.

2) In the absence of proof of god given rights the law must balance the rights of one group of people against the rights of others in order to maximize liberty and FREE WILL. Isn't free will an important concept in your faith? Doesn't opposing it make you a hypocrite?

The difference is I'm not trying to pass laws that say that you must stop beleiving in god. You seem to think that you have the right to legislate religious beleif without any evidence that your god even exists.
Nein! Anyway, if you don't belive in God then why are you even replying? This thread was sexual freedom or god law, and if you dont belive in god then why do you put yourself in the middle? I don't understand. And we aren't trying to say put God in a constitution. You are trying to say we should take him out, even though he's not there. :confused:

But there is historical evidence reinforcing the claims of the Bible. Want to see it when I get back from picking my brother up from school?
Yes please.

He cannot prove that I am wrong, therefore his law does not take precedence over mine at all. Which means I have just as much right as he does to pursue the implementation of my statutes :D
No, you don't. First Amendment. Religious laws are unconstitutional.

I've asked this before but got no response...

Why does it matter to you if another person is condemned if it doesn't matter to them?

Why does what another person does affect your relationship with your god?



The society that fears God and follows His will shall be preserved. The nation that doesn't is susceptible to destruction. It does affect me to live in a society which is becoming corrupt, and it affects my spiritual life and discourages me when I am around heathen, and God's will takes priority over your will.

Perhaps you should read your Bible more. Paul wasn't a disciple.

Paul was spoken to by Christ in a vision that blinded him, as paul was told where to go by Christ; he is an apostle.

Judas Iscarriot was later removed as an apostle, following his betrayal of CHRIST.

He cannot prove that I am wrong, therefore his law does not take precedence over mine at all. Which means I have just as much right as he does to pursue the implementation of my statutes :D
No, in the event that god can't be shown to exist the law must allow maximum freedom for all in order to prevent people's freedom from being destroyed by an unsupported concept based on fear and superstition.

He cannot prove that I am wrong, therefore his law does not take precedence over mine at all. Which means I have just as much right as he does to pursue the implementation of my statutes :D
No, you don't.

If you believe God exists, then you have every right to follow his laws, and do what you feel is right and in accordance with scripture, but you have absolutely no right to impose those laws (that you follow based on your own opinions and beliefs) upon other people who may not share your beliefs.

Why does having "God's law" on the statute book bother you? Are you incapable of following His laws without a state to enforce them onto you? That's the only logical reason I can see.

If that is true, then we should all live in a society under the rules set forth by Set, Horus and RA (among others). Now where does Ra says that sexual freedom is not allowed?
No offense, but please tell me you don't believe in those Ancient Egyptians Gods. Anyway, There are 3 religions in the world that believe in the same God. I wanna know how that happens without it being real. Ask a muslim, christain, and jew about their religion before you answer that.

Nein! Anyway, if you don't belive in God then why are you even replying? This thread was sexual freedom or god law, and if you dont belive in god then why do you put yourself in the middle? I don't understand. And we aren't trying to say put God in a constitution. You are trying to say we should take him out, even though he's not there. :confused:
It's not a thread limited only to theists. I, as a citizen, can be affected by laws that are passed in the government based on someone's religion, therefore I should have my say.

Nein! Anyway, if you don't belive in God then why are you even replying? This thread was sexual freedom or god law, and if you dont belive in god then why do you put yourself in the middle? I don't understand. And we aren't trying to say put God in a constitution. You are trying to say we should take him out, even though he's not there. :confused:

No, Neo Rogolia IS trying to say that laws should be based on Christian morality. This is what we're fighting against, the destruction of humanitarian ideals...I loathe these people trying to enforce their view of morality upon the population through laws...I can't speak for anyone else, that's just me.

No offense, but please tell me you don't believe in those Ancient Egyptians Gods. Anyway, There are 3 religions in the world that believe in the same God. I wanna know how that happens without it being real. Ask a muslim, christain, and jew about their religion before you answer that.
Memetic evolution. The Jew meme mutated into the christian meme, that mutated into the muslim meme. Memes are "idea viruses". Some of us are just immune to those viruses. Others, like you, are infected.

No offense, but please tell me you don't believe in those Ancient Egyptians Gods.
Just as you scoff at those beliefs, we scoff at yours.

Thanks, because that vague verse really cleared things up. :rolleyes:

In the time of NOAH, people knew what the Law was, but they refused to listen until the flood came; JESUS was saying that When he is about to destroy the wicked from these days for GOD, people will ignore the warnings and the Law.

hope i made my point have to go to soccer practice

"gods law"? Is that a relative of Jude Law?

hope i made my point have to go to soccer practice

Sadly, I don't think you made much of a point, perhaps when you return.

No offense, but please tell me you don't believe in those Ancient Egyptians Gods. Anyway, There are 3 religions in the world that believe in the same God. I wanna know how that happens without it being real. Ask a muslim, christain, and jew about their religion before you answer that.
No offense, but why would the moral code teached by the Egyptian mythology would be inferior to the moral code teached by judaism or christianity?

As for your question about the main three monoteistic religion: Judaism borrowed a lot from earlier religious teachings but decided that there was only one god. Christianity did the same, basing his faith on Judaism but incroporating the teaching of Jesus, which they think is the son of the judaic God. Islam did the same thing, incorporating the teachings of Muhammad in addition to the baggage of judaism and christianity. Basically, both christianity and Islam was a revision of Judaism based on a new prophet they though was more important than the earlier.

There are still a great many religion that are polytheistic in nature. Heck, some religion aren't even theistic. For example, Buddhism is atheistic. It's all about teaching a moral code to it's follower for them to function in a society.

Memetic evolution. The Jew meme mutated into the christian meme, that mutated into the muslim meme. Memes are "idea viruses". Some of us are just immune to those viruses. Others, like you, are infected.

yeah, the i love my infection...and im not taking any antibiotics, you probably have control pills, just like you believe in birth control and abortion, if u dont want the kid then dont have sex...

yeah, the i love my infection...and im not taking any antibiotics, you probably have control pills, just like you believe in birth control and abortion, if u dont want the kid then dont have sex...

Whoa now, not sure you want to be getting into that quagmire. It will not go well, my friend.

In the time of NOAH, people knew what the Law was, but they refused to listen until the flood came; JESUS was saying that When he is about to destroy the wicked from these days for GOD, people will ignore the warnings and the Law.
Nice prophecy there. Put in place a set of laws that go against human nature so they will be ignored by most people, even those who beleive in the divine nature of those laws, then predict that people won't follow the laws.

It's the equivalent of me shooting a guy in the chest, preventing him from getting medical attention and predicting he will die. Doesn't exactly take divine powers.

yeah, the i love my infection...and im not taking any antibiotics, you probably have control pills, just like you believe in birth control and abortion, if u dont want the kid then dont have sex...
Of course you love the infection. It's a part of you. It manipulates you in order to survive and spread. Same way the zombies in the Romero movies love to bite people and spread their zombie condition.

Birth control is just fine. If you want the sex but don't want the kid, use birth control and everybody's happy. Being sexually repressed makes one act foolishly.

Nice prophecy there. Put in place a set of laws that go against human nature so they will be ignored by most people, even those who beleive in the divine nature of those laws, then predict that people won't follow the laws.

It's the equivalent of me shooting a guy in the chest, preventing him from getting medical attention and predicting he will die. Doesn't exactly take divine powers.

It does when he is speaking of billions of people.

It does when he is speaking of billions of people.
No, it really doesn't. I can make a law saying that all people need to voluntarily amputate their right hands. It's an easy bet to assume that most won't comply.

Commies, I'm just not even sure it's worth it, man. I mean, BROJAS and CC aren't exactly putting up stellar defenses here.

Well if some can, then all can

Commies, I'm just not even sure it's worth it, man. I mean, BROJAS and CC aren't exactly putting up stellar defenses here.
I'm easily entertained though.

I'm easily entertained though.

Fair enough.

Well if some can, then all can
Take Commies' law, and change "right hand" to "penis".

"If some can, then all can" doesn't quite work now does it?

Well if some can, then all can
what?

I'm easily entertained though.

GOD is not one to be mocked

what?

The bible speaks of the last days and those that will live through the Judgement of the earth, these are the ones that have followed the law of GOD.

GOD is not one to be mocked
Except for Loki the trickster.

And Hermes the messenger.

And who could forget the tantrum that Zeus did when he was tricked. Or was it Jupiter? I forget.

The bible speaks of the last days and those that will live through the Judgement of the earth, these are the ones that have followed the law of GOD.
What has that got to do with "Well if some can, then all can" ?

GOD is not one to be mocked
If it doesn't like it, then it can come down and tell me itself.

The bible speaks of the last days and those that will live through the Judgement of the earth, these are the ones that have followed the law of GOD.
And I'm supposed to beleive in your bible and your god just because you say so?

What has that got to do with "Well if some can, then all can" ?

If some can control themselves then others can to, billions need not be destroyed

And I'm supposed to beleive in your bible and your god just because you say so?

NO I don't dictate what others believe, that would interfere with free will; a gift from GOD

If some can control themselves then others can to, billions need not be destroyed
There are alot of things people can do, but many of those are things most people won't do. It doesn't take a genious to figgure that out, so it's not exactly divine wisdom to say that large numbers of people won't follow crazy laws made in the name of some "god".

If some can control themselves then others can to
Sounds like you're advocating acceptance of dictatorship, and what you are saying is very much in opposition to the sort of ideals Jesus taught.

Sounds like you're advocating acceptance of dictatorship, and what you are saying is very much in opposition to the sort of ideals Jesus taught.

Not at all, I am saying that I would rather die than Have to spend my life without GOD'S LAW. ALL I say is based upon Scripture

Not at all, I am saying that I would rather die than Have to spend my life without GOD'S LAW. ALL I say is based upon Scripture
But you are trying to use it in a dictatorial way to try and force others to follow "God's law"

No, in the event that god can't be shown to exist the law must allow maximum freedom for all in order to prevent people's freedom from being destroyed by an unsupported concept based on fear and superstition.



Who says that? You? There is no clause in our constitution stating that.

But you are trying to use it in a dictatorial way to try and force others to follow "God's law"



You're trying to force secular law upon people, which is equally "dictatorial" and also has no provable basis.

Who says that? You? There is no clause in our constitution stating that.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness rings a bell?

Sounds like you're advocating acceptance of dictatorship, and what you are saying is very much in opposition to the sort of ideals Jesus taught.



You know nothing of Jesus if you don't believe he was authoritarian.

You're trying to force secular law upon people, which is equally "dictatorial" and also has no provable basis.
Giving people the freedom to decide what set of morals and beliefs they want to follow and act upon them is as dictatorial as forcing people to abide by one set of morals and beliefs?

You're trying to force secular law upon people, which is equally "dictatorial" and also has no provable basis.


But the difference is that secular law adapts and changes to the times, and reflects the will of the majority. A religious law is stuck in whatever age it originates in, and so frequently does NOT reflect the will of the majority, but rather purely those that have the same religious affiliation.

You know nothing of Jesus if you don't believe he was authoritarian.
Blindly following the existing dominant religious idealogy is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness rings a bell?


And Who endows mankind with those freedoms?


*drum roll*


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.



That's what I thought ;)

sexual freedom, freedom triumps religious extreamism.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: Agreed

Blindly following the existing dominant religious idealogy is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.



No, it's not (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=10&verse=16&version=31&context=verse)

But the difference is that secular law adapts and changes to the times, and reflects the will of the majority. A religious law is stuck in whatever age it originates in, and so frequently does NOT reflect the will of the majority, but rather purely those that have the same religious affiliation.




For someone who opposes demagoguery, that statement was highly ironic.

No, it's not (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=10&verse=16&version=31&context=verse)

Think about what Nadkor just said.

What was the dominant religious ideology in the ancient world, in the Roman Empire? the worship of Jupiter, Saturn, Ceres, and the rest of the Roman Pantheon.

Jesus didn't say worshop them, so he didn't support following the dominant religous idealogy of the day. Just the Christian one.


*hopes that's what Nadkor meant*

No, it's not (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=10&verse=16&version=31&context=verse)
Irrevelent without context, and even then barely relevent to the discussion at hand.

Who says that? You? There is no clause in our constitution stating that.
But of course you will just ignore the clause in our constitution saying that government can't establish religion for the people. Using government and law to enforce your religious law on others is clearly establishment of religion.

And Who endows mankind with those freedoms?


*drum roll*


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


That's what I thought ;)
so you are a fellow pagan who revere Mother Nature and all his spirits?

That's what I thought. ;)

You're trying to force secular law upon people, which is equally "dictatorial" and also has no provable basis.
Sure it does. Secular law can be based on balancing the rights of people against each other to maximize liberty for all.

Think about what Nadkor just said.

What was the dominant religious ideology in the ancient world, in the Roman Empire? the worship of Jupiter, Saturn, Ceres, and the rest of the Roman Pantheon.

Jesus didn't say worshop them, so he didn't support following the dominant religous idealogy of the day. Just the Christian one.


*hopes that's what Nadkor meant*
I was thinking more of the Saducees and Pharisees who Jesus consistently challenged, but that's a good interpretation as well.


And remember folks, Jesus wasn't a Christian.

Sexual freedom by far.

And Who endows mankind with those freedoms?


*drum roll*






That's what I thought ;)
Neither our governnment nor our laws are based on the declaration of independance.

Neither our governnment nor our laws are based on the declaration of independance.



The "freedoms" you speak of are, the freedoms you so often cite in a vain effort to support your cause are granted by God! Knowing that, I suppose that means you have no basis to challenge laws based upon the fact they are stated by an "unprovable" God ;)

Considering the fact that I grew up and live in a secular country, sexual freedom, by far. "God's law" belongs to the churches and nowhere else outside.

God's law is much more important than sexual "freedom" (aka, primal urges). Basing law on purely secular belief serves to discriminate against the religious and those who don't believe in atheism or humanism.

if you have sexual freedom you're also free to abstain, so religious people are way less discriminated than non religious people with restrictive laws, and you're also free to teach your children about the dangers of sex, etc.

should there be a law that forbids sex outside of marriage, I believe that most young people would have sex anyway, only they'll had to hide more, they won't be able to get good teachings, and they'll just end in more trouble than they do now.

If God wanted people to be forced to follow his commands, he could force them to follow his commands. He doesn't need some government acting as his sword arm..

amen

If the bible principles on sexual morality were applied, there would'nt be an AIDS Crisis in the world, Teenage pregnancy would not be an issue, std's, prostitution, paedophilia, abortions, bigamy, adultery, divorce, rape........The list goes on, and for what a few minutes of pleasure! :headbang:

if the law, any sensible law, was respected by anyone in a country, there would be way less problems: no murders, no thievery, etc.
Unlucky, even when those laws are agreed upon by the majority (as the law against murder is, not as the laws against alcool were, or - i suppose - a law against sex outside marriage) there is a minority that violates them, and troubles happen.

Also, if the old testament principles on sexual morality were followed, teenage pregnancy outside marriage would probably be changed in underage marriages (I can't remember anything against sex between people who are not married nor promised to anybody else - only that they may be forced to marry if found), paedophilia (at least between older men and young but menstruating girls) would be lawful, bigamy too: possibly better than our current situation, but surely not what contemporary men would consider moral norm.

The "freedoms" you speak of are, the freedoms you so often cite in a vain effort to support your cause are granted by God! Knowing that, I suppose that means you have no basis to challenge laws based upon the fact they are stated by an "unprovable" God ;)

When was the last time god defended the right of free speech in court? Or any other right, for that matter?

The "freedoms" you speak of are, the freedoms you so often cite in a vain effort to support your cause are granted by God! Knowing that, I suppose that means you have no basis to challenge laws based upon the fact they are stated by an "unprovable" God ;)
1) you haven't provided any evidence that god exists
2) you haven't provided any evidence that if god exists he grants rights

Talk about a vain effort.

We would be prevented from living in a godly society where His will is followed, which is one of the most important human rights.
Important to WHO??

I give a flying FUCK what anyone in society does, as long as it does not directly harm me. Let them do what they do. God will not hold me accountable for their sins...or for failing to keep them from sinning.

God does not work that way. God does not hold people accountable for the sins of others.

Only one time, has God ever held someone accountable for the sins of others. And that was when Jesus paid for all of our sins...and that was His entire purpose. Assuming you believe the Bible, anyway.

At any rate, JESUS is the only person who was EVER held accountable for the sins of others. No one else ever has, and no one else ever will be, for Jesus took away the need for that, by taking our sins unto Himself.

So, how about you religious zealots quit worrying about the sins of others? If God is real...as you believe...then He will hold the sinners accountable in the end for their own sins. He will not hold YOU accountable for their sins. Because you sure as HELL aren't Jesus.

Then prove that God does not exist and your secular system of law should be followed instead of God's law :)
no. you were challenged to prove God exists, first. you can't just hand that off, and demand the other side prove non-existence.

Non-existence is literally impossible to prove on ANYTHING, anyway. Just ask Saddam.

If your God really exists, seems like you ought to be able to prove it, Neo.

No. Homosexuality is a sin, but no more so than any of the other sins listed in the Bible. Everyone has sinned, so if we start making sinning illegal, we're all going to wind up in jail.

I'm not going to follow the bible, so under my own morality, homosexuality is not wrong nor is it a sin. I feel there are christians who want to put gay people in mental institutions and jail.

And neo, secularism is non-religious. It isn't atheist, or humanist. It is based on secular principles which envision a state where no religion is put above or another (or lack of, like with atheism).

I don't feel people should litigate my ability to love. The christian theocratic idealism that seeks to abolish rights should be ignored. The United States of America is not Iran. You cannot use your god, or your religious text to limit the rights of other individuals. That's against the constitution and against what this country stands for. It would be anti-American to use religion as a reason to outlaw what a group or individual does.

One who believes in their god and the laws pushed by their religion will NOT impose those rules on others who do not believe their religion. This nation is built upon freedom of religion. That cannot be emphasised enough. Freedom of religion is fundamental because it entails that all individuals have a right to follow their own religion or lack of. Other people cannot push their religious philosophy on those who believe otherwise.

Neo is advocating a system that will lead to a dictatorship and then an eventual collapse. The system that provides democratic liberties is the one that is known to stand strong.

Also, one other thing there is no evidence supporting the bible or god.

Originally Posted by Neo Rogolia
Then prove that God does not exist and your secular system of law should be followed instead of God's law

Nice one. Prove to me that Allah doesn't exist or accept the Sharia all over the USA!

No, you don't.

If you believe God exists, then you have every right to follow his laws, and do what you feel is right and in accordance with scripture, but you have absolutely no right to impose those laws (that you follow based on your own opinions and beliefs) upon other people who may not share your beliefs.

Why does having "God's law" on the statute book bother you? Are you incapable of following His laws without a state to enforce them onto you? That's the only logical reason I can see.

No, she's just pissed off, because people are standing up to her and telling her that she isn't ALLOWED to FORCE her views and beliefs onto people who do not share them.
She wants the government to come in and FORCE everyone to share her beliefs and her views...even if they do not believe.

See, fundamentalist zealots are not happy to just live their own lives in misery, they want to make as many people as possible, be miserable right along with them. Good thing MY God doesn't require one to submit to a crappy, joyless life here on Earth in order to get some promised Paradise later.

I call upon the god worshipped by Neo Rogolia to give me a sign. If you exist then add a picture of yourself to this post.

I call upon the god worshipped by Neo Rogolia to give me a sign. If you exist then add a picture of yourself to this post.

http://www.venganza.org/shirtiwtb.jpg

I just had to..

I'll go with sexual freedom until we actually figure out what deity is correct. And wouldnt this thread be better if their was an actual poll for it?

if you have sexual freedom you're also free to abstain...(snip)

BEAUTIFUL! I was hoping someone other than me would bring up this very point. i, myself, happen to be one of a very rare breed...an honest-to-God asexual. I truly do not want to engage in sexual relations with anyone or anything. Male, female or beast. And that is why I support sexual freedom. I don't want some law coming about telling me that I must submit myself, sexually, to some man...because I do not want to.

I'm a woman, I'm single, and I probably will be single for life because I'm asexual, and, unfortunately, there are very few MEN who are asexual as well. I really wish I could find a nice, asexual man...so that I could enjoy all else a good relationship has to offer...love, companionship...but without sex.

At the same time, I really cannot stand prudes who are afraid of their own bodies...or other people's bodies, for that matter. And that is what most fundamentalists seem to be to me. Prudes who can't get over fear of their own bodies...or what others may be doing with their bodies.

I support sexual freedom, because I damn well want to retain the right to refuse to submit to anyone I do not want to submit to. glad someone ELSE brought this aspect of sexual freedom up before I did...because there are those on this list who would have discounted that aspect of it, based solely on the source...if I had come out with it first. I'll mention no names...they know who they are.

FREEEDOOOM! ALL THE WAY! This 'God's Law' doesn't have it's hold on me because I am not PART OF that religion!
I support sexual freedom, as do I most freedoms!
Now if only I wasn't still a virgin, mine might be a valid opinion... But then my sex drive or motivation therein is inherently nil, and I am too socially innept to find anyone anyway. But I can still support all people being free to be themselves, whatever that may be ^.^

I call upon the god worshipped by Neo Rogolia to give me a sign. If you exist then add a picture of yourself to this post.

Fuckin' ROFL!!! Why didn't I think of this first??? You rock, dude!!

BEAUTIFUL! I was hoping someone other than me would bring up this very point.
Several of us have been saying it the whole way through the thread :p

Fuckin' ROFL!!! Why didn't I think of this first??? You rock, dude!!

The flying spaghetti monster is going to get you for not adhereing the to morals of its noodles! ;)

you decide!

Sexual freedom is importen! I dont now why you shall forbid love between adult people. I think we shall encourage love.

this olso importen to have a good sex education. Becuse risk whit sexual transmit a disease. And for avoid pregnant in wrong time.

We would be prevented from living in a godly society where His will is followed, which is one of the most important human rights.

You realize just because you can have gay sex without getting stoned to death you don't have to have gay sex, right?

Just because you're allowed to smoke crack, worship Satan, masturbate 43 times a day, have sex with your neighbour AND his wife, eat crayfish, wear poly/cotton blends and feast on pork doesn't mean you gotta.

If you want to follow the laws of your imaginary father figure no one's stopping you. If you try to impose them on me, I suggest you bring an army.

You realize just because you can have gay sex without getting stoned to death you don't have to have gay sex, right?

Just because you're allowed to smoke crack, worship Satan, masturbate 43 times a day, have sex with your neighbour AND his wife, eat crayfish, wear poly/cotton blends and feast on pork doesn't mean you gotta.

If you want to follow the laws of your imaginary father figure no one's stopping you. If you try to impose them on me, I suggest you bring an army.
Hear hear … we are not preventing them from living their lifestyle … why the fuck do they think they have the right to determine mine

You realize just because you can have gay sex without getting stoned to death you don't have to have gay sex, right?

Just because you're allowed to smoke crack, worship Satan, masturbate 43 times a day, have sex with your neighbour AND his wife, eat crayfish, wear poly/cotton blends and feast on pork doesn't mean you gotta.

If you want to follow the laws of your imaginary father figure no one's stopping you. If you try to impose them on me, I suggest you bring an army.


Well said, Soviet!! Well said!!

Say it on!!

I call upon the god worshipped by Neo Rogolia to give me a sign. If you exist then add a picture of yourself to this post.
If you wish me to eat these cookies give me no ..sign .... it shal be done

Hear hear … we are not preventing them from living their lifestyle … why the fuck do they think they have the right to determine mine

Well, see, it is because (and they'll never cop to this, by the way) because our lifestyle grosses THEM out!! It doesn't offend God, but it sure as hell offends THEIR sensibilities.

they can take their dogmatic bullshit and stick it where the sun don't shine!

My Karma will run over their dogma.

It does if it is condemned by God.

How so.

Bum sex between some guy and his girl(or boy) friend isn't hurting anyone.

Murder directly impinges on someone's right to live.

yeah, the i love my infection...and im not taking any antibiotics, you probably have control pills, just like you believe in birth control and abortion, if u dont want the kid then dont have sex...

Or we can have sex and use protection so we don't wind-up with kids.

Not having sex is for kids. :p

How so.

Bum sex between some guy and his girl(or boy) friend isn't hurting anyone.

Murder directly impinges on someone's right to live. It harms themselves. Which is why I believe it should not be banned by law, as it's not harming anyone else, but murder should be banned as it is infringing on others. Sex is just filthy. (I'm not sure whether I'm being sarcastic or not… scary)

I reckon God's law is far more important than man's law. So I think I'll follow it.
Any objections?

It harms themselves. Which is why I believe it should not be banned by law, as it's not harming anyone else, but murder should be banned as it is infringing on others. Sex is just filthy. (I'm not sure whether I'm being sarcastic or not… scary)

I reckon God's law is far more important than man's law. So I think I'll follow it.
Any objections?

No, you follow what you want. If you believe that sex is filthy, I guess that's your own loss, then.

But please do explain in what way anal sex harms either of the participants?

No, you follow what you want. If you believe that sex is filthy, I guess that's your own loss, then.

But please do explain in what way anal sex harms either of the participants? Think of smoking. We let people smoke as much as they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, because all it harms is themselves. I meant harmful to the soul, although I suppose it could be slightly physically harmful. *tries not to think about that*

I wasn't being serious about sex being filthy, you know. Well… not entirely. ;)

Since when do we live under God's law?

Since when do we live under God's law? You choose to, or choose not to. Submission to God is, and should be, a choice made by the individual. A forced conversion is no conversion at all, a forced salvation is no salvation at all.

Which is why I would ask Neo Rogolia why it is needful to put the laws in place.

Think of smoking. We let people smoke as much as they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, because all it harms is themselves. I meant harmful to the soul, although I suppose it could be slightly physically harmful. *tries not to think about that*

I wasn't being serious about sex being filthy, you know. Well… not entirely. ;)

Sorry, I still don't get it. In what way does anal sex harm the soul? And I can assure you, it doesn't harm you physically. Unless you want it to, but that's not really my kind of game...

Freedom.

Sorry, I still don't get it. In what way does anal sex harm the soul? And I can assure you, it doesn't harm you physically. Unless you want it to, but that's not really my kind of game...
You don't really want me to go into detail about everything's proper place, pull out many Vatican archives, and long-windedly explain my wobbly position?

No, I thought not.

You choose to, or choose not to. Submission to God is, and should be, a choice made by the individual. A forced conversion is no conversion at all, a forced salvation is no salvation at all.
Great!

So I can sodomise all I want?

Great!

So I can sodomise all I want? Don't scare the horses. Or me, for that matter. :eek:

[EDIT/] Where is it actually written in God's Law - scripture, or even Vatican law - that sodomy between a man and a woman is wrong?

You don't really want me to go into detail about everything's proper place, pull out many Vatican archives, and long-windedly explain my wobbly position?

No, I thought not.

*lol
I would always trust the Vatican to know first-hand about anal sex.

If it's any consolation, my soul is still intact. It's not everybody's idea of a good time, but there are people who find anal sex exciting and stimulating. Personally, I think the fact that it is still stigmatised in a way leads to people thinking of it as harmful and hurtful, which it isn't. Thing is, they never even try, so how can they know?
It doesn't harm them, neither physically nor mentally.

Don't scare the horses. Or me, for that matter. :eek:

[EDIT/] Where is it actually written in God's Law - scripture, or even Vatican law - that sodomy between a man and a woman is wrong?
I think it was all sex in holes that aren't used for making babies. Something like that. A friend of mine could show you the quote

Great!

So I can sodomise all I want?

You just go ahead and sodomise all you can get your hands on... or something else, for that matter :p

*lol
I would always trust the Vatican to know first-hand about anal sex.

If it's any consolation, my soul is still intact. It's not everybody's idea of a good time, but there are people who find anal sex exciting and stimulating. Personally, I think the fact that it is still stigmatised in a way leads to people thinking of it as harmful and hurtful, which it isn't. Thing is, they never even try, so how can they know?
It doesn't harm them, neither physically nor mentally.
It's probably stigmatised because of its… erm… location.
I've never been cut in half by a flaming glaive… but I think it's VERY harmful and hurtful. Point taken, though. :)

I think it was all sex in holes that aren't used for making babies. Something like that. A friend of mine could show you the quote

I think the idea is "no sex, unless for procreation"... a clear no-no to anal, oral or any other kind of fun....

I think the idea is "no sex, unless for procreation"... a clear no-no to anal, oral or any other kind of fun.... Um… that seems to directly conflict with any idea of sex on the wedding night… you know, the thing which Christians are supposed to do, am I right?

I think the idea is "no sex, unless for procreation"... a clear no-no to anal, oral or any other kind of fun....
Yup. And also a no-no to homosexuality for the same quote

It's probably stigmatised because of its… erm… location.
I've never been cut in half by a flaming glaive… but I think it's VERY harmful and hurtful. Point taken, though. :)

Yes, along with this whole "Sex is dirty"-idea. I guess it will take some time to set people's minds right about all that.
I think a better comparisson would be bungee-jumping. You never know if it's fun unless you try. But most people are scared of trying.

Um… that seems to directly conflict with any idea of sex on the wedding night… you know, the thing which Christians are supposed to do, am I right?

How so? The Christian idea is "you're married now, start procreating"

Um… that seems to directly conflict with any idea of sex on the wedding night… you know, the thing which Christians are supposed to do, am I right?
Well......not really.

No sex at all before wedding. And if you are going to have sex after, just for procreation

Well......not really.

No sex at all before wedding. And if you are going to have sex after, just for procreation

And as soon as you're married, you HAVE TO procreate. "Be fruitful"... and so on.
Which is why gay marriage is evil incarnate, cause they won't procreate...

Well......not really.

No sex at all before wedding. And if you are going to have sex after, just for procreation Phelpsy craziness. I haven't seen anywhere that that is God's law. I mean, God deliberately made Eve beautiful.

Hmm… love between a husband and wife is a sin?
How 'bout no.

FREEDOM!!! I am sure God won't mind. :D

Yes, along with this whole "Sex is dirty"-idea. I guess it will take some time to set people's minds right about all that.
I think a better comparisson would be bungee-jumping. You never know if it's fun unless you try. But most people are scared of trying.

I dont know that they're scared, I think it's more that they deeply believe it's immoral.

What frustrates me is all the Christians that believe in "free will" but then are willing to impose their moral beliefs upon the rest of the world in a legal manner...

Having been married, and knowing some of the perils thereof, I can safely say that pre-marital sex can be a good thing. Not only does it give the chance to ensure sexual compatibility between a couple, but it can also give each person a chance to find out what they really like so sex with their spouse can be more fulfilling.

SEXUAL FREEDOM!!
since there is actualy FREEDOM in sexual freedom, while gods law forces different minded people to act the same and follow GODS ideas.. id rather have my own morals and not those of a certain group of people.. not everyones the same you know. and anyways, wars are always over gods law... i have never herd of a war start over a guy having sex with another guy.. and just think of how many less protests there would be.

i think the US should make a small country (like vatican city) just for gods law and all who want gods law and follow it live there and leave me the hell alone!

Which is why gay marriage is evil incarnate, cause they won't procreate...
I think the word is "can't" :p

Anyway. I've heard about this Spanish cell of Christianity (very old) in which new priests had to masturbate before Virgin Mary. Enlightment through sex or something

Hmm… love between a husband and wife is a sin?
How 'bout no.
Ever heard about love without sex? :rolleyes:

Phelpsy craziness. I haven't seen anywhere that that is God's law. I mean, God deliberately made Eve beautiful.

Hmm… love between a husband and wife is a sin?
How 'bout no.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it...

So, if you have sex without the possibility of procreation, you sin against god's will that you should be fruitful.

So, if you have sex without the possibility of procreation, you sin against god's will that you should be fruitful.

But where did God say not to have sex for recreation?

So, if you have sex without the possibility of procreation, you sin against god's will that you should be fruitful. No, if you are married deliberately without being fruitful, you are sinning. Being fruitful and having sex at other times are not mutually exclusive.

Ever heard about love without sex? :rolleyes:

Is it just me or is it kind of weird that the two of us, who really could care less about Christianity, have to play the devil's advocate and present the Christian ideas on sex to somebody who confesses to be Christian? ;)

Is it just me or is it kind of weird that the two of us, who really could care less about Christianity, have to play the devil's advocate and present the Christian ideas on sex to somebody who confesses to be Christian? ;)

LOL...I will admit I was a bit shocked to see the two of you doing that...

Ever heard about love without sex? :rolleyes: Stop that. You know what I mean.

Is it just me or is it kind of weird that the two of us, who really could care less about Christianity, have to play the devil's advocate and present the Christian ideas on sex to somebody who confesses to be Christian? Ah, but they're not the Christian ideas. They're the ideas of a small percentage of Christians.

Is it just me or is it kind of weird that the two of us, who really could care less about Christianity, have to play the devil's advocate and present the Christian ideas on sex to somebody who confesses to be Christian? ;)
I love it. :fluffle:


It's true God didn't say anything about sex for recreation. So how do you know he approves or not? The only thing you have is the "be fruitful" thingy and that half-implies no sex for recreation.

But where did God say not to have sex for recreation?

He didn't. I'm just presenting the commonly accepted interpretation of that part of the scripture.

However, I do think that that nutcase Paul had a few things to say about sex being sinful and the only excuse for having it is because it unfortunately is the only way to produce children...

Stop that. You know what I mean.

Ah, but they're not the Christian ideas. They're the ideas of a small percentage of Christians.

Not entirely true. They're the ideas presented by almost every Christian denomination. Some are more extreme than others, of course, but they're still all core ideas of any of the Christian denominations.

He didn't. I'm just presenting the commonly accepted interpretation of that part of the scripture.

However, I do think that that nutcase Paul had a few things to say about sex being sinful and the only excuse for having it is because it unfortunately is the only way to produce children...

Paul also spent a lot of time in prison...think maybe he wasnt a bit jaded at the end of it?

I love it. :fluffle:


It's true God didn't say anything about sex for recreation. So how do you know he approves or not? The only thing you have is the "be fruitful" thingy and that half-implies no sex for recreation.

Don't make me do that! Don't make me quote Paul!!! I hate that lunatic...

Paul also spent a lot of time in prison...think maybe he wasnt a bit jaded at the end of it?

Nah, he lost his marbles when he hit his head falling of his horse in front of Damascus...

However, I do think that that nutcase Paul had a few things to say about sex being sinful and the only excuse for having it is because it unfortunately is the only way to produce children...
Hey! :mad:

...



oooh. THAT Paul :p

Hey! :mad:

...



oooh. THAT Paul :p

Yup. The falling-of-horse-going-blind-seeing-Jesus-preaching-hate guy...

Hey! :mad:

...



oooh. THAT Paul :p

Maybe Paul was just pissed that he couldnt get laid and so he wrote those letters from prison in a highly sexually frustrated frame of mind...

Maybe Paul was just pissed that he couldnt get laid and so he wrote those letters from prison in a highly sexually frustrated frame of mind...
Very likely


It's just I read it as my name before I put it into the context. And in Holland he's named Paulus (though my official Christian name is Paulus too) (very confusing I know)

Very likely


It's just I read it as my name before I put it into the context. And in Holland he's named Paulus (though my official Christian name is Paulus too) (very confusing I know)

LOL...at least your name's not John ;)

LOL...at least your name's not John ;)
My middle name is Johannes, which would translate to John :eek:

My middle name is Johannes, which would translate to John :eek: John Paul! You're back from the dead!

John Paul! You're back from the dead!
Now worship me and you might get a fluffle

Now worship me and you might get a fluffle I neither want fluffles nor need them, although I am rather hungry.

I neither want fluffles nor need them, although I am rather hungry.
Well go eat then