What Christians think about sex [Archive]

Free Soviets

24-03-2006, 18:52

A common mistake. There were two prophices in that prophecy. One about the destruction of the temple, one about the end times.

i actually combined two bits. while paul doesn't use the 'this generation shall not pass' line in 1 corinthians chapter 7, he clearly believed it to refer to the second coming and uses it in his argument against ever having sex (and, more generally, caring about the material world at all).

"It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband... I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am... Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

and

"What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away."
(emphasis mine)

Shortsdom

24-03-2006, 18:52

The entire bible tells people that their bodies are dirty little sinful things.
Depends on how you read the bible. If you want to read that when you read the bible i'm sure you can, however if you read it as a whole it says
God created Man Perfect
Man Messes up
Man Has to deal with the consequences (we bought sin into the world, and we have to face the punishment)
Gods Son comes to earth as a man lives a perfect life and dies and is resurected- God offers an escape Plan
Man has the choice to accept Jesus's (God's Son) Death for their sin, and so in Gods eyes there eyes are perfect, clean and the pinacle of gods creation (yes even their bodies), or not to accept Jesus's death, and face death Judgement and punishment for living away from God. There bodies are still beautiful, but they are dirtied and sinful. You can see the potential for beauty but it needs work and cleaning up

The mighty Tim

24-03-2006, 18:59

Depends on how you read the bible. If you want to read that when you read the bible i'm sure you can, however if you read it as a whole it says
God created Man Perfect
Man Messes up
Man Has to deal with the consequences (we bought sin into the world, and we have to face the punishment)
Gods Son comes to earth as a man lives a perfect life and dies and is resurected- God offers an escape Plan
Man has the choice to accept Jesus's (God's Son) Death for their sin, and so in Gods eyes there eyes are perfect, clean and the pinacle of gods creation (yes even their bodies), or not to accept Jesus's death, and face death Judgement and punishment for living away from God. There bodies are still beautiful, but they are dirtied and sinful. You can see the potential for beauty but it needs work and cleaning up

Couldn't have put it better myself.

The Alma Mater

24-03-2006, 19:04

Depends on how you read the bible. If you want to read that when you read the bible i'm sure you can, however if you read it as a whole it says
God created Man Perfect
Man Messes up

Small problem: man DIDN'T mess up. One can not logically blame Adam and Eve for things they did before the fruits effect kicked in - they did not know better.

The mighty Tim

24-03-2006, 19:07

Small problem: man DIDN'T mess up. One can not logically blame Adam and Eve for things they did before the fruits effect kicked in - they did not know better.

Yes they did. God told them not to touch the fruit. They knew they shouldn't have done it.

Ruloah

24-03-2006, 19:08

You can redefine lust all you want, but most people think its the pleasuable thought of having sex with someone. Thi can happen in a glance. Happens to me all the time. Happening right now with the girl hanging cable above my desk. Those jeans...;)

Lust=gotta have that right now!

Lust is not just thinking, "wow, what a hot babe!"

When Jesus referred to Lust=adultery, he meant a guy that is thinking "yeah, I know she's married, but so what, I gotta hit that..."

Or being married yourself and thinking about really going out and having a particular woman, not just looking at some attractive actress on tv. It is one step from picking up the phone and calling her and asking her to meet you at the motel...

And yes, one of my wife's male friends just did that yesterday. And no, she is not going to meet him at a hotel today. And yes, he is married as well...

The Alma Mater

24-03-2006, 19:09

Yes they did. God told them not to touch the fruit. They knew they shouldn't have done it.

And how exactly did they know that not following orders was wrong ?
In fact: was it ? In general we tend to frown on people that follow orders blindly - and tend to despise the ones who demand blind obedience.

The mighty Tim

24-03-2006, 19:13

And how exactly did they know that not following orders was wrong ?
In fact: was it ? In general we tend to frown on people that follow orders blindly - and tend to despise the ones who demand blind obedience.

Well God told them that they would die if they ate the fruit; to a lot of people that would be considered a pretty stupid choice.

Xenophobialand

24-03-2006, 19:21

And how exactly did they know that not following orders was wrong ?
In fact: was it ? In general we tend to frown on people that follow orders blindly - and tend to despise the ones who demand blind obedience.

Additionally, depending on the translation of the Bible, God could very well be throwing Adam and Eve out of the Garden to protect his own power base rather than as punishment. IIRC, the Calvinist Bible stresses that God threw them out because now that they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they had only to eat from the Tree of Life to "become like us". It suggests that he threw them out to keep them from becoming gods themselves, not because they did anything wrong.

Depends on how you read the bible. If you want to read that when you read the bible i'm sure you can, however if you read it as a whole it says
God created Man Perfect
Man Messes up
Man Has to deal with the consequences (we bought sin into the world, and we have to face the punishment)
Gods Son comes to earth as a man lives a perfect life and dies and is resurected- God offers an escape Plan
Man has the choice to accept Jesus's (God's Son) Death for their sin, and so in Gods eyes there eyes are perfect, clean and the pinacle of gods creation (yes even their bodies), or not to accept Jesus's death, and face death Judgement and punishment for living away from God. There bodies are still beautiful, but they are dirtied and sinful. You can see the potential for beauty but it needs work and cleaning up

Close, but some of that at the end isn't in the Bible. It's Christian interpretation of what the crucifiction and resurrection were about that emerged about 1100 years after Jesus in the writings of Anselm.

Adriatica II

24-03-2006, 19:34

Close, but some of that at the end isn't in the Bible. It's Christian interpretation of what the crucifiction and resurrection were about that emerged about 1100 years after Jesus in the writings of Anselm.

Considering the interpretation we have now is written about in Pauls writings and predicted in the OT I think your on shaky groud with that

Adriatica II

24-03-2006, 21:02

Bump

Drunk commies deleted

24-03-2006, 21:08

Lust=gotta have that right now!

Lust is not just thinking, "wow, what a hot babe!"

When Jesus referred to Lust=adultery, he meant a guy that is thinking "yeah, I know she's married, but so what, I gotta hit that..."

Or being married yourself and thinking about really going out and having a particular woman, not just looking at some attractive actress on tv. It is one step from picking up the phone and calling her and asking her to meet you at the motel...

And yes, one of my wife's male friends just did that yesterday. And no, she is not going to meet him at a hotel today. And yes, he is married as well...

How do you know what Jesus meant? I was told in Catholic school that thinking about sex with a woman you aren't married to is an impure thought and a sin. They used Matthew 5:28 to justify this. So who's right? Which one of you has actually met Jesus and asked him to clarify the statement?

Xenophobialand

24-03-2006, 21:08

Considering the interpretation we have now is written about in Pauls writings and predicted in the OT I think your on shaky groud with that

Paul talks about how he died for our sins, but he doesn't explain what he means by this, or how the process works. That was left to people like Augustine, Anselm, St. Jerome, etc. The current understanding of how the process works, namely that God in effect traded his son for our deserved death is Anselm's theory; if you look at Augustine's explanation of Paul, for instance, you'd likely find it well-nigh unrecognizable.

Adriatica II

24-03-2006, 21:28

Paul talks about how he died for our sins, but he doesn't explain what he means by this, or how the process works. That was left to people like Augustine, Anselm, St. Jerome, etc. The current understanding of how the process works, namely that God in effect traded his son for our deserved death is Anselm's theory; if you look at Augustine's explanation of Paul, for instance, you'd likely find it well-nigh unrecognizable.

Those are basicly diffrent theories of atonement. Those have been interperted in diffrent ways, but you only really need to understand what Paul tells us about how Jesus died for us. Those kinds of disagreements have split several churches.

Dempublicents1

24-03-2006, 21:31

Intruiging. Legally, this statement could be said to encourage rape - since even if you are married you have no right to fuck your partner against his/her will.
Has anyone ever tried to sue the churches on this basis ?

It has been interpreted that way. Indeed, in many places, spousal rape was not legally recognized until recently (if it is now). But, much like the misinterpretation of "turn the other cheek" to mean, "Go home and let him beat you," churches are moving away from that view.

Dempublicents1

24-03-2006, 21:35

Considering the interpretation we have now is written about in Pauls writings and predicted in the OT I think your on shaky groud with that

So are other atonement viewpoints. Ever read anything by Peter Abelard? His support is nearly all from Paul's letters, but it isn't the traditional Anselmian viewpoint, and was indeed declared heretical. And the Anselmian view was directly a result of the already established penance system in the church - which was developed after Paul.

Khendon

24-03-2006, 21:44

Dempublicents1

24-03-2006, 21:52

I think the passage about lusting after a woman is more about the fact that it doesn't necessarily take a physical act to be unfaithful. To consciously desire another woman other than your wife can be considered the same.

I agree. To me, "lusting after" someone would mean that, if no one would find out and you would receive no punishment, you'd be at it in a second. It isn't simply, "Wow, he's a hottie. Wouldn't mind havin' him in my bed," and then forgetting about him the next second.

Adriatica II

24-03-2006, 23:56

I agree. To me, "lusting after" someone would mean that, if no one would find out and you would receive no punishment, you'd be at it in a second. It isn't simply, "Wow, he's a hottie. Wouldn't mind havin' him in my bed," and then forgetting about him the next second.

Thank you. I think this explains what I've been trying to explain best.

Ashmoria

25-03-2006, 00:00

Yeah, but then you've got stuff in the bible like that quote from Jesus about how looking with lust on a woman is the same as commiting adultery.

Matthew 5:28

That's just a silly attitude toward sex.
luckily he didnt say one thing about women lusting after men so i feel free to check out every man who passes by.

Ashmoria

25-03-2006, 00:07

Well God told them that they would die if they ate the fruit; to a lot of people that would be considered a pretty stupid choice.
yeah but until they ate the apple they had no knowlege of good and evil. sure god told them not to but they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey.

if i let my cat outside and say to her "ok kitty, you can go roll in the dirt but dont you eat any of those birds" she'll eat a bird. she doesnt understand english, she follows her instincts and she has no feeling whatsoever that it would be wrong to disobey me (if she had a way to understand what i meant). if i dont want any birds eaten, i dont let the cat out.

maybe god should have done the same.

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 00:28

yeah but until they ate the apple they had no knowlege of good and evil. sure god told them not to but they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey.

if i let my cat outside and say to her "ok kitty, you can go roll in the dirt but dont you eat any of those birds" she'll eat a bird. she doesnt understand english, she follows her instincts and she has no feeling whatsoever that it would be wrong to disobey me (if she had a way to understand what i meant). if i dont want any birds eaten, i dont let the cat out.

maybe god should have done the same.

This is a flawed arguement I have delt with several times.

The decision about the apple was not a moral decision, it was a command. The command was not morally based.

The command was "do not eat the apple, for if you do, you will die" it was not "do not eat the apple because it is wrong to do so"

Adam and Eve understood what death was. So they knew that they should not eat the apple because of its consequences. They did not understand morals so God did not give them a moral command

Straughn

25-03-2006, 00:34

Man, that Corinthians verse is sending me over the top. I hope you don't mind if the pages of this thread stick together when I'm done with it. ;)
As long as you don't mind already doing sloppy seconds to Verdigroth.
:eek:

Straughn

25-03-2006, 00:36

Jesus to my knowledge never said anything about lusting after an unmarried woman, or even consumating the relationship.
Ah, try the Apocrypha. That'll change the angle on your dangle, so to speak.

Dempublicents1

25-03-2006, 00:38

This is a flawed arguement I have delt with several times.

The decision about the apple was not a moral decision, it was a command. The command was not morally based.

The command was "do not eat the apple, for if you do, you will die" it was not "do not eat the apple because it is wrong to do so"

Adam and Eve understood what death was. So they knew that they should not eat the apple because of its consequences. They did not understand morals so God did not give them a moral command

How did they understand what death was when it was eating the apple that brought death into the world in the first place?

Straughn

25-03-2006, 00:40

luckily he didnt say one thing about women lusting after men so i feel free to check out every man who passes by.
WooT!

Sistahs are doin' it for themselves!
*Bart & Milhouse bouncing on the bed in drag*

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 00:42

How did they understand what death was when it was eating the apple that brought death into the world in the first place?

Because God had given them the understanding. When they were told they would die there was no questioning. They did not claim to be confused when the serpent tempted them. They did not say "I'm not sure what death is? Well it cant be that bad" or something to that effect. And as I understand it what brought death into the world for them was the cutting off of acess to the tree of life. It was the tree of the knowlege of good and evil that they ate from which broke the command. The tree of life allowed them immortality (as is an understandign I have gained)

Dempublicents1

25-03-2006, 01:03

Because God had given them the understanding.

You assume this, but it is not explicitly stated.

When they were told they would die there was no questioning. They did not claim to be confused when the serpent tempted them. They did not say "I'm not sure what death is? Well it cant be that bad" or something to that effect.

When I was a child, I heard adults use words that I didn't really understand all the time. I was a pretty curious child, so I asked about a lot of them, but not all of them. And even when I didn't fully understand, I would sometimes stop questioning.

And as I understand it what brought death into the world for them was the cutting off of acess to the tree of life. It was the tree of the knowlege of good and evil that they ate from which broke the command. The tree of life allowed them immortality (as is an understandign I have gained)

Yes, but as long as they had access to the tree of life, they never knew death. So how could they truly understand what it was?

Note: I think the entire Adam and Eve story is more of a metaphor, but if you try to take it literally, these are the questions you encounter.

Rotila

25-03-2006, 01:40

Dempublicents1

25-03-2006, 01:53

Adam and Eve were givin a command and that was it, they disobeyed a command from God. It dose not matter if they knew disobeying was wroung, they were told not to do it. The main point of my post is that they were told not to and they did anyways. all the other stuff is trival

If I tell an infant not to cry, and he does anyways, should I punish him? Or should I realize that he doesn't understand?

Cervixia Vinnland

25-03-2006, 01:56

I am not Christian but I do beliebe that the concept of "sex" would not exist if it wasn't meant for a purpose besides "sin" or whatever you'd like to call it

Rotila

25-03-2006, 01:57

were Adam and Eve infants? dose infants lack of understanding pertain to this? an infant would keep crying because they can't even understand the words that come out of their parents mouth. This is a hard to fight argument because there is no way to prove Adam and Eve ability to understand. I believe that all this argument is, is that people feel the need to flex their brain, But i injoy a good Debate so i will continue on.

Dempublicents1

25-03-2006, 02:12

were Adam and Eve infants?

In the sense that they did not yet know good and evil, they were like infants or animals, yes.

dose infants lack of understanding pertain to this? an infant would keep crying because they can't even understand the words that come out of their parents mouth.

Yes, but even if the infant somehow perceived what "Stop crying," meant, it would not know that it was supposed to obey, or why it was being asked to do so.

This is a hard to fight argument because there is no way to prove Adam and Eve ability to understand. I believe that all this argument is, is that people feel the need to flex their brain, But i injoy a good Debate so i will continue on.

There are two options here. The first is that Adam and Eve could not understand because they did not know good and evil - and thus could not know that disobedience was, in and of itself, a bad thing. The second is that the tree didn't give them anything, because they already understood good and evil. Thus, eating of it meant nothing, and the whole, "Now we're going to cover our nakedness," doesn't makes sense.

Note: There is actually a third option - the non literal one that views Adam and Eve as a metaphor for the larger whole.

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 14:09

If I tell an infant not to cry, and he does anyways, should I punish him? Or should I realize that he doesn't understand?

Your not getting this

The command was not a moral command. It wasnt "dont eat of the tree becuase it is wrong to do so" it was "dont eat of the tree because if you do you will die". It was not nessecary for an understanding of morals to obey

You assume this, but it is not explicitly stated

Indeed. Its implict because they do not express confusion. But since they use words later that they were not explicitly taught the meaning of accurately we can assume that they understood. God did not create them as babies, with no understanding. He just did not give them the understanding of good and evil. But they did not need that to understand the command

Yes, but as long as they had access to the tree of life, they never knew death. So how could they truly understand what it was?

Because they knew what the tree of life was for.

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 17:10

Bump

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 17:14

I am not Christian but I do beliebe that the concept of "sex" would not exist if it wasn't meant for a purpose besides "sin" or whatever you'd like to call it

As I have said, sex is not a sinful thing of itself. Sex outside of marriage is the sinful part of it.

People forget God made all pleasures, but humans take them to excess

Eutrusca

25-03-2006, 17:16

Most of the Christians I know dont think that sex is evil and dirty. They just think that it is intended for marriage.
I don't know any Christians who actually believe that sex is "evil and dirty."

Lunatic Goofballs

25-03-2006, 17:21

This christian likes sex very much. Orgasms make everyone happy. :)

Eutrusca

25-03-2006, 17:22

This christian likes sex very much. Orgasms make everyone happy. :)
AMEN, brother! PREACH it! :D

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 17:24

I don't know any Christians who actually believe that sex is "evil and dirty."

Indeed. I dont either but I put 'most' in so no one accueses me of generalising

I dont know where the view that we did think like that came from.

Lunatic Goofballs

25-03-2006, 17:28

Indeed. I dont either but I put 'most' in so no one accueses me of generalising

I dont know where the view that we did think like that came from.

Evangelists.

Apparently people think that televised goons that see 900ft. Jesuses in Tulsa, Oklahoma are representative of all christians. :p

Eutrusca

25-03-2006, 17:30

Indeed. I dont either but I put 'most' in so no one accueses me of generalising

I dont know where the view that we did think like that came from.
Perhaps because of the tendency among most of mankind is to seek unbriddled license to do as we damned well please, including any and all things sexual. Christians largely do not believe that way, so they are seen as challenging that tendency.

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 17:33

Perhaps because of the tendency among most of mankind is to seek unbriddled license to do as we damned well please, including any and all things sexual. Christians largely do not believe that way, so they are seen as challenging that tendency.

Its just the jump from the actual belief (IE sex outside of marriage being wrong) and the percieved belief (IE sex is evil/dirty/disgusting etc) that I find strange. But people blow things out of proportion.

Eutrusca

25-03-2006, 17:35

Its just the jump from the actual belief (IE sex outside of marriage being wrong) and the percieved belief (IE sex is evil/dirty/disgusting etc) that I find strange. But people blow things out of proportion.
Agreed.

Quibbleville

25-03-2006, 17:40

Christians are stuck in the Madonna/Whore trap. It's highly entertaining - when it's not agonizing to watch.

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 18:42

Christians are stuck in the Madonna/Whore trap. It's highly entertaining - when it's not agonizing to watch.

Could you elaborate as to what this "trap" is?

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 19:32

Bump

Dark Shadowy Nexus

25-03-2006, 19:50

The most hated person in this forum says this.

Supposedly

Sex can be interfered with if it's brought to the knowledge of a child before they are ready.

STD is Gods way of punishing fornication.

Pictures of sex makes the mind impure. As a matter of fact the simple graphic dipiction of sex is so evil those under 18 must be protected from it.

While I'm well aware sex inside of marriage isn't usually frowned upon. Although there are those who go to the extreem of only for reproduction. Sex outside of marriage usually is frowned upon and often for reasons other than risk of unwanted pregnancy or STD.

Stop trying to make the Bible look good. It is the the written superstitions of men who heard voices.

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 20:22

STD is Gods way of punishing fornication.

I dont know about that. It could theoretically be true but there isnt anything I can see in the Bible to support it

Pictures of sex makes the mind impure. As a matter of fact the simple graphic dipiction of sex is so evil those under 18 must be protected from it.

We dont allow those under the age of 16 to have sex

While I'm well aware sex inside of marriage isn't usually frowned upon. Although there are those who go to the extreem of only for reproduction.

I'd be impressed if anyone could provide biblical support for that view

Sex outside of marriage usually is frowned upon and often for reasons other than risk of unwanted pregnancy or STD.

Well the Bible condems it simply because God designed sex as part of a marriage. People forget, God invented all pleasures, but pleasures have their place

Stop trying to make the Bible look good. It is the the written superstitions of men who heard voices.

If you look at it, it is written over a period of over a milliena yet it all fits together perfectly. Its more than written superstitions

Tweet Tweet

25-03-2006, 20:29

I'm suprised noone has mentioned Leviticus. Lev. 15, specifically. This chapter discusses, in great detail, of how the body is unclean because of sexual relations. 15:16 "When a man has an emmision of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean until evening.". The chapter then details certain procedural sacraments/sacrifices that must be preformed in order for the person who had the 'discharge' to become clean again. This does not just apply to those who are unmarried, but married as well. Apparently there isn't much time for foreplay if you have to go through all of that washing and cleansing of the soul post-sex...

This chapter also bashes a woman's monthly flow. Apparently it is blasphemy and unclean.

To Hades with that. If 'God' thought all this 'discharge' was unclean and wrong, he wouldn't have given it to us in the first place. We are just ashamed of ourselves. It is not 'God' who deems us vile and horrifically disgusting, but people. People are at fault.

Most Christians do believe that sex is dirty. Some to a more extreme sense then others. They prefer, to minimise this uncleanliness, to get married before having sex, so that the relatioship is monogamous and there is little chance for anything to go wrong. However, modern Christians, the ones I *groan*, attend school with, are very open with their sexuality. Like most teenagers, they have little restraint over their hormones.

So what? Today is a changed world. Sex is all over the media, crawling and fighting it's way out to "corrupt young, innocent minds". This change also applies to religion. It is not what it used to be. The structured and rigid system has begun to waiver, almost to collapse. This is especially true when applied to western culture, which has not changed just Christianity, but all other religions it encounters, from Islam to Hinduism.

Religion, which used to be the basis of society is no more, and society is now reigning over religion. Simple, dirty, raw human nature is seeking light from the darkest and most dank of corners. It is infiltrating every community. It is destroying homes, both emotionally and physically. People condemn religion for the security it provides it's followers, but is that wrong? Would it not be more satifactory to live a secure, steadfast life? Is that what we are all not seeking? Stability, love, and respect?

Some Christians may find sex to be 'dirty'. There is no problem with this. Today's society should stop judging and debating those who are attempting to seek self-fulfuillment with as little risk as possible. If they are happy, let them be. If you are happy, drop the subject. There is no need to debate this, as human nature gets the best of all of us in any case, and those who are able to direct it into something positive, like a good home and family, should be praised, not taunted. We should not be debating the fact that some Christians (as well as other religious followers) find sex to be dirty, but how society is turning it into a norm not just for adults, but for young teenagers and even children too.

Artesianaria

25-03-2006, 20:34

This thread is one of the more interesting I've found here. It reminds of a thread at the forums I hang out at the most. Sorry, not these forums. Anyway, the Christians got themselves a thread going there, and those forums belong to an erotically themed website.

Maybe some of you should get together with some of them? Here's the link: Christian writers and readers meet here ... (http://www.literotica.com:81/forum/showthread.php?t=310134&page=submissions)

:cool:

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 20:39

Most Christians do believe that sex is dirty. Some to a more extreme sense then others. They prefer, to minimise this uncleanliness, to get married before having sex, so that the relatioship is monogamous and there is little chance for anything to go wrong. However, modern Christians, the ones I *groan*, attend school with, are very open with their sexuality. Like most teenagers, they have little restraint over their hormones

Most Christians dont believe sex is dirty. Like I said, God invented sex. He must be fairly randy. God invented all pleasures, people forget this. The diffrence is they are not to be enjoyed to excess. This means for sex, only within marriage, for alcohol not getting drunk etc. Some Christians take the message too far with reproduction only etc but some dont.

So what? Today is a changed world. Sex is all over the media, crawling and fighting it's way out to "corrupt young, innocent minds". This change also applies to religion. It is not what it used to be. The structured and rigid system has begun to waiver, almost to collapse. This is especially true when applied to western culture, which has not changed just Christianity, but all other religions it encounters, from Islam to Hinduism.

I dont think so. The Bible hasnt been changed to fit in with the modern world. The Biblical angle on sex remains the same. Its designed for a marriage.

Religion, which used to be the basis of society is no more, and society is now reigning over religion. Simple, dirty, raw human nature is seeking light from the darkest and most dank of corners. It is infiltrating every community. It is destroying homes, both emotionally and physically. People condemn religion for the security it provides it's followers, but is that wrong? Would it not be more satifactory to live a secure, steadfast life? Is that what we are all not seeking? Stability, love, and respect?

Exactly, this is one of the things I dont like about the society we are in now.

Some Christians may find sex to be 'dirty'. There is no problem with this. Today's society should stop judging and debating those who are attempting to seek self-fulfuillment with as little risk as possible. If they are happy, let them be. If you are happy, drop the subject. There is no need to debate this, as human nature gets the best of all of us in any case, and those who are able to direct it into something positive, like a good home and family, should be praised, not taunted. We should not be debating the fact that some Christians (as well as other religious followers) find sex to be dirty, but how society is turning it into a norm not just for adults, but for young teenagers and even children too.

I agree. I think if the biblical angle on sex was more widely accepted society may be a much better place.

Tweet Tweet

25-03-2006, 20:49

Since you dont understand the diffrence between the Old and New covenant, I would advise you to look it up

Do you sit through Bible study twice a week? I know the difference. :headbang:

Asbena

25-03-2006, 21:21

Do you sit through Bible study twice a week? I know the difference. :headbang:

Lol. I know the difference... everyone should.

Adriatica II

25-03-2006, 21:46

Do you sit through Bible study twice a week? I know the difference. :headbang:

Apologies. A missreading of your post. It will be corrected

Adriatica II

26-03-2006, 00:26

Bump

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 05:02

As I have said, sex is not a sinful thing of itself. Sex outside of marriage is the sinful part of it.

People forget God made all pleasures, but humans take them to excess
I've asked you this before: How much is too much? Please define "excess."

If you don't define your terms, how can anyone decide if they think you're being reasonable or not?

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 05:06

<snip because there's only one point I can respond to as a non-Christian>
We dont allow those under the age of 16 to have sex
<snip>
As a point of fact, we don't allow those under the age of 16 to have sex with people who are older than 16. It's legal in most US states for 16-year-olds to have sex with each other.

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 05:20

Most Christians dont believe sex is dirty. Like I said, God invented sex. He must be fairly randy. God invented all pleasures, people forget this. The diffrence is they are not to be enjoyed to excess. This means for sex, only within marriage, for alcohol not getting drunk etc. Some Christians take the message too far with reproduction only etc but some dont.
I'm sorry to keep harping on it, but again, you don't define your terms, in this case the word "excess." What is the appropriate amount of sex in a person's life? Is it an all or nothing situation -- all sex after marriage but none before? Or is it possible for married people to be too carnal too? I'm not being sarcastic here. As a non-Christian, I deal with Christians telling me what I should do all the time -- I should be modest, I should be moral, I should live in moderation -- but when it comes to what those terms mean, they can't even agree with each other, let alone explain it to me.

I dont think so. The Bible hasnt been changed to fit in with the modern world. The Biblical angle on sex remains the same. Its designed for a marriage.

Exactly, this is one of the things I dont like about the society we are in now.

I agree. I think if the biblical angle on sex was more widely accepted society may be a much better place.
What are you saying here? That we should all just live like it's 2000 years ago? Maybe people don't accept the biblical angle on things because the Bible isn't meaningful to them.

Soviet Haaregrad

26-03-2006, 06:05

why is it silly?

Lust isn't a fleeting thought, it's not a "wow, she is kinda cute" it's a purposeful planning out of things, I wouldn't be comfortable at all with my husband lusting after another woman.

How about a momentary "Damn! I'd tap that!"... is he allowed those?

Tweet Tweet

26-03-2006, 18:23

I'm sorry to keep harping on it, but again, you don't define your terms, in this case the word "excess." What is the appropriate amount of sex in a person's life? Is it an all or nothing situation -- all sex after marriage but none before? Or is it possible for married people to be too carnal too? I'm not being sarcastic here. As a non-Christian, I deal with Christians telling me what I should do all the time -- I should be modest, I should be moral, I should live in moderation -- but when it comes to what those terms mean, they can't even agree with each other, let alone explain it to me.

What are you saying here? That we should all just live like it's 2000 years ago? Maybe people don't accept the biblical angle on things because the Bible isn't meaningful to them.

*SUPER E-HUG*

As a non-Christian, who does, yes, attend Bible study, my belief is that the Bible is one big history book. It does not all have to be true, as history, especially history that old, is always lost and rewritten in so many various forms that it is almost impossible to keep track of what is true and what is mindless filler.

Religion has always been a way for mankind to explain the ways of the strange world we live in. It has morphed, developed, and conformed to each new society it reigns in. It has to in order to make new discoveries and inventions fit into the utopian society that religion attempts to create. Religion explains all of the 'stuff' that our insignificant human minds fail to understand.

The ancients used a god for everything, from physical things such as the sky (Egyptian: Nut) to emotions such as love (Greek: Aphrodite).
It then morphed into one god as time went by and people's understanding of the world expanded. Religions such as Islam and Judaism were born, and many sects were derived from those core belief systems. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism, but was such a strong system that it received many followers and became a main pillar in society itself. It then morphed again, into a belief in science (no, not scientology). However many of these people who believe in evolution as well as other scientific discoveries and advances have also held onto some slight belief that there is some supernatural force out there. Now it is in the process of changing again, this time into complete faith in science, and a complete rejection of religion and the phenomenas that it cares to explain.

However, todays society praises itself for being multi-racial. It also praises itself for being multi-cultural. This cultural position also applies to religion. There are those so radical in their belief in god that they are willing to die for it. There are also those in such unbelief that we are getting closer and closer to finding the origin of life, the universe, and everything through technological advances. The world is not in harmony, it is torn between two extremes, with people falling into the dark abyss it creates and creating a grey area. By going to war in the name of god we, as a society, are pulled in that direction, yet as we discover new galaxies and the possiblity of other life, we are naturally inclined to investigate this. Torn.

What does this all boil down to again? Human nature. An adage: curiosity killed the cat. It's not so much killing the cat as it is the mindset of the cat. That loss of mindset then drives the cat mad, or it accepts this loss and moves on to discover more possiblities that life holds for it. But the cat has the choice: to go mad, or live in a positive light.

The cat must make the choice.

Orgasman

26-03-2006, 18:26

i'm an Irish Catholic and sex is sex it's required and i dont see how anyone could think it's something evil or dirty,thats just my opinion.

Deep Kimchi

26-03-2006, 18:27

There seems to be a strange misconception in many threads I've noticed here that Christians think that sex is dirty and evil and nasty and thus the abstain from it. That isnt what the majority of Chrisitans I know think and certianly not what the Bible would say (read Songs of Soloman and you will understand). Bear in mind that Christians believe that God invented sex. Therefore God must be considerably randy. Chrisitians believe that sex is a part of a marriage, which is where God definied it as being at its best. There are parts of the Bible where Paul discusses how wives and husbands bodies belong to each other and that you should not refuse each other

Most of the Christians I know dont think that sex is evil and dirty. They just think that it is intended for marriage.

My wife and I are Pentacostal Christians, and also swingers.

Go figure.

Adriatica II

26-03-2006, 18:46

Tweet Tweet

26-03-2006, 18:56

Only if you believe in this 'God' does your statement ring true.

Adriatica II

26-03-2006, 18:58

Only if you believe in this 'God' does your statement ring true.

I think even if people didnt believe in God but applied the Biblical principle (IE sex only within marriage) then society would be a better place.

Dakini

26-03-2006, 19:08

I think even if people didnt believe in God but applied the Biblical principle (IE sex only within marriage) then society would be a better place.
I don't think it would be a better place. Could you imagine the divorce rate in that case? Hell, we have enough christians who hold off on sex until marriage who get married young and divorce shortly afterwards as it is. I can't imagine what would happen if everyone did that.

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 19:33

Well excess in my book basicly means outside of marriage. Paul does talk about abstaining from sex if your marriage needs more prayer but he doenst say that not having sex is not in itself holy. Modesty I think cannot be defined exactly. I dont know about it much for guys but one girl I spoke to said she employed this rule. If she wanted to wear revealing clothes, or to empasise her body more sexually, then only with one part. Her chest, rear or legs, one of those but not all three or two (if you think this is sexist rubbish, this is a girl talking). And to be honest, in my opinion she always looks great with it. Revealing or emphasising too much is just slutty.
FIRST: Okay, but do you acknowledge that not even all Christians agree with you? Obviously, lots of self-professed Christians here disagree with you, but so do many Christian authorities -- scholars and leaders of various churches. This issue of how Christians should relate to sex is not settled at all. Therefore, as an outsider looking in, I am inclined to ignore your claim to be telling me what most Christians think. I consider your statements to be nothing more than what you, as an individual, think and not representative of your religion in general.

SECOND: Also, you admit that you cannot define some of your terms, such as "modesty." Yet you advocate quite specific rules for me to follow based on these amorphous, undefinable concepts. Do you see why I would not accept that? If there is no definition of the terms/concepts, then there is no guarantee that you won't keep moving the line of acceptability so that I will never be certain that I'm on safe ground with you.

I have a problem with your whole fundamental concept of "modesty" (for instance) as something that is defined by people not being nude. You say that modesty, which you admit you cannot define, is nevertheless defined by how much skin a woman reveals or how many body parts she highlights per outfit. But that makes me think of two problematical instances, just off the top of my head:

1. I am a big-breasted woman. In the winter time, I usually wear turtleneck sweaters. These sweaters are not particularly tight, but they nevertheless can't hide the size and shape of my bust. All winter long, I watch men talk to my breasts. Yet they are entirely covered by wool. Am I dressed immodestly? To be modest by your rules, would I have to wear a loose coat buttoned up all the time in order not to highlight my breasts? Remember, radical movements like the Taliban claimed the burkha was to preserve a woman's modesty, but it operated like a portable solitary confinement cell. How far do you want to take this covering up idea? If you cannot actually define what a woman has to do to qualify as modest, then how can you make sure your own rules will not be pushed to the limits of perverts who cannot look at any part of a woman's body without claiming it's too sexy and therefore immodest?

2. In tropical nations like Papua traditional (non-Christian) culture has very different taboos about nudity than Euro-American culture. In traditional culture communities, women often go bare-breasted, and this is not considered sexual at all. Traditional men's wear consists of a garment known as the penis sheath, which is exactly what it sounds like, is made out of gourds or woven plant materials, is rigid and at least slightly ornamental (like a stiff tie), and can range anywhere from 8 inches up to 2 feet in length, depending on the village and the occasion and what it's made out of. Penis sheaths are indeed supposed to make a guy look good, but the way these people wear and relate to them, it's pretty much the same way a dinner suit is supposed to make a guy look good in the US. In other words, the penis sheath is not a sex toy and, by their standards, it's not immodestly revealing, either.

But if Christian missionaries in that country took your attitude, then they would be condemning these people as sluts and immodest, even though these people do not have any more sex than their Christian neighbors do. So I have a problem with anything that would make judgmental remarks against a person's character just because their lifestyle doesn't superficially match yours.

I agree people have reasons why they dont follow the Bible's teaching. But I think that since God designed sex and marriage he knows what he's talking about when it comes to these kinds of issues. If everyone did treat sex in the way that the Bible says (IE within marriage only) I think that society would be greatly benefited.
So you understand that people have a reason for not following the Bible but you want them to do it anyway. You do understand that people who don't believe in your god really don't care if you think he's competent, right? As far as we are concerned, all we're hearing is what you think we should do. You can claim you're speaking for your god, but that really doesn't give you any more authority or even credibility in our view.

Ilie

26-03-2006, 19:37

Judiasm is great for sex. Try it!

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 19:41

I think even if people didnt believe in God but applied the Biblical principle (IE sex only within marriage) then society would be a better place.
Okay, so you would prefer a society of liars and hypcrites who try to live by the rules of a religion they don't believe in. I guess you don't really care if they are lying through their teeth, just so long as they appear to be obeying your rules.

And before you come back with "Oh, but it's god's rules," remember, we don't believe in your god, so as far as we're concerned, they're just the rules you want. For us, there is no Christian "god" for us to obey, so all we'd be doing is obeying you. But I guess that will satisfy you well enough, eh?

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 19:42

I don't think it would be a better place. Could you imagine the divorce rate in that case? Hell, we have enough christians who hold off on sex until marriage who get married young and divorce shortly afterwards as it is. I can't imagine what would happen if everyone did that.
Don't be so short-sighted. That won't happen once he outlaws divorce, too.

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 19:43

Judiasm is great for sex. Try it!
It puts too many holes in the sheets. :p

Adriatica II

26-03-2006, 19:54

FIRST: Okay, but do you acknowledge that not even all Christians agree with you? Obviously, lots of self-professed Christians here disagree with you, but so do many Christian authorities -- scholars and leaders of various churches. This issue of how Christians should relate to sex is not settled at all. Therefore, as an outsider looking in, I am inclined to ignore your claim to be telling me what most Christians think. I consider your statements to be nothing more than what you, as an individual, think and not representative of your religion in general.

Well it is the view of my Church on sex, and practically every Church I have attended and I have attended several. I think it is a fairly widley held opinion on the matter

SECOND: Also, you admit that you cannot define some of your terms, such as "modesty." Yet you advocate quite specific rules for me to follow based on these amorphous, undefinable concepts. Do you see why I would not accept that? If there is no definition of the terms/concepts, then there is no guarantee that you won't keep moving the line of acceptability so that I will never be certain that I'm on safe ground with you.

I havent talked about enforcing these opinions. This thread isnt about how these views should be enfroced on people.

I have a problem with your whole fundamental concept of "modesty" (for instance) as something that is defined by people not being nude. You say that modesty, which you admit you cannot define, is nevertheless defined by how much skin a woman reveals or how many body parts she highlights per outfit. But that makes me think of two problematical instances, just off the top of my head:

1. I am a big-breasted woman. In the winter time, I usually wear turtleneck sweaters. These sweaters are not particularly tight, but they nevertheless can't hide the size and shape of my bust. All winter long, I watch men talk to my breasts. Yet they are entirely covered by wool. Am I dressed immodestly? To be modest by your rules, would I have to wear a loose coat buttoned up all the time in order not to highlight my breasts? Remember, radical movements like the Taliban claimed the burkha was to preserve a woman's modesty, but it operated like a portable solitary confinement cell. How far do you want to take this covering up idea? If you cannot actually define what a woman has to do to qualify as modest, then how can you make sure your own rules will not be pushed to the limits of perverts who cannot look at any part of a woman's body without claiming it's too sexy and therefore immodest?

Firstly, they arent mine and nor are they rules. They are just guidelines that a female friend of mine once shared with me. Secondly I dont think a women can be blamed if the natural shape of her body does cause her these issues. The sort of thing I'm talking about is if you were to wear on a night out a low cut top and short skirt. My friend would say if you want to make yourself sexy in a more modest way, empasise one or the other. In your case, your not going to intentionally empasise yourself and you just have a practical issue so its not so much a question of modesty.

2. In tropical nations like Papua traditional (non-Christian) culture has very different taboos about nudity than Euro-American culture. In traditional culture communities, women often go bare-breasted, and this is not considered sexual at all. Traditional men's wear consists of a garment known as the penis sheath, which is exactly what it sounds like, is made out of gourds or woven plant materials, is rigid and at least slightly ornamental (like a stiff tie), and can range anywhere from 8 inches up to 2 feet in length, depending on the village and the occasion and what it's made out of. Penis sheaths are indeed supposed to make a guy look good, but the way these people wear and relate to them, it's pretty much the same way a dinner suit is supposed to make a guy look good in the US. In other words, the penis sheath is not a sex toy and, by their standards, it's not immodestly revealing, either.

But if Christian missionaries in that country took your attitude, then they would be condemning these people as sluts and immodest, even though these people do not have any more sex than their Christian neighbors do. So I have a problem with anything that would make judgmental remarks against a person's character just because their lifestyle doesn't superficially match yours.

The thing about that situation is that its cultural, not sexual. The people there arnt wearing so little because they are decadant in terms of their morality. There is a differnce between wearing clothes in a revealing way because they are tying to be sexually attractive and wearing clothes that reveal because that is all you know.

So you understand that people have a reason for not following the Bible but you want them to do it anyway. You do understand that people who don't believe in your god really don't care if you think he's competent, right? As far as we are concerned, all we're hearing is what you think we should do. You can claim you're speaking for your god, but that really doesn't give you any more authority or even credibility in our view.

Firstly, the Bible doesnt give specific rules or anything regarding clothes etc. Those were just some opinions of a friend. Secondly, I think that if everyone did limit their sex to marriage it would be better. I'm not going to force people to do it. I would like to see maybe some legislation that would discourage people becoming overly irrisponsable with their sexual lifestyles but obviously you couldnt ban something like that outright.

Katganistan

26-03-2006, 19:59

Yeah, but then you've got stuff in the bible like that quote from Jesus about how looking with lust on a woman is the same as commiting adultery.

Matthew 5:28

That's just a silly attitude toward sex.

That's not about sex; that's about desire run wild and coveting what is not yours -- theft, if you will.

Katganistan

26-03-2006, 20:08

You can redefine lust all you want, but most people think its the pleasuable thought of having sex with someone. Thi can happen in a glance. Happens to me all the time. Happening right now with the girl hanging cable above my desk. Those jeans...;)

www.m-w.com]Lust:[/url] 2 : usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESS

lascivious
One entry found for lascivious.
Main Entry: las·civ·i·ous
Pronunciation: l&-'si-vE-&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin lasciviosus, from Latin lascivia wantonness, from lascivus wanton -- more at LUST
: LEWD, LUSTFUL
- las·civ·i·ous·ly adverb
- las·civ·i·ous·ness noun

lewd
One entry found for lewd.
Main Entry: lewd
Pronunciation: 'lüd
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English lewed vulgar, from Old English l[AE]wede laical, ignorant
1 obsolete : EVIL, WICKED
2 a : sexually unchaste or licentious b : OBSCENE, VULGAR
- lewd·ly adverb
- lewd·ness noun

lustful
One entry found for lustful.
Main Entry: lust·ful
Pronunciation: 'l&st-f&l
Function: adjective
: excited by lust : LECHEROUS
- lust·ful·ly /-f&-lE/ adverb
- lust·ful·ness noun

lecherous
One entry found for lecherous.
Main Entry: lech·er·ous
Pronunciation: 'le-ch&-r&s, 'lech-r&s
Function: adjective
: given to or suggestive of lechery
- lech·er·ous·ly adverb
- lech·er·ous·ness noun

lechery
One entry found for lechery.
Main Entry: lech·ery
Pronunciation: -rE
Function: noun
: inordinate indulgence in sexual activity : LASCIVIOUSNESS

It seems to me that you are redefining lust, not Smunkee. These synonyms all point to an inordinate or obsessive focus on sexual gratification -- not the fleeting, "oh wow", or "please sir, I want some more."

Katganistan

26-03-2006, 20:16

Dakini

26-03-2006, 20:18

Don't be so short-sighted. That won't happen once he outlaws divorce, too.
Well, then you'll just end up with thousands of unhappily married couples.

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 20:23

Well it is the view of my Church on sex, and practically every Church I have attended and I have attended several. I think it is a fairly widley held opinion on the matter
Like I said, from the outside-looking-in perspective, it does not appear to be the *majority* opinion among Christians. Yes, the majority of Christian advocate "modesty" but they do not agree upon the definition of that term.

I havent talked about enforcing these opinions. This thread isnt about how these views should be enfroced on people.
Sorry, I failed to separate what you're saying here from everything you've ever said in all the other threads you participate in.

For the record, I make no comment and have no opinion on what Christians believe or should believe. I only object to someone claiming without proof, such as survey results or something, that they are expressing the majority view of any group. If you want to say that you *think people should think this and thus*, obviously that's not subject to denial by others. But if you say *Christians do think this*, well, I'd like to see some numbers in support. That's all.

Firstly, they arent mine and nor are they rules. They are just guidelines that a female friend of mine once shared with me. Secondly I dont think a women can be blamed if the natural shape of her body does cause her these issues. The sort of thing I'm talking about is if you were to wear on a night out a low cut top and short skirt. My friend would say if you want to make yourself sexy in a more modest way, empasise one or the other. In your case, your not going to intentionally empasise yourself and you just have a practical issue so its not so much a question of modesty.

The thing about that situation is that its cultural, not sexual. The people there arnt wearing so little because they are decadant in terms of their morality. There is a differnce between wearing clothes in a revealing way because they are tying to be sexually attractive and wearing clothes that reveal because that is all you know.
Yes, but the problem is that, because you can't define the limits or requirements of "modest," "decadent," and other such judgmental terms, then you are only left with personal guidelines -- and who gets to decide whose guidelines are right? Do you admit that there are many people who would think that your friend is still dressing immodestly? I say such issues are "in the eye of the beholder" as it were, and if you don't define them clearly, you open society up to continuous conflict.

BTW, the penis sheath is supposed to make men sexually attractive to women, but in the same work-a-day, I-need-to-look-good-in-case-the-woman-of-my-dreams-happens-by way that a decently cut pair of jeans is supposed to in the US. Fashion is all about mating, after all.

Firstly, the Bible doesnt give specific rules or anything regarding clothes etc. Those were just some opinions of a friend. Secondly, I think that if everyone did limit their sex to marriage it would be better. I'm not going to force people to do it. I would like to see maybe some legislation that would discourage people becoming overly irrisponsable with their sexual lifestyles but obviously you couldnt ban something like that outright.

Wait a minute -- didn't you just say you weren't talking about enforcing your opinions? Let me scroll up for a second -- yep, there it is in the second quoted paragraph of this very post. And yet here you are, wishing someone would legislate something to get people to live the way you want them to. So I guess I'm not failing to separate what you're saying here from what you say elsewhere, after all.

Come on, Adriatica, how many times do we have to go through this? You have to pay attention to what is coming out of your own mouth, or off your keyboard, as the case may be.

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 20:26

Well, then you'll just end up with thousands of unhappily married couples.
Oh, millions of them.

Adriatica II

26-03-2006, 20:35

Like I said, from the outside-looking-in perspective, it does not appear to be the *majority* opinion among Christians. Yes, the majority of Christian advocate "modesty" but they do not agree upon the definition of that term.

They advocate modesty but I dont think any would say that the Bible has a strict principle of it. Its just a concept which there is a general notion of

Sorry, I failed to separate what you're saying here from everything you've ever said in all the other threads you participate in.

Its ok

For the record, I make no comment and have no opinion on what Christians believe or should believe. I only object to someone claiming without proof, such as survey results or something, that they are expressing the majority view of any group. If you want to say that you *think people should think this and thus*, obviously that's not subject to denial by others. But if you say *Christians do think this*, well, I'd like to see some numbers in support. That's all.

Well put it this way. In my time I've been a regular attender of three churches for significent periods. I've visited briefly however a dozen or so. I was not aware between those diffrent Churches any out of place doctrine regarding sex.

Yes, but the problem is that, because you can't define the limits or requirements of "modest," "decadent," and other such judgmental terms, then you are only left with personal guidelines -- and who gets to decide whose guidelines are right? Do you admit that there are many people who would think that your friend is still dressing immodestly? I say such issues are "in the eye of the beholder" as it were, and if you don't define them clearly, you open society up to continuous conflict.

I would say they are good guidelines. I wouldnt say they were universal, just good. All the girls I have talked to about it seem to agree.

BTW, the penis sheath is supposed to make men sexually attractive to women, but in the same work-a-day, I-need-to-look-good-in-case-the-woman-of-my-dreams-happens-by way that a decently cut pair of jeans is supposed to in the US. Fashion is all about mating, after all.

I think though you can understand the diffence between what these people think of being practiacally naked, and what we in the Occident do

Wait a minute -- didn't you just say you weren't talking about enforcing your opinions? Let me scroll up for a second -- yep, there it is in the second quoted paragraph of this very post. And yet here you are, wishing someone would legislate something to get people to live the way you want them to. So I guess I'm not failing to separate what you're saying here from what you say elsewhere, after all.

I'm just discussing my opinion. And it is my opinion that these things should be legislated to discourage but not outlaw. There is a significent diffrence.

Dakini

26-03-2006, 20:42

I would say they are good guidelines. I wouldnt say they were universal, just good. All the girls I have talked to about it seem to agree.
I'm a girl and I disagree.
In the summer, not only do I love wearing skirts (they look so much better than shorts, which I suppose you'd probably consider immodest as well, but nuts to you, when it's 40C with the humidity, I'm wearing as little as possible) but I also love wearing tank tops, which are often low cut. I will often wear the two in combination.

I'm just discussing my opinion. And it is my opinion that these things should be legislated to discourage but not outlaw. There is a significent diffrence.
You're going to legislate against promiscuity in order to discourage it and you don't think that's outlawing it? How about you mind your own damn business. If you don't want to sleep around, then don't. It doesn't affect you whether your neighbour does or not (unless she wakes you up with her passionate cries which you can't cause a woman to have due to your lack of experience...)

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 21:31

They advocate modesty but I dont think any would say that the Bible has a strict principle of it. Its just a concept which there is a general notion of
So, are you all just guessing at what the Bible says? Or are you just saying what you want and claiming the Bible supports it?

Its ok

Well put it this way. In my time I've been a regular attender of three churches for significent periods. I've visited briefly however a dozen or so. I was not aware between those diffrent Churches any out of place doctrine regarding sex.
Three churches and brief visits to a dozen more. And how many Christian churches are there in the world? And of those you've attended/visited, how many different denominations? Out of how many total? And within all those different denominations, how much controversy exists over subjects like this? Your personal experience adds up to *your* views, not the views of the majority of Christians. Come up with some survey on overall Christian views of such things, or else kindly give up claiming to present a majority view.

I would say they are good guidelines. I wouldnt say they were universal, just good. All the girls I have talked to about it seem to agree.

So it's just your opinion, then? As for "all the girls" you've talked to, you've talked to me, and I don't agree.

I think though you can understand the diffence between what these people think of being practiacally naked, and what we in the Occident do

"In the Occident"? What year is this? The problem with this, Queen Victoria, is that this so-called "occident" is a very big place -- big bunch of places, actually -- with millions of people living in it who do not all share the same religion, taboos, traditions, philosophies, or lifestyles. So I will thank you not to try to spread your personal religious opinions over the entire western hemisphere and claim we all agree with you by some kind of cultural default that you have absolutely no proof of.

I'm just discussing my opinion. And it is my opinion that these things should be legislated to discourage but not outlaw. There is a significent diffrence.
I don't see any difference between laws that ban how I want to live or just restrict how I want to live. It's still you advocating laws that would force me to conform to your personal opinions. I really don't care what those opinions are. I decline to conform to the mere opinion of someone else.

EDIT: Oh, and btw, you're not just discussing your opinion. You've been claiming to discuss the opinion of the majority of Christians. Are you backing away from that claim now?

Adriatica II

26-03-2006, 21:39

I'm a girl and I disagree.
In the summer, not only do I love wearing skirts (they look so much better than shorts, which I suppose you'd probably consider immodest as well, but nuts to you, when it's 40C with the humidity, I'm wearing as little as possible) but I also love wearing tank tops, which are often low cut. I will often wear the two in combination.

I havent met you in public, which is what I meant by talking.

You're going to legislate against promiscuity in order to discourage it and you don't think that's outlawing it? How about you mind your own damn business. If you don't want to sleep around, then don't. It doesn't affect you whether your neighbour does or not (unless she wakes you up with her passionate cries which you can't cause a woman to have due to your lack of experience...)

Outlawing it would be to say that now legally a person is not allowed to have sex with more than this many people in this ammount of time etc and create a method of enforcing that law. Discouraging it means making it harder to do, in the same way we discourage the use of cigeretes by increasing taxs on them. We dont outlaw their use, but we discourage it. I think the lifestyle of people affects a societies structure and form. So it does ulitmately affect me.

The Half-Hidden

26-03-2006, 21:42

Real Christians do not think about sex.

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 21:45

I havent met you in public, which is what I meant by talking.

Outlawing it would be to say that now legally a person is not allowed to have sex with more than this many people in this ammount of time etc and create a method of enforcing that law. Discouraging it means making it harder to do, in the same way we discourage the use of cigeretes by increasing taxs on them. We dont outlaw their use, but we discourage it. I think the lifestyle of people affects a societies structure and form. So it does ulitmately affect me.
You're planning on taxing pre-marital sex? So this is all just a governmental get-rich-quick scheme? Because, yeah, the cigarette tax put such an enormous dent in the number of smokers. Uh-huh. And I'm sure it'll do the same for sex. Exactly the same.

But casting Big Brother not so much as the nation's watchdog but as the nation's pimp -- I gotta admit, it would fill the coffers all right.

Adriatica II

26-03-2006, 21:51

So, are you all just guessing at what the Bible says? Or are you just saying what you want and claiming the Bible supports it?

What I am saying is that the Bible does not explicitly say "you must be modest" in any kind of dogmatic form. It does support modesty in both sexes those

Three churches and brief visits to a dozen more. And how many Christian churches are there in the world? And of those you've attended/visited, how many different denominations? Out of how many total? And within all those different denominations, how much controversy exists over subjects like this? Your personal experience adds up to *your* views, not the views of the majority of Christians. Come up with some survey on overall Christian views of such things, or else kindly give up claiming to present a majority view.

Well it does add up to a view of a large number of Christians, not the majority I'd agree. I dont have a specific survery for you, but from everything I've read and heard it sounds like what the vast majority of Christians believe

So it's just your opinion, then? As for "all the girls" you've talked to, you've talked to me, and I don't agree.

Well when I say talk I refer to in the real world

"In the Occident"? What year is this? The problem with this, Queen Victoria, is that this so-called "occident" is a very big place -- big bunch of places, actually -- with millions of people living in it who do not all share the same religion, taboos, traditions, philosophies, or lifestyles. So I will thank you not to try to spread your personal religious opinions over the entire western hemisphere and claim we all agree with you by some kind of cultural default that you have absolutely no proof of.

The Occident and the Orient. They are both current terms. The east and west. The Occident here refering to is central-western Europe and North America.

I don't see any difference between laws that ban how I want to live or just restrict how I want to live. It's still you advocating laws that would force me to conform to your personal opinions. I really don't care what those opinions are. I decline to conform to the mere opinion of someone else.

Its simple. A ban on smoking completely severly damages your personal freedoms. However a high discoraging tax on smoking does not.

EDIT: Oh, and btw, you're not just discussing your opinion. You've been claiming to discuss the opinion of the majority of Christians. Are you backing away from that claim now?

I dont see why its so difficult to understand that I dont always talk for one group. Sometimes I say "I think that..." other times I say "Most X people believe..."

Adriatica II

26-03-2006, 21:54

You're planning on taxing pre-marital sex? So this is all just a governmental get-rich-quick scheme? Because, yeah, the cigarette tax put such an enormous dent in the number of smokers. Uh-huh. And I'm sure it'll do the same for sex. Exactly the same.

But casting Big Brother not so much as the nation's watchdog but as the nation's pimp -- I gotta admit, it would fill the coffers all right

Of course I'm not talking about taxing sex. That was a comparison. The point with the cigertee tax is that it discourages it without banning it outright (and the discorgaement is working in Britian, to the best of my knowledge). What I was more thinking of was placing a high tax on the morning after pill, making it discouragingly expensive, and if abortions are legal then the same there. Do not put them under the NHS unless in cases of theratening of the life to the mother.

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 22:18

What I am saying is that the Bible does not explicitly say "you must be modest" in any kind of dogmatic form. It does support modesty in both sexes those
So you're saying the Bible does not actually offer a model for me to follow in my behavior. Then why would I follow a "biblical model," as you suggested earlier?

The Bible says modesty is good? I'll bet it also says murder is bad and that we should respect our parents. Guess what? So do lots of other authoritative sources. What do I need the Bible for?

Well it does add up to a view of a large number of Christians, not the majority I'd agree. I dont have a specific survery for you, but from everything I've read and heard it sounds like what the vast majority of Christians believe
So you *are* backing away from your claim to present the beliefs of Christians. After all, what something "sounds like" to you is not proof. It's not even a suggestive fact upon which a persuasive argument could be built. So, will you amend the title of this thread to be "What *Some* Christians Think About Sex"?

Well when I say talk I refer to in the real world

Fair enough. I suppose it makes it easier to amass agreement when you discount sources that disagree.

The Occident and the Orient. They are both current terms. The east and west. The Occident here refering to is central-western Europe and North America.

Current among Queen Victoria immitators, maybe. Actual historians, social scientists, and academics have stopped using them on the grounds they do not accurately describe any coherent culture groups. For instance, Germans (i.e. western Europeans) are very into public nudity at beaches and parks. The practice is common in many European nations, actually. It is not a sexual practice. It is considered good for one's health to expose one's body to the fresh air. Obviously, there is not a common, western European, cultural assumption that public nudity is immodest. On the other hand, many Americans seem to assume that nudity is always connected to sex or sexuality. Clearly, there is disagreement about what consitutes an "occidental" taboo. Or are you saying that Americans are not "Occidentals"?

Its simple. A ban on smoking completely severly damages your personal freedoms. However a high discoraging tax on smoking does not.

A rose by any other name... If I want to smoke and you tax it to the point that I am forced to stop because I can't afford it, what difference does it make to me if you keep telling me that I *could* smoke, if only I could come up with the money? What you are advocating is a de facto ban, but hidden behind a lie that claims it's something else.

Or do you only advocate legislating morality for the poor?

I dont see why its so difficult to understand that I dont always talk for one group. Sometimes I say "I think that..." other times I say "Most X people believe..."
Yes, I understand that you are doing this. You do it all the time. You may have noticed me complaining about it before now. The reason I complain is that you don't draw any distinction between what you think and what you say other people think. Now if you said "75% of all Christians polled (provide link to poll) think X and by a happy coincidence I think X too," then I'd have no complaint against you.

But what you actually do is first claim that "Most X people believe..." and then when you are challenged on the factual basis for that, you change it to say "No, I'm only saying that I think that..." and then when others say they're not interested in seeing your opinions legislated, you come back to "But it's not just my opinion because most X people believe..." And round and round we go. Endlessly.

Muravyets

26-03-2006, 22:21

Of course I'm not talking about taxing sex. That was a comparison. The point with the cigertee tax is that it discourages it without banning it outright (and the discorgaement is working in Britian, to the best of my knowledge). What I was more thinking of was placing a high tax on the morning after pill, making it discouragingly expensive, and if abortions are legal then the same there. Do not put them under the NHS unless in cases of theratening of the life to the mother.
You make a habit of drawing inaccurate comparisons. Remember pregnancy-as-contract?

And apparently you are advocating regulating the morality of the poor, but not the rich. Hm, another reason for me to advocate against you.

Dakini

26-03-2006, 22:49

Of course I'm not talking about taxing sex. That was a comparison. The point with the cigertee tax is that it discourages it without banning it outright (and the discorgaement is working in Britian, to the best of my knowledge). What I was more thinking of was placing a high tax on the morning after pill, making it discouragingly expensive, and if abortions are legal then the same there. Do not put them under the NHS unless in cases of theratening of the life to the mother.
Oh, so basically you want to force women to be baby machines?
The price of birth control pills and abortions would still be in effect after a woman's married, afterall. So you're telling women "if you want to have any sexual pleasure, you're going to have to take the extremely good chance of getting knocked up" you're also paving the way for rampant sexual disease if you're taking condoms out of the picture.
Also, what, only the rich are allowed sexual pleasure anymore in your scheme?

Straughn

27-03-2006, 06:41

My wife and I are Pentacostal Christians, and also swingers.

Go figure.
Keeper!

So WTH were you, anyway?

DubyaGoat

27-03-2006, 07:00

Keeper!

So WTH were you, anyway?

He actually said he and his wife ARE, still in the current sense apparently, Pentecostal Christians. However, I'd bet good money that it's not a recognized practice at their church OR they are an independently and self-described group. There are no congregational American Pentecostal churches that advocate or accept the promiscuous practice of 'wife-swapping.' I would suggest that they must be a group that does not acknowledge the biblical authority and teaching, or else they simply don't actually read it...

Such as:

Ephesians 5 1-7
1 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.

Straughn

27-03-2006, 07:15

He actually said he and his wife ARE, still in the current sense apparently, Pentecostal Christians. However, I'd bet good money that it's not a recognized practice at their church OR they are an independently and self-described group. There are no congregational American Pentecostal churches that advocate or accept the promiscuous practice of 'wife-swapping.' I would suggest that they must be a group that does not acknowledge the biblical authority and teaching, or else they simply don't actually read it...

Such as:

Ephesians 5 1-7
1 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
Sorry, i should clarify ...
Where The He-doublehockeysticks were you?
There were a few threads that seemed to be of his argument calibre, and it seemed kinda vacant w/out him.

TJHairball

27-03-2006, 07:28

On the original topic, I have to say I'm definitely aware. The attractive young Christian women who walk up to me to sell me Christianity make a point of pointing out that they believe in sex.

On the flip side, though, there is still the Puritan tradition floating around...

... and I'd like to say sin taxes definitely lie heavy on the backs of the poor, and not at all on the rich.

Adriatica II

27-03-2006, 13:53

You make a habit of drawing inaccurate comparisons. Remember pregnancy-as-contract?

And apparently you are advocating regulating the morality of the poor, but not the rich. Hm, another reason for me to advocate against you.

There are other ways of discoraging something that isnt an outright ban. Plus even the rich have a problem with this sort of thing. You ever noticed how when people become richer, they also become much more tight fisted with their money.

Adriatica II

27-03-2006, 13:55

Oh, so basically you want to force women to be baby machines?
The price of birth control pills and abortions would still be in effect after a woman's married, afterall. So you're telling women "if you want to have any sexual pleasure, you're going to have to take the extremely good chance of getting knocked up" you're also paving the way for rampant sexual disease if you're taking condoms out of the picture.
Also, what, only the rich are allowed sexual pleasure anymore in your scheme?

No. I didnt say that. I oppose reactive contreception, not preventative. The diffrence is that preventative contreception lowers the chance of actually having a baby, which is fair because then the possiblity still exists (allbeit slim) where as things such as abortion and the morning after pill elimitate it completely.

And as I said, there are other ways of discouraging besides from tax rises.

Laerod

27-03-2006, 14:00

No. I didnt say that. I oppose reactive contreception, not preventative. The diffrence is that preventative contreception lowers the chance of actually having a baby, which is fair because then the possiblity still exists (allbeit slim) where as things such as abortion and the morning after pill elimitate it completely.

And as I said, there are other ways of discouraging besides from tax rises.Adriatica, I have a question. How is forcing people to adopt your lifestyle a good thing?

How would you feel if you were discouraged from doing things you liked that didn't hurt anybody?

Adriatica II

27-03-2006, 14:01

Adriatica, I have a question. How is forcing people to adopt your lifestyle a good thing?

How would you feel if you were discouraged from doing things you liked that didn't hurt anybody?

It depends on the lifestyle that your forcing. If it does make society in general a better place then maybe its a good thing. Contary to Magret Thatchers view, socity exists.

Dakini

27-03-2006, 14:04

No. I didnt say that. I oppose reactive contreception, not preventative. The diffrence is that preventative contreception lowers the chance of actually having a baby, which is fair because then the possiblity still exists (allbeit slim) where as things such as abortion and the morning after pill elimitate it completely.

And as I said, there are other ways of discouraging besides from tax rises.
The pill is preventative contraception. And by your definition, abortions are preventative contraceptives too, no baby is produced in an abortion afterall. Though abortion isn't a contraceptive really...

Though for your future refrence, the pill is something entirely different from emerency contraception or the morning-after pill. Thanks for being on top of woman's contraceptive issues that have existed since the 60s though.

Laerod

27-03-2006, 14:07

It depends on the lifestyle that your forcing. If it does make society in general a better place then maybe its a good thing. Contary to Magret Thatchers view, socity exists.Who gets to decide what a good lifestyle is? What would you hope to achieve by discouraging promiscuity? Why would discouraging organized religion be a bad idea, since we seem to have so many extremists around?

Von Witzleben

27-03-2006, 14:09

JuNii

27-03-2006, 14:21

"what christians think about sex?"

...

...

...

hehehehehehehehe....

UpwardThrust

27-03-2006, 15:25

snip

Most of the Christians I know dont think that sex is evil and dirty. They just think that it is intended for marriage.
Most of the ones I know do ... Sense the only evidence you have put forth is really anecdotal I will go with my personal experience

Muravyets

27-03-2006, 15:40

There are other ways of discoraging something that isnt an outright ban. Plus even the rich have a problem with this sort of thing. You ever noticed how when people become richer, they also become much more tight fisted with their money.
Yeah, you can price people out of the market for their own lifestyles and then lie and say you're not trying to control their morality through law.

Plus you can also rely on one sin to help you control another. For instance, you are relying on avarice to stop the rich from indulging in gluttony or lust.

But isn't avarice also a mortal sin? I guess you don't mind consigning other people to burn in hell as long as they don't fuck their way there.

And people wonder why I rejected Christianity -- look at what claims to represent that religion. :rolleyes:

Muravyets

27-03-2006, 15:44

No. I didnt say that. I oppose reactive contreception, not preventative. The diffrence is that preventative contreception lowers the chance of actually having a baby, which is fair because then the possiblity still exists (allbeit slim) where as things such as abortion and the morning after pill elimitate it completely.

And as I said, there are other ways of discouraging besides from tax rises.
Oh, really? Then why did you run an entire thread in which you claimed that unrestricted access to contraception promotes promiscuity and that it should be restricted or banned in order to prevent people from having too much sex?

BTW, "promiscuity" and "too much" are both terms you never defined. Are they as undefinable as "modesty"?

Adriatica II

27-03-2006, 15:46

Yeah, you can price people out of the market for their own lifestyles and then lie and say you're not trying to control their morality through law.

Governments put high taxes on alcohol and cigerettes. This is no diffrent. And kindly remember I'm not talking about preventative contrecption (birth control pill, condoms etc), I'm talking about reactive contrection (morning after pill, abortion).

Plus you can also rely on one sin to help you control another. For instance, you are relying on avarice to stop the rich from indulging in gluttony or lust.

But isn't avarice also a mortal sin? I guess you don't mind consigning other people to burn in hell as long as they don't fuck their way there.

And people wonder why I rejected Christianity -- look at what claims to represent that religion. :rolleyes:

1. These opions about law are 'my' opinions. There is nothing to suggest that a Chrisitan could not disagree with me.

2. I would not support those people being avaricious but at the same time it is a social phonemina that is observable.

Muravyets

27-03-2006, 15:49

It depends on the lifestyle that your forcing. If it does make society in general a better place then maybe its a good thing. Contary to Magret Thatchers view, socity exists.
And what are you going to do about the fact that millions of people globally -- in fact, millions of people just in the western hemisphere -- disagree with your idea of what would make society "better"?

(Oh, and Adriatica, do yourself a favor -- quit using that one quote from Thatcher. It's irrelevant, and it's dumb, and it makes people laugh. I'm just mentioning it because I don't detest you enough to let it slide without one warning.)

Muravyets

27-03-2006, 15:51

The pill is preventative contraception. And by your definition, abortions are preventative contraceptives too, no baby is produced in an abortion afterall. Though abortion isn't a contraceptive really...

Though for your future refrence, the pill is something entirely different from emerency contraception or the morning-after pill. Thanks for being on top of woman's contraceptive issues that have existed since the 60s though.
What do you expect? He quotes Margaret Thatcher and thinks we're all "Occidentals."

Dakini

27-03-2006, 15:52

Governments put high taxes on alcohol and cigerettes. This is no diffrent. And kindly remember I'm not talking about preventative contrecption (birth control pill, condoms etc), I'm talking about reactive contrection (morning after pill, abortion).
Abortions aren't contraceptives, by the real definition of the word contraceptive. And by your definition of preventative contraception (no baby is produced) abortions fit the bill.
Furthermore, heavily taxing aboritons and the morning after pill will mean that only rich women and men can afford them, thus forcing already poor people to become poorer as they deal with the financial burden of a kid.
Furthermore, no one uses abortion or the morning after pill as primary birth control methods, there are much cheaper and more comfortable (not to mention healthier) ways to keep from reproducing.

Laerod

27-03-2006, 15:52

Governments put high taxes on alcohol and cigerettes. This is no diffrent.
Really? I've never become intoxicated through sex though, and it doesn't cause health problems every time you do it.

Dakini

27-03-2006, 15:54

Really? I've never become intoxicated through sex though, and it doesn't cause health problems every time you do it.
Quite the contrary to causing health problems, frequent sex can be good for you!

http://www.tantra-sex.com/ummsummer00.html

Adriatica II

27-03-2006, 15:55

And what are you going to do about the fact that millions of people globally -- in fact, millions of people just in the western hemisphere -- disagree with your idea of what would make society "better"?

If a government is democratically ellected into power they have the legitamcy to pass these kinds of laws.

(Oh, and Adriatica, do yourself a favor -- quit using that one quote from Thatcher. It's irrelevant, and it's dumb, and it makes people laugh. I'm just mentioning it because I don't detest you enough to let it slide without one warning.)

In case you didnt notice I'm supporting its irrelvence. Contary to what she believed, society does exist.

Muravyets

27-03-2006, 16:06

[1] Governments put high taxes on alcohol and cigerettes. This is no diffrent. And kindly remember I'm not talking about preventative contrecption (birth control pill, condoms etc), I'm talking about reactive contrection (morning after pill, abortion).

[2]
1. These opions about law are 'my' opinions. There is nothing to suggest that a Chrisitan could not disagree with me.

2. I would not support those people being avaricious but at the same time it is a social phonemina that is observable.
[1]
A) "Sin taxes" do nothing to stop people from buying alcohol and cigarettes. That's why the government taxes them -- to get the money from the rampant sales. Cigarette smoking is going down because of two reasons: 1) health awareness, and 2) outright bans -- not from taxes. I am not aware that alcohol usage has changed much in the last 100 years. As for pricing the poor out of their sinning ways, cigarette taxes have led to only one result -- smuggling of cigarettes without tax stamps, i.e. organized crime. Alchohol prohibition did the same thing, if you recall. And so will your little ideas -- especially because, unlike smoking or getting drunk, having sex is vitally necessary to the survival of the species and is therefore a natural, instinctive which should not be avoided any more than eating or sleeping should be avoided. So, once all your little machinations have failed, will you then stop lying and impose your outright ban?

B) I refer you to your own thread on "opposing promiscuity" in which you argued vehemently and at length against all forms of contraception. Are you lying now or were you lying then?

[2]
1. Actually, there is quite a lot to suggest that many other Christians do not agree with you. I refer you not only to other self-professed Christians in this forum, such as Jocabia, Dempublicents, Simonist, and others, but also to the general public debate among Christians, Christian churches, and Christian authorities on this very subject. If there is debate, then there is not agreement.

2. So you are merely willing to exploit the weaknesses of their souls in order to manipulate them into doing what you want? Hm, maybe they won't be the ones going to hell, after all.

Muravyets

27-03-2006, 16:20

If a government is democratically ellected into power they have the legitamcy to pass these kinds of laws.

In case you didnt notice I'm supporting its irrelvence. Contary to what she believed, society does exist.
So, does this mean that your claims that you are only discussing your personal opinions (which you like to claim all Christians share) are totally false and that you are, in fact, advocating setting up government to carry out your religious goals?

And what will you do if it turns out that, no matter who you get into office, the majority of people will not comply with your morally repressive laws? I mean, really, seriously, Adriatica, do you honestly think that the majority of people are going to vote in a government promoting an anti-sex platform? No, obviously, you're going to have to tell yet more lies and make up some other platform on, say taxes or defense or immigration, to get people to vote for your gang of puritans and then spring your morality overhaul on them once you're in office. Do you really think that's going to work? And if it doesn't, how do you intend to enforce your laws? Hm? Since we're talking about law and government now, let's hear your dream-plan. Lay it out for us.

And just to stay on topic, what will you do if a significant number of non-compliant miscreants turn out to be Christians?

As for your favorite Thatcher quote: A) It is completely irrelevant to the topic (it was probably irrelevant to whatever the topic was when Thatcher said it, too). Every time you say it, it is pretty much the equivalent of typing the word "spatula" at the end of your posts. B) If you want to say "spatula" at the end of your posts, go right ahead. I've already done all my conscience requires to stop you from making yourself look like even more of an idiot.

Luporum

27-03-2006, 16:32

"It is better to have your seed fall into the belly of a whore than on the ground."

*shakes head*

Yeah that's useful in today's society.

Unholy Emperors

27-03-2006, 16:34

Just have fun in your current life and don't worry about your next life that you're not even sure exists.

If you're gonna think "Hey that girl is hot" Odds are sexual thoughts are going to cross your mind, not by choice.

Muravyets

27-03-2006, 16:44

"It is better to have your seed fall into the belly of a whore than on the ground."

*shakes head*

Yeah that's useful in today's society.
Ah, but not in the society of the future according to Adriatica. I wonder what other parts of the Bible he'll have to edit out to make his scheme work?

UpwardThrust

27-03-2006, 18:59

"It is better to have your seed fall into the belly of a whore than on the ground."

*shakes head*

Yeah that's useful in today's society.
Reminds me of Ron White

When his grandma told him that after catching him masturbating

"Alright grandma ... sound advice from the good book ... Got 50 bucks on ya?"

Luporum

27-03-2006, 19:38

Gonna have to go with with Sartre on this one.

"No general ethics can show you what is to be done; there are no omens in the world. Catholics would reply there are--granted, but in any case, I myself choose the meaning they have."

Basically mankind is responsible for every action they make.

Muravyets

27-03-2006, 19:41

Reminds me of Ron White

When his grandma told him that after catching him masturbating

"Alright grandma ... sound advice from the good book ... Got 50 bucks on ya?"
Gotta love those unintended consequences. They make it all worthwhile. :D

Adriatica II

27-03-2006, 19:51

[2]
1. Actually, there is quite a lot to suggest that many other Christians do not agree with you. I refer you not only to other self-professed Christians in this forum, such as Jocabia, Dempublicents, Simonist, and others, but also to the general public debate among Christians, Christian churches, and Christian authorities on this very subject. If there is debate, then there is not agreement.

Had you read my post, you'll see I agreed with that sentiment. I said

There is nothing to suggest that a Chrisitan could not disagree with me

Psyker Bearzerkers

27-03-2006, 20:26

to christians sex is to make babies...

Either a boring christian kid in a damn polo or a bored emo tard who thinks he is pagan....

Then the XX side is a good chriastain girl in a pleated plad skirt, or a naughty girl in a pleated plad skirt... at least the x sperm is faster!

Dempublicents1

27-03-2006, 22:05

Your not getting this

No, I am. You simply are adding in quite a bit to get at an interpretation that sounds good to you.

The command was not a moral command. It wasnt "dont eat of the tree becuase it is wrong to do so" it was "dont eat of the tree because if you do you will die". It was not nessecary for an understanding of morals to obey

Any time God says to do something, or not to do something, it is a moral command. At least, it is if you believe that God is all-good and all-knowing.

And, once again, this only works if you make the assumption that Adam and Eve, despite never having experienced death, truly knew what it meant. You assume this because it makes you feel better - that is fine. But there is nothing to support it.

Indeed. Its implict because they do not express confusion. But since they use words later that they were not explicitly taught the meaning of accurately we can assume that they understood.

So if a child uses words that you didn't sit down and teach them, that means they understand everything you have to say? If my dog understands the word "bath", although I never tried to teach it to him, that means he understands me when I say, "You're such a handsome boy today"?

God did not create them as babies, with no understanding. He just did not give them the understanding of good and evil. But they did not need that to understand the command

Not understanding good and evil makes them as children, or as animals.

Because they knew what the tree of life was for.

Once again, a completely unfounded assumption obviously made just to make you feel better about the story.

Muravyets

27-03-2006, 22:13

Had you read my post, you'll see I agreed with that sentiment. I said

There is nothing to suggest that a Chrisitan could not disagree with me
Okay, I stand corrected. And this means that you are now officially backing down from your claim to represent the opinions of Christians about sex?

I've asked you this 3 times, and you have not answered me so far.

Adriatica II

27-03-2006, 22:49

Okay, I stand corrected. And this means that you are now officially backing down from your claim to represent the opinions of Christians about sex?

I've asked you this 3 times, and you have not answered me so far.

No. I have said there is a diffrence. What Chrisitans believe about sex is that it should only be within a marriage. That is what most Chrisitans believe the Bible teaches on the subject. Beyond that, the Bible would support modesty in a person (but doesnt teach beyond a general guideline what that means) but its not dogma (IE its not a sin to not dress modestly)

In my own view I think that the government should use measures to discourage the idea that sex can be without consequence, for both parties. Taxing reactive birth control is one method but I'm sure there are may others, I'm just not sure of them yet.

Muravyets

27-03-2006, 22:56

No. I have said there is a diffrence. What Chrisitans believe about sex is that it should only be within a marriage. That is what most Chrisitans believe the Bible teaches on the subject. Beyond that, the Bible would support modesty in a person (but doesnt teach beyond a general guideline what that means) but its not dogma (IE its not a sin to not dress modestly)

In my own view I think that the government should use measures to discourage the idea that sex can be without consequence, for both parties. Taxing reactive birth control is one method but I'm sure there are may others, I'm just not sure of them yet.
Okay, well, then you're still just blowing smoke up all our asses.

You have provided no evidence that your views are held by most Christians. You have several times in this thread admitted that, in fact, you have no way of knowing whether most Christians agree with you and that they may indeed not agree with you -- but you still insist that your views are the majority view. Such statements are meaningless.

As for your views of what the government should do about my sex life -- nobody cares what you think, and you have certainly not given us any reason to start caring.

Adriatica II

27-03-2006, 23:04

Any time God says to do something, or not to do something, it is a moral command. At least, it is if you believe that God is all-good and all-knowing.

No it isnt. God gave them a reason for it beyond morality. It was simple fact. Look at the 10 commandments for instance. God did not say on those occations "You shall not commit adultury because..." he just said it. Those were moral commands, because they were absolutes. If God had said "You shall not commit adultury because if you do it will upset the red crocus birds" it wouldnt have been an absolute because supposing the red crocus birds all died out. Then it would be ok to commit adultury because the reason it was bad was gone. Adulutry is an aboslute command because it is how God intended us, which is permenat to our nature.

And, once again, this only works if you make the assumption that Adam and Eve, despite never having experienced death, truly knew what it meant. You assume this because it makes you feel better - that is fine. But there is nothing to support it.

Adam and eve frequently use words that Genesis doesnt say they were taught what they mean. But the fact is they knew them. It is implicit. God did not create them as infants. He created them man and woman.

So if a child uses words that you didn't sit down and teach them, that means they understand everything you have to say? If my dog understands the word "bath", although I never tried to teach it to him, that means he understands me when I say, "You're such a handsome boy today"?

If they didnt understand it, they would have said something. There is no evidence they asked God what Death was or why it was so bad. If they did ask they would have been told.

Not understanding good and evil makes them as children, or as animals.

You forget, your comming from a position where you have known nothing but having the knowledge of good and evil. The fact is you can be very intellegent but not know the diffrence between good and evil.

Once again, a completely unfounded assumption obviously made just to make you feel better about the story.

Again its implicit. Had they not known they would have asked and there is no indication of that. Its likely that they did not know, asked and were told so they did know. It just hasnt specificly told us. Its implicit.

Adriatica II

27-03-2006, 23:07

Okay, well, then you're still just blowing smoke up all our asses.

You have provided no evidence that your views are held by most Christians. You have several times in this thread admitted that, in fact, you have no way of knowing whether most Christians agree with you and that they may indeed not agree with you -- but you still insist that your views are the majority view. Such statements are meaningless.

If you can find a descenting view on sex outside of marriage in this regard I will listen to it. But at the moment there is no debate, no discussuion as to what is thought of sex in the Church. There is a debate about homosexuality but that is a diffrent matter. I have yet to see any Church that believes anything other than sex is meant for a married couple. If you could find a significent minority to disprove that I'd be impressed.

EDIT:
One piece of evidence to support my view on this being the majority one would be the Alpha course. It has (as you may or may not know) traveled far and wide around the world and proven very sucessful with bringing faith to people. One of the principle views it shares there is that of sex being for exclusively within a marriage. Since so many chruchs have accepted it it would apper to be the majority view.

As for your views of what the government should do about my sex life -- nobody cares what you think, and you have certainly not given us any reason to start caring.

You asked what I thought, I told you. Dont complain when you get precisily what you asked for.

Dempublicents1

27-03-2006, 23:20

No it isnt. God gave them a reason for it beyond morality.

Irrelevant. By definition, any command from a God that defines good and evil is a moral command. If God truly is all-good and is that from which all which is good flows, then *any* command given by God, even if there is a practical reason for it, is a moral imperative.

Adam and eve frequently use words that Genesis doesnt say they were taught what they mean. But the fact is they knew them. It is implicit.

And the fact that they knew some words means that they necessarily knew all words - even those with which they had had no experience whatsoever.

God did not create them as infants. He created them man and woman.

But not man and woman as you and I are - as he left them as innocents - as unaware of good and evil.

If they didnt understand it, they would have said something.

How do you know? Do children ask about everything they don't understand? Do they sometimes assume they get it when they don't? Even adults do this. We don't always ask when we don't understand, especially when we either think we should know, or think it isn't all that important.

You forget, your comming from a position where you have known nothing but having the knowledge of good and evil. The fact is you can be very intellegent but not know the diffrence between good and evil.

Knowing the difference between good and evil is, in the end, the *only* thing that sets us apart from the rest of nature. There are other creatures that can be very intelligent. It is our ability to understand the consequences of our actions that sets us apart.

Again its implicit.

By implicit, you mean, "I must assume this in order to stick with the interpretation I wish to have." Of course, at this point, you've ended up with quite a few assumptions added into the mix.

If you can find a descenting view on sex outside of marriage in this regard I will listen to it.

Define what you mean by marriage, and I'll be able to tell you if I dissent or not.

Adriatica II

27-03-2006, 23:42

Irrelevant. By definition, any command from a God that defines good and evil is a moral command. If God truly is all-good and is that from which all which is good flows, then *any* command given by God, even if there is a practical reason for it, is a moral imperative.

Yes but in this case they did not need to understand good or evil to know not to do it.

And the fact that they knew some words means that they necessarily knew all words - even those with which they had had no experience whatsoever.

You dont have to have experiance of words to know what they mean. Most people know what an Earthquake is, but most people havent had experiance of one. However they have been told what it means.

But not man and woman as you and I are - as he left them as innocents - as unaware of good and evil.

Yes, but as I said they didnt need to know what good and evil were to deal with the command. It wasnt an ethical dilemma.

How do you know? Do children ask about everything they don't understand? Do they sometimes assume they get it when they don't? Even adults do this. We don't always ask when we don't understand, especially when we either think we should know, or think it isn't all that important.

The thing is I think that Adam and Eve would have thought this was important. And remember God is perfect. If he had wanted them to understand something, they would have understood it.

Knowing the difference between good and evil is, in the end, the *only* thing that sets us apart from the rest of nature. There are other creatures that can be very intelligent. It is our ability to understand the consequences of our actions that sets us apart.

I think its more than that that sets us apart. Our sentience is another big thing. The fact is they were aware of the consequences of their actions, but good and evil is about far more than that.

By implicit, you mean, "I must assume this in order to stick with the interpretation I wish to have." Of course, at this point, you've ended up with quite a few assumptions added into the mix.

What assumptions, that Adam and Eve understood what they were told. God is perfect remember. They would have understood everything he had told them

Define what you mean by marriage, and I'll be able to tell you if I dissent or not.

Well without getting into the whole homosexual union issue, its basicly a commitiment between a man and a women and God. The commitiment of an exclusive, loving relationship. Some others may be able to better describe it than me.

Philosopy

27-03-2006, 23:44

EDIT:
One piece of evidence to support my view on this being the majority one would be the Alpha course. It has (as you may or may not know) traveled far and wide around the world and proven very sucessful with bringing faith to people. One of the principle views it shares there is that of sex being for exclusively within a marriage. Since so many chruchs have accepted it it would apper to be the majority view.
Ha! You claim ALPHA as your legitimacy? :D

Oh, that makes me laugh.

Adriatica II

27-03-2006, 23:46

Ha! You claim ALPHA as your legitimacy? :D

Oh, that makes me laugh.

I'm not sure why. Elaborate

The fact is many churches around the world have been using the literature material from that to run courses. Thus if they use the material they implicitly agree with it. The material supports my view of sex being sinful outside of marriage. So its logical to assume that those churchs who use it support that view.

Dempublicents1

27-03-2006, 23:56

Yes but in this case they did not need to understand good or evil to know not to do it.

Doesn't really matter if you take the view, as most do, that one cannot sin unless one does something that one knows is evil. They may not have had to understand good and evil, but to call what they did a sin worthy of punishment, then they would *have* to understand that.

You dont have to have experiance of words to know what they mean. Most people know what an Earthquake is, but most people havent had experiance of one. However they have been told what it means.

...because other people have had experiences with earthquakes and could describe them. If the very first earthquake ever happened tomorrow, no one would know what it was.

Yes, but as I said they didnt need to know what good and evil were to deal with the command. It wasnt an ethical dilemma.

Then it wasn't a sin, and thus could not be original sin.

The thing is I think that Adam and Eve would have thought this was important.

Yup, an assumption. You are projecting onto them, based on your knowledge of how important the decision could have been.

And remember God is perfect. If he had wanted them to understand something, they would have understood it.

One could just as easily say, "God is perfect. If he had wanted them to stay away from the tree, they would have."

I think its more than that that sets us apart. Our sentience is another big thing.

Many, many creatures exhibit sentience.

The fact is they were aware of the consequences of their actions, but good and evil is about far more than that.

Not really. Only with that understanding can we begin to comprehend good and evil.

What assumptions, that Adam and Eve understood what they were told. God is perfect remember. They would have understood everything he had told them

You assume that Adam and Eve understood what death was.
You assume that they would have asked if they didn't know.
You assume that your own assessment of God's motives and actions are correct.
You assume that, if they didn't know, it necessarily would have been included in Scripture.

And a big one: You assume that Adam and Eve were actually single people, and that the account is absolutely literal.

Well without getting into the whole homosexual union issue, its basicly a commitiment between a man and a women and God. The commitiment of an exclusive, loving relationship. Some others may be able to better describe it than me.

Make it a committed, exclusive relationship between two people, with the approval of God, and I'll agree with you.

Adriatica II

28-03-2006, 00:26

Doesn't really matter if you take the view, as most do, that one cannot sin unless one does something that one knows is evil. They may not have had to understand good and evil, but to call what they did a sin worthy of punishment, then they would *have* to understand that.

The word 'sin' essentially means disobeying God. They knew it was that much.

...because other people have had experiences with earthquakes and could describe them. If the very first earthquake ever happened tomorrow, no one would know what it was.

Yes. But in that situation in Eden someone did know what death was. God. And if they had needed to understand he would have explained it to them

Then it wasn't a sin, and thus could not be original sin.

Sin is rebeling against God, disobeying God's commands. The link between sin and morality comes later when we understand good and evil as God is all good.

Yup, an assumption. You are projecting onto them, based on your knowledge of how important the decision could have been.

They had the knowelegde they needed. God would have seen to that

One could just as easily say, "God is perfect. If he had wanted them to stay away from the tree, they would have."

Free will. God gave them the command but he wanted them to have the capacity to choose to obey it out of love. Not obey it because they were programmed to do so

Many, many creatures exhibit sentience.

That is exceptionally debateable. However this point is moot since it is possible to be a human without an awareness of good and evil.

Not really. Only with that understanding can we begin to comprehend good and evil.

Good and evil arnt just about consequences of actions. They about the empathy that links us to those consequences.

You assume that Adam and Eve understood what death was.

Because God used the word to them. God is perfect. I he wants someone to understand something, they will understand it.

You assume that they would have asked if they didn't know.

Well if you were in that situation you would of. As would everyone else. Nearly all children, when they are given a command ask "why"

You assume that your own assessment of God's motives and actions are correct.

They appear most in line with scripture.

You assume that, if they didn't know, it necessarily would have been included in Scripture.

Like I said, if they didnt know they would have been told. Since we know know what death means it isnt nessecary to be told what it means again.

And a big one: You assume that Adam and Eve were actually single people, and that the account is absolutely literal.

We are discussing the scripture.

Make it a committed, exclusive relationship between two people, with the approval of God, and I'll agree with you.

In my view the biblical defintion is a man and a women. As it says in Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be united with his wife and the two will become oneflesh"

The part "for this reason" refers to the reason being Eden. Eden was perfect and male female relationships were like this in Eden because thats how God wanted them to be.

Like I said however, on this particualr issue there is disagreement

Dempublicents1

28-03-2006, 00:36

The word 'sin' essentially means disobeying God. They knew it was that much.

But they couldn't possibly know it was wrong (aka evil) to disobey God. Thus, they could not commit a sin. Unless, that is, sin has nothing to do with understanding or intent.

Yes. But in that situation in Eden someone did know what death was. God. And if they had needed to understand he would have explained it to them

So very many assumptions. Good to know that you understand the motives of God.

Sin is rebeling against God, disobeying God's commands. The link between sin and morality comes later when we understand good and evil as God is all good.

But one can only sin if one understands the commands and that disobeying them would be wrong.

Free will. God gave them the command but he wanted them to have the capacity to choose to obey it out of love. Not obey it because they were programmed to do so

Maybe God didn't want fear of death being the reason for their decision, and thus they couldn't truly understand what death was.

That is exceptionally debateable.

No, it isn't. We can demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that many creatures are sentient - that they are self-aware and able to perceive the world around them. Now if you meant something other than sentience...

However this point is moot since it is possible to be a human without an awareness of good and evil.

To be a member of the species, human, yes. To be what we would actually call human, no. There is a reason that we describe psychopaths as inhuman - it is because they lack the defining factor of humanity.

Good and evil arnt just about consequences of actions. They about the empathy that links us to those consequences.

That empathy is exactly what I mean when I say we are aware of the consequences.

Because God used the word to them. God is perfect. I he wants someone to understand something, they will understand it.

Once again, you try to ascribe your own motivations to God. Do you really know what it means to be perfect? Do any of us?

Well if you were in that situation you would of. As would everyone else. Nearly all children, when they are given a command ask "why"

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Sometimes they think they know but don't really.

They appear most in line with scripture.

You mean your interpretation of Scripture. Depending on the personal interpretation, all sorts of things can be in line with scripture.

Like I said, if they didnt know they would have been told. Since we know know what death means it isnt nessecary to be told what it means again.

Yes, yes, keep making your assumptions.

We are discussing the scripture.

Yes, we are. But we cannot discuss it without first determining whether it is meant to be literal or metaphorical - something that must be determined, as some of Scripture is each. You make the assumption that it is meant to be absolutely literal - an assumption that is not necessary to discuss the text.

In my view the biblical defintion is a man and a women.

Exactly: "in your view"

Adriatica II

28-03-2006, 01:13

But they couldn't possibly know it was wrong (aka evil) to disobey God. Thus, they could not commit a sin. Unless, that is, sin has nothing to do with understanding or intent.

"Wrong" impies moral implications. There were no moral implications inherant to the command. The command had nothing to do with ethics. It was to do with God. The relationship between God and ethics comes after the discovery of the understanding of good and evil

So very many assumptions. Good to know that you understand the motives of God.

If you say something to someone, you want them to understand what you mean. They may not always understand it but it is what you desire. If it was perfectly spoken they would understand. God is perfect. What he said to them was perfectly spoken. The would have understood.

But one can only sin if one understands the commands and that disobeying them would be wrong.

Your throwing around the word "wrong" too much. If by wrong you mean "should not be done" then yes, but if you mean wrong as in in any sense evil or morally negative then no. The command could have been any number of other things. There was no moral basis behind the command.

Maybe God didn't want fear of death being the reason for their decision, and thus they couldn't truly understand what death was.

God ultimately wanted the reason that they would obey his command to be that they loved him. He gave them the command because he loved them and wanted to protect them from death.

No, it isn't. We can demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that many creatures are sentient - that they are self-aware and able to perceive the world around them. Now if you meant something other than sentience...

Sentince to my mind goes beyond awareness of ones own existance. I believe the other word to it is Sapient. The point is the vast majority of animals operate on nothing but instinct. They do not have a consiousness. There are some that do, but those are not sapient to our levels

To be a member of the species, human, yes. To be what we would actually call human, no. There is a reason that we describe psychopaths as inhuman - it is because they lack the defining factor of humanity.

Your not getting at what I mean. When you say inhuman you naturally mean bad. Adam and Eve were not bad or evil people. They were not aware of good and evil in a capacity that perhaps I am unable to describe.

That empathy is exactly what I mean when I say we are aware of the consequences.

If you detonate a nuclear bomb, you can be aware that it will kill several hundruds of thosands of people. But if you lack the understanding of emapathy you will not understand the nature of the consequence. Here the lack of empathy for them in this evil act is an evil of itself. What would be even more evil is the empathy for the people but to do it anyway.

Once again, you try to ascribe your own motivations to God. Do you really know what it means to be perfect? Do any of us?.

Perfect generaly means without flaw. In this case, a command commiunicated without flaw would mean that the command was spoken in such a way that the people who were hearing it understood exactly what they were being told.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Sometimes they think they know but don't really.

In this case God wanted them to know. He wanted to protect them from what we have now. A world of suffering.

You mean your interpretation of Scripture. Depending on the personal interpretation, all sorts of things can be in line with scripture.

All I can offer you is my interpretation when asked about what I think. Why do you ask for anything else. In my view these views are most in line with the scripture.

Yes, yes, keep making your assumptions.

You know the only arguement you have against them is that they are assumptions. Thats not a reason they are wrong. Its a reason they can be wrong, but it doesnt prove why they are wrong, if they are.

Yes, we are. But we cannot discuss it without first determining whether it is meant to be literal or metaphorical - something that must be determined, as some of Scripture is each. You make the assumption that it is meant to be absolutely literal - an assumption that is not necessary to discuss the text

True. So for these purposes we will just discuss the text.

Exactly: "in your view"

It's what was asked for, it is what I am giving. Why do you complain so when you hear that phrase.

Dempublicents1

28-03-2006, 01:23

"Wrong" impies moral implications. There were no moral implications inherant to the command.

Then disobeying the command cannot possibly be sinful, as sinfulness is related to morality.

If you say something to someone, you want them to understand what you mean.

That all depends. Sometimes, I want to imply something more. Sometimes, I hope they don't quite get all of it, as it might start an argument. And so on...

Your throwing around the word "wrong" too much. If by wrong you mean "should not be done" then yes, but if you mean wrong as in in any sense evil or morally negative then no. The command could have been any number of other things. There was no moral basis behind the command.

If there was no moral basis, then disobedience was not sinful.

Sentince to my mind goes beyond awareness of ones own existance.

Maybe in your mind, but not by any accepted use of the word.

I believe the other word to it is Sapient.

Sapience goes well beyond sentience.

Maybe you should look these words up.

Your not getting at what I mean. When you say inhuman you naturally mean bad.

No, you mean inhuman. It usually means bad, because it usually comes out of the fact that they have done something evil, but do not see it as such.

Adam and Eve were not bad or evil people. They were not aware of good and evil in a capacity that perhaps I am unable to describe.

Psychopaths are not aware of good and evil, thus they cannot truly be evil people. But they do evil things.

If you detonate a nuclear bomb, you can be aware that it will kill several hundruds of thosands of people. But if you lack the understanding of emapathy you will not understand the nature of the consequence. Here the lack of empathy for them in this evil act is an evil of itself. What would be even more evil is the empathy for the people but to do it anyway.

You are making my point. In order to understand that something is good or evil, you must be able to understand its effect - to empathize with others.

Perfect generaly means without flaw.

...something that only God, in God's infinite wisdom, can truly define.

All I can offer you is my interpretation when asked about what I think. Why do you ask for anything else. In my view these views are most in line with the scripture.

I don't ask for anything else. I simply think you should be respectful enough to state that it is your interpretation, not an absolute.

You know the only arguement you have against them is that they are assumptions. Thats not a reason they are wrong. Its a reason they can be wrong, but it doesnt prove why they are wrong, if they are.

They can be either right or wrong, but they are assumptions that you cannot back up with anything more than, "I think it is so."

It's what was asked for, it is what I am giving. Why do you complain so when you hear that phrase.

I'm not complaining. You did exactly what you should do - you admitted that this was your interpretation, your view, rather than that of any other Christians.

Adriatica II

28-03-2006, 01:33

Then disobeying the command cannot possibly be sinful, as sinfulness is related to morality.

No it isnt. The definition of sin is to rebel against God.

That all depends. Sometimes, I want to imply something more. Sometimes, I hope they don't quite get all of it, as it might start an argument. And so on...

True, so I will clarify. If you command someone to do something, you want them to understand what you are saying. For the simple reason that if the dont understand you they may in fact do what it is you are asking them not to do.

If there was no moral basis, then disobedience was not sinful.

Sin and morality are not synonmoys. Sin means to disobey/rebel against God.

Maybe in your mind, but not by any accepted use of the word.

In all the discussions I have ever used the word in, it has been defined as one of the things that seperates us from animals. This is becasuse we are aware of our existance to such an extent that we can act in opposition to our instincts.

No, you mean inhuman. It usually means bad, because it usually comes out of the fact that they have done something evil, but do not see it as such.

Psychopaths are not aware of good and evil, thus they cannot truly be evil people. But they do evil things.

Here enlies an important distinction. Actions as evil and people as evil

You are making my point. In order to understand that something is good or evil, you must be able to understand its effect - to empathize with others.

I think here we agree. We are just seperated on where empathy becomes awarenes. More a confusion of language than anything else. I see your point

I don't ask for anything else. I simply think you should be respectful enough to state that it is your interpretation, not an absolute.

They can be either right or wrong, but they are assumptions that you cannot back up with anything more than, "I think it is so." .

You can back it up looking at what else we know about God. About who and what he is. We have the advantage of having the whole Bible so we can know a great deal about him. The fact is that as far as I can see, the logic I am explaining here fits in with the logic of who God is and his relationship with us in the rest of the Bible.

Buddom

28-03-2006, 01:40

The Bible just sucks. Really. No, I don't need to elaborate, it's not worth it.

Dempublicents1

28-03-2006, 01:47

No it isnt. The definition of sin is to rebel against God.

And any rebellion against God is, by definition, immoral.

True, so I will clarify. If you command someone to do something, you want them to understand what you are saying. For the simple reason that if the dont understand you they may in fact do what it is you are asking them not to do.

God already knew they would do what God was asking them not to do, assuming, that is, that God really is omniscient.

Sin and morality are not synonmoys. Sin means to disobey/rebel against God.

And immorality is defined as disobeying/rebelling against God - against good.

In all the discussions I have ever used the word in, it has been defined as one of the things that seperates us from animals.

By other people who don't actually know how to use the word. It used to be assumed that animals were not self aware. But many are. Thus, we found sentient animals.

This is becasuse we are aware of our existance to such an extent that we can act in opposition to our instincts.

Heightened awareness doesn't make you more likely to act in opposition to your instincts. There has to be something more. We are no more or less aware of our existence than a gorilla, yet we react to some things differently. Why?

You can back it up looking at what else we know about God. About who and what he is. We have the advantage of having the whole Bible so we can know a great deal about him. The fact is that as far as I can see, the logic I am explaining here fits in with the logic of who God is and his relationship with us in the rest of the Bible.

Based on the entirety of the Bible and what I know about God, I disagree with your interpretation of the text. *shrug*

Dempublicents1

28-03-2006, 01:50

AII, I do have to ask:

Wouldn't you think that paradise would include knowledge? That to be in paradise would mean that you at least had the opportunity to gain all knowledge?

Eutrusca

28-03-2006, 01:59

The Bible just sucks. Really. No, I don't need to elaborate, it's not worth it.
Have.You.Read.It?

Adriatica II

28-03-2006, 02:07

And any rebellion against God is, by definition, immoral.

Morals need knowlegde of good and evil to function. In Eden there was no such knowledge. God gave them the command and the only reason to obey it that they knew was that God asked them to. You can be moral for any number of other reasons. For example you can be moral by giving money to charity not because God told you but because you see they need it.

The act of eating the fruit was not a moral one. It had no moral consequences to anyone else that were good or evil. It could have been anything else. Thus there is something diffrent involved. We see that what was done that was wrong was to disobey God. Disobeying God does not nessecarly have an impact on anyone else. But it is still sin.

God already knew they would do what God was asking them not to do, assuming, that is, that God really is omniscient.

Yes, but he still gave them the choice. And anyway you are changing the subject. Your orignal point was that you believed they didnt know what death meant. I have proven since that they would have done.

And immorality is defined as disobeying/rebelling against God - against good.

I've already pointed this out. The differnece between morality and sin is that morality deals with how we relate to each other as people. IE the consequences our actions will have on them. Sin deals with God. IE whether our actions are what her asks us to do. The two are linked but not sysnomous.

By other people who don't actually know how to use the word. It used to be assumed that animals were not self aware. But many are. Thus, we found sentient animals.

Forgive me but even my head of science at my high school was one of these discussions and he supported the way I used the word implictly as he didnt correct it. I'm sorry but that has been my general understanding. It may be a British/American differnt use of the word.

Heightened awareness doesn't make you more likely to act in opposition to your instincts. There has to be something more. We are no more or less aware of our existence than a gorilla, yet we react to some things differently. Why?

We are more self aware than gorrilias. No other creature in the world has developed language. Language is the apitomoy of self awareness. Some animals communicate but there is a marked diffrence between commiunication and language.

Based on the entirety of the Bible and what I know about God, I disagree with your interpretation of the text. *shrug*

So you think that God was flawed and did not give his instructions clearly enough for Adam and Eve to understand so that is why they fell. Even I can see that God would not behave like that if he was as the rest of the Bible describes him. Loving and comasionate. God wouldnt punish Adam and Eve the way he did for an honest mistake. And he would have known if it was an honsest mistake or not. He is all knowing.

Adriatica II

28-03-2006, 02:08

AII, I do have to ask:

Wouldn't you think that paradise would include knowledge? That to be in paradise would mean that you at least had the opportunity to gain all knowledge?

There is some ideas that the trees in Eden gave knowledge to Adam and Eve. The only knowledge they didnt have was that of good and evil. Because that knowledge demands responsability

Dempublicents1

28-03-2006, 02:21

Morals need knowlegde of good and evil to function.

Exactly my point.

In Eden there was no such knowledge. God gave them the command and the only reason to obey it that they knew was that God asked them to.

Why need they do so if they cannot understand that it is wrong to disobey?

You can be moral for any number of other reasons. For example you can be moral by giving money to charity not because God told you but because you see they need it.

But don't you think the fact that doing something that someone needs is moral comes from God? Don't you think that not caring about these people would be to turn away from God?

The act of eating the fruit was not a moral one.

And yet "sin" is defined in most theology as being disobedient to God. Interestingly enough, "immoral" is defined the exact same way. Thus, sin and immorality are interchangeable terms.

It had no moral consequences to anyone else that were good or evil.

You disagree with the doctrine of Original Sin, then?

Yes, but he still gave them the choice. And anyway you are changing the subject. Your orignal point was that you believed they didnt know what death meant. I have proven since that they would have done.

You haven't proven any such thing. You have stated over and over that you don't believe that they didn't know, which is not the same as proving anything.

Forgive me but even my head of science at my high school was one of these discussions and he supported the way I used the word implictly as he didnt correct it.

And the head of neurology at a nearby medical college testified in front of our state legislature to the effect that research has shown something it absolutely has not and that research has, in fact, completely contradicted.

Credentials don't make you infallible.

I'm sorry but that has been my general understanding. It may be a British/American differnt use of the word.

Americans often misuse it as well, but the fact remains that there is nothing in the word to suggest anything more than self-awareness.

We are more self aware than gorrilias. No other creature in the world has developed language. Language is the apitomoy of self awareness. Some animals communicate but there is a marked diffrence between commiunication and language.

Language has nothing at all to do with self-awareness. You can be completely aware of yourself without words to describe it. Language has to do with categorizing the world around you.

So you think that God was flawed and did not give his instructions clearly enough for Adam and Eve to understand so that is why they fell. Even I can see that God would not behave like that if he was as the rest of the Bible describes him. Loving and comasionate. God wouldnt punish Adam and Eve the way he did for an honest mistake. And he would have known if it was an honsest mistake or not. He is all knowing.

Hardly. I don't think God is flawed at all, although the Yahwist Old Testament accounts often portray God that way. Of course, I also don't think that Adam and Eve existed as single people. I think that the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis is a metaphorical account of early humanity. I think that the ancient Hebrews looked around them and realized that, of all creatures, we are the only ones capable of understanding the moral implications of our actions (as far as we know) and I think they saw the responsibility that such knowledge brings with it as a burden. From their point of view, such a burden must have been a punishment. Thus, humankind must have done something to deserve such a punishment.

I disagree with this view. I don't think that ignorance is bliss. I think that our knowledge - the very thing that sets us apart in the world - is a gift, and one that should be used.

There is some ideas that the trees in Eden gave knowledge to Adam and Eve. The only knowledge they didnt have was that of good and evil. Because that knowledge demands responsability

So the perfect world lacks responsibility? You are one of the "ignorance is bliss" types, I take it?

Adriatica II

28-03-2006, 05:48

Why need they do so if they cannot understand that it is wrong to disobey?

I have had this debate several times with you and others. You always do this. You begin bandying around the terms "wrong" and "right" and "good" and "evil". So let me clarify. Something can be wrong or right without nessecarly being good or evil. It may have no moral bearing whatsoever. For example a mother tells her child he cannot eat the cookies now as they are for dinner with his friends. If he disobeys the command is that an evil action. No. But it was wrong to do. In the same way the action to eat the fruit was not evil, but it was wrong. It was wrong because God had told them not to eat it.

But don't you think the fact that doing something that someone needs is moral comes from God? Don't you think that not caring about these people would be to turn away from God?

And yet "sin" is defined in most theology as being disobedient to God. Interestingly enough, "immoral" is defined the exact same way. Thus, sin and immorality are interchangeable terms.

I explained this to you earlier. You've conviently dropped it. I've already pointed this out.

The differnece between morality and sin is that morality deals with how we relate to each other as people. IE the consequences our actions will have on them. Sin deals with God. IE whether our actions are what her asks us to do. The two are linked but not sysnomous

So a sin is to disobey God. To be immoral is to do something nasty to someone. They are often linked but they arnt identical. For example, sex outside of marriage is a sin. But most people would not consider it immoral in a secular sense in that it hasnt harmed anyone. The same is true of homosexuality, lust, vanity, greed. They are sins that do not harm anyone but are still sins

You disagree with the doctrine of Original Sin, then?

Orignal sin was the first rebellion against God. Not the first immoral act.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
You haven't proven any such thing. You have stated over and over that you don't believe that they didn't know, which is not the same as proving anything.

Yes I have. See here

- God is perfect
- God gave a command to them saying that if they will eat the fruit they will die
- If God is perfect then the command would have been perfect comming from him hence they would have understood what it ment perfectly.
- Hence Adam and Eve would have understood what death meant when God said it

And the head of neurology at a nearby medical college testified in front of our state legislature to the effect that research has shown something it absolutely has not and that research has, in fact, completely contradicted.

Credentials don't make you infallible.

No, but they make you worth being listened to

Language has nothing at all to do with self-awareness. You can be completely aware of yourself without words to describe it. Language has to do with categorizing the world around you.

Language is much more than catagorising the world around you. It is the arbitary assignment of noises and series of noises to mean things. Lanugaue shows self awareness beyond anything else because it means you have shown a consious way of describing something. A constructed method. As opposed to simple communication, which is unstructred instinct. Dogs bark not because that is special dog language. Its the only noise they can make with their vocal coards.

Hardly. I don't think God is flawed at all, although the Yahwist Old Testament accounts often portray God that way. Of course, I also don't think that Adam and Eve existed as single people. I think that the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis is a metaphorical account of early humanity. I think that the ancient Hebrews looked around them and realized that, of all creatures, we are the only ones capable of understanding the moral implications of our actions (as far as we know) and I think they saw the responsibility that such knowledge brings with it as a burden. From their point of view, such a burden must have been a punishment. Thus, humankind must have done something to deserve such a punishment.

I disagree with this view. I don't think that ignorance is bliss. I think that our knowledge - the very thing that sets us apart in the world - is a gift, and one that should be used.

I dont think ignorence is bliss either. I think moral knowledge is a good thing up to a point.

Straughn

28-03-2006, 06:26

I just want to give kudos to Dempublicents1 and
Adriatica II for having the wherewithal to cover nearly every conceivable relation to the subject matter, between the two of you.
Sort of a joke, sorta not.
I'm still impressed.

Adriatica II

28-03-2006, 15:53

Dempublicents1

28-03-2006, 17:17

I have had this debate several times with you and others. You always do this. You begin bandying around the terms "wrong" and "right" and "good" and "evil". So let me clarify. Something can be wrong or right without nessecarly being good or evil. It may have no moral bearing whatsoever. For example a mother tells her child he cannot eat the cookies now as they are for dinner with his friends. If he disobeys the command is that an evil action. No. But it was wrong to do. In the same way the action to eat the fruit was not evil, but it was wrong. It was wrong because God had told them not to eat it.

It wasn't? So there isn't a commandment - ie. a "moral", that says, "Honor thy mother and father"?

I explained this to you earlier. You've conviently dropped it. I've already pointed this out.

"I said it, therefore it must be true. Never mind if it isn't. I said it and that makes it true."

The differnece between morality and sin is that morality deals with how we relate to each other as people. IE the consequences our actions will have on them. Sin deals with God. IE whether our actions are what her asks us to do. The two are linked but not sysnomous

Remember how we were told to keep our bodies as temples? That is about how we interact with ourselves, and with God. And it is a moral command.

You wish to separate morals and sin from each other, but when it comes right down to it, you can't.

So a sin is to disobey God. To be immoral is to do something nasty to someone.

Are you telling me that all commands from God aren't good and that all that is good does not come from God?

They are often linked but they arnt identical. For example, sex outside of marriage is a sin. But most people would not consider it immoral in a secular sense in that it hasnt harmed anyone. The same is true of homosexuality, lust, vanity, greed. They are sins that do not harm anyone but are still sins

Who cares what a "secular sense" says? We are talking about a religious sense. If you believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin, then you believe it is immoral. You may say, "Oh, well it isn't immoral according to person A," but that doesn't change the fact that, in your moral code, it is.

Orignal sin was the first rebellion against God. Not the first immoral act.

Any rebellion against God is immoral, by definition.

Yes I have. See here

Still doesn't *prove* anything. It is you saying, "This is the thought process I took to arrive at my conclusion."

Of course, a different thought process, with different assumptions to begin with, would lend an entirely different conclusion. Thus, nothing is actually proven.

Meanwhile, I'll ask you again, are you as a fallible human able to understand the perfection of God? Are you able to apply your own fallible perception of perfection to God? Do you know God's motives and what God intends?

No, but they make you worth being listened to

No, they make it slightly more likely that you will be correct. Your teacher was misusing words - not uncommon among science teachers, at least in elementary and secondary schools. The head of neurology at MCG was flat-out incorrect, even though he was discussing his own field.

In truth, I probably have more science education at this point than the "head of science" at your high school. Does that mean that what I have to say trumps him?

Language is much more than catagorising the world around you. It is the arbitary assignment of noises and series of noises to mean things.

These two statements are logically equivalent. Taking noises to mean things is categorizing the world around you - giving names to those things.

Lanugaue shows self awareness beyond anything else because it means you have shown a consious way of describing something.

That still has nothing at all to do with SELF-awareness. It means you are (a) aware of everything around you and (b) in a species which has developed a way to discuss these things with others.

A constructed method. As opposed to simple communication, which is unstructred instinct. Dogs bark not because that is special dog language. Its the only noise they can make with their vocal coards.

Actually, this is horribly incorrect. Dogs whine, bark, growl, and so forth. There is a rather complicated method of communication within, for instance, a wolf pack. Various noises represent danger, anger, happiness, playfulness, warnings, etc.

The same is true among apes, which have different signals for different things. Bonobos even have a complicated sign language that deals strictly with sex and sexual positions.

Dolphins and whales communicate through various sounds, which mean different things.

Birds have different sounds which mean different things.

This can hardly be called "unstructured", and while some of it is instinctual, some of it is also learned.

I dont think ignorence is bliss either. I think moral knowledge is a good thing up to a point.

If you think there is a point at which knowledge should stop, then you think ignorance is bliss, up to a point.

But, if you don't think that ignorance is bliss, then why would paradise necessitate having no knowledge of good and evil?

Muravyets

28-03-2006, 21:21

If you can find a descenting view on sex outside of marriage in this regard I will listen to it. But at the moment there is no debate, no discussuion as to what is thought of sex in the Church. There is a debate about homosexuality but that is a diffrent matter. I have yet to see any Church that believes anything other than sex is meant for a married couple. If you could find a significent minority to disprove that I'd be impressed.

EDIT:
One piece of evidence to support my view on this being the majority one would be the Alpha course. It has (as you may or may not know) traveled far and wide around the world and proven very sucessful with bringing faith to people. One of the principle views it shares there is that of sex being for exclusively within a marriage. Since so many chruchs have accepted it it would apper to be the majority view.

You asked what I thought, I told you. Dont complain when you get precisily what you asked for.
I'm not the one who started with the claim to be representing the majority of anyone. You made a very specific claim -- that this is what Christians think about sex -- and I've asked you to show me some evidence to back that up. I don't see how that's unreasonable.

But all you have given me is your personal experience with the churches you have attended. I'm certainly not going to argue if you say that this is the teaching of those churches, but there are many, many versions of Christianity and hundreds of millions of Christians in the world. I'm sorry, but I'm not ready to accept on nothing but your say-so that these teachings are uniform throughout the Christian world. I'm especially unwilling to accept it because you have not told us what brand of Christianity you follow. If it's Catholicism or some similar extremely widespread denomination, that might suppport your claim. But if it's some minor sect barely known outside of Kentucky -- or whathaveyou -- then it speaks against your claim.

As for this Alpha course, I'd appreciate a link. I've never heard of it. None of my Christian friends have ever mentioned it. You say "so many" churches have accepted it that it "appears" to be the majority view? How many have accepted it? The numbers must be published somewhere. Link, please.

Finally, I'm not complaining about learning your views. I'm merely taking the opportunity to remind you that I oppose all attempts to legislate my morality. You like to try to pretend that you don't want to do that, or otherwise separate your supposed general beliefs from this political agenda, but every thread you start ends up with you advocating laws that would force others to follow your religious rules. In the context of this thread, in which you have so far failed to prove that you are describing the majority Christian view, I think I, as an unbeliever, won't be alone in my opposition. I think I'll have (and do have) some Christians on my side, too.

Adriatica II

28-03-2006, 22:27

It wasn't? So there isn't a commandment - ie. a "moral", that says, "Honor thy mother and father"?

You still not understanding. The action of eating the cookie was not evil. The part that made it wrong was who they were disobeying. In the same way the action of eating the fruit was not evil. What was wrong was who they were disobeying. That was the sin. Sin is not the same as moral.

"I said it, therefore it must be true. Never mind if it isn't. I said it and that makes it true."

That isnt an argument. The same is true of any number of your arguments. Attack the point itself, not the nature of the point

The differnece between morality and sin is that morality deals with how we relate to each other as people. IE the consequences our actions will have on them. Sin deals with God. IE whether our actions are what her asks us to do. The two are linked but not sysnomous

Can you see a flaw with that logic. I cant, but if you have one be my guest to explain it and I will debate with you about it. Dont just whine that its my position and unsupported as such. Of course its an idea put forward by me. You dont attack it by saying that. You attack it by dealing with what it says

Remember how we were told to keep our bodies as temples? That is about how we interact with ourselves, and with God. And it is a moral command.

You wish to separate morals and sin from each other, but when it comes right down to it, you can't.

I can and I can explain how. Let us look at the child example again. The child is told not to eat the cookie. It does. Now does the action itself of eating a cookie have any moral consequences. Does it harm anyone? Does it deprive anyone of anything they need? Not in any significent fashion. The action itself is not immoral. However what makes it bad is because it is a disobediance. IE The child disobeyed its parent. It doesnt matter what it was that they did, its the fact that they disobeyed. Morals regard the practical consequences of our actions. Sin referes to disobeying God. Its not about the action in sin, its about the person who you are disobeying.

Are you telling me that all commands from God aren't good and that all that is good does not come from God?

Who cares what a "secular sense" says? We are talking about a religious sense. If you believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin, then you believe it is immoral. You may say, "Oh, well it isn't immoral according to person A," but that doesn't change the fact that, in your moral code, it is.

Any rebellion against God is immoral, by definition.

Still doesn't *prove* anything. It is you saying, "This is the thought process I took to arrive at my conclusion."

Of course, a different thought process, with different assumptions to begin with, would lend an entirely different conclusion. Thus, nothing is actually proven.

Meanwhile, I'll ask you again, are you as a fallible human able to understand the perfection of God? Are you able to apply your own fallible perception of perfection to God? Do you know God's motives and what God intends?

No, they make it slightly more likely that you will be correct. Your teacher was misusing words - not uncommon among science teachers, at least in elementary and secondary schools. The head of neurology at MCG was flat-out incorrect, even though he was discussing his own field.

In truth, I probably have more science education at this point than the "head of science" at your high school. Does that mean that what I have to say trumps him?

These two statements are logically equivalent. Taking noises to mean things is categorizing the world around you - giving names to those things.

That still has nothing at all to do with SELF-awareness. It means you are (a) aware of everything around you and (b) in a species which has developed a way to discuss these things with others.

Actually, this is horribly incorrect. Dogs whine, bark, growl, and so forth. There is a rather complicated method of communication within, for instance, a wolf pack. Various noises represent danger, anger, happiness, playfulness, warnings, etc.

The same is true among apes, which have different signals for different things. Bonobos even have a complicated sign language that deals strictly with sex and sexual positions.

Dolphins and whales communicate through various sounds, which mean different things.

Birds have different sounds which mean different things.

This can hardly be called "unstructured", and while some of it is instinctual, some of it is also learned.

If you think there is a point at which knowledge should stop, then you think ignorance is bliss, up to a point.

But, if you don't think that ignorance is bliss, then why would paradise necessitate having no knowledge of good and evil?[/QUOTE]

NationStates Jolt Archive

What Christians think about sex