Sex in MarriageSexual problems are common in many relationships. This section is for discussions about sexuality. Please limit discussions to those asking for help with a problem and those offering advice. Any other threads may be deleted.
Not at all. I obeyed the order as I received it. As long as the order appeared lawful to me I would be obligated to obey. If someone deliberately changed the Commander's order, that's between them and the Commander.
Commandments from God do not work the same way that military chain of command works.
God is the one and only authority. If a person misinterprets or purposely changes God's commandments... the person who believes and follows through on the misinterpreted command is at fault. We are not suposed to take orders on this level from other humans.
This is why, if a person considers themself a Christian, it's important that the person not just take someone else's word on things. Religious instruction is good. Exchange of ideas are good. But in the end each person is responsible for what they do.
I'd say that translations/interpretations such as "Is it 'thou shalt not kill' or 'thou shalt not commit murder?" is a bit more than a few missed commas or altered conjunctions.
True. Although, even when Christians were reading "kill" instead of "murder," they understood it to mean murder. Christians have historically executed criminals and believed in just wars where soldiers were absolved of wrongdoing in killing enemy soldiers. Most of the translation issues that you seem to be so worried about are pretty minor.
I've got to leave this thread also. This is a SEX FORUM!
If off topic threads offend you so much, perhaps you should refrain from starting them in the future. FWIW, if you delete your initial post in this thread, the entire thread will be deleted.
God is the one and only authority. If a person misinterprets or purposely changes God's commandments... the person who believes and follows through on the misinterpreted command is at fault. We are not suposed to take orders on this level from other humans.
And yet the Bible - a book of orders written by other humans - is held up as "god's commandments." There would appear to be an inherent disconnect between these two concepts. Posted via Mobile Device
If off topic threads offend you so much, perhaps you should refrain from starting them in the future. FWIW, if you delete your initial post in this thread, the entire thread will be deleted.
I was not offended. I am just saying I am here to discuss sex-related issue. I did not start a topic that's out of that context, it happened to have religious themes and people have very personal views regarding them. I never said I wanted to delete my initial post. Please do not put words in other people's mouths.
God knows what got into my H, but he said let's go to church Sunday AM. This is a sex forum not a spiritual forum. Let's just say I grew up in a Christian family but am currently in my own phase of trying to establish my own spiritual tie without too much HUMAN input. My H grew up in his communist country and never went to church. Anyways...
The topic today was "discipline" or "self-control", and the pastor started with an anecdotal story about a newly wed couple, when they kissed he proudly told the congregation "this is their ACTUAL first kiss (and they had dated 6 years), let's hear it for the blessed couple!" And everyone clapped and cheered.
I was like "OMG", are you serious?
I used to think that way. I did not have sex with my H (even though we lived together for almost 2 yrs!) until shortly before wedding. We were both virgins.
20 yrs later, if you ask me now, I would DEFINITELY say that is not the way to go. I am not advocating Chamberlain style, I am saying people should assess sexual compatibility before marriage. Well, of course divorce is not a big deal in our country, but once the kids are here, things get really screwy.
The sermon got worse...the pastor started going on about "discipline", actually he was talking about "saving all for the person you love/will love the most" (WOW), and my H said to me "see, you've got to have more control, wanting too much sex is lack of self-control".
The ultimate attack on HD from LD, backed up by holy authority.
I was not offended. I am just saying I am here to discuss sex-related issue. I did not start a topic that's out of that context, it happened to have religious themes and people have very personal views regarding them. I never said I wanted to delete my initial post. Please do not put words in other people's mouths.
I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth. You just didn't express yourself clearly. You stated you wanted to leave the thread because this is a sex forum. You actually all-capped the words sex forum. It appeared you wanted to leave the thread because of the religious issues being discussed.
Thanks for clarifying that that's not what you meant.
And yet the Bible - a book of orders written by other humans - is held up as "god's commandments." There would appear to be an inherent disconnect between these two concepts. Posted via Mobile Device
Those who believe in what the Bible teaches believe that the words in the Bible were inspired (meaning dictated) by God. If you have faith then this makes sense. If you do not have faith it does not. Simple as that.
I believe that the Bible is proposely not written as primarily a legal book of laws.. if you do A, it's a sin and we chop off (fill in body part)."
It's not that simple. We need to understand the over all message... love thy God and love they neighbor as you love yourself.
The Bible is full of examples of what to do and what not to do. There are entire books dedicated to examples of bad behavior as a way of teaching what is wrong. And even then it takes a lot of contemplation on those books to find the underlying messages.
None of the examples are 100% the situations any of us will find our selves in during our life time. So we need to be able to apply the underlying guidelines to our current situation.
And yet the Bible - a book of orders written by other humans - is held up as "god's commandments." There would appear to be an inherent disconnect between these two concepts. Posted via Mobile Device
Given your distrust of third party information, can I assume that you refuse to read newspapers, listen to radio, or watch TV news? Do you only trust your own, personal experiences, or are you willing to accept an intermediary for information?
Given your distrust of third party information, can I assume that you refuse to read newspapers, listen to radio, or watch TV news? Do you only trust your own, personal experiences, or are you willing to accept an intermediary for information?
You're two for two with putting words in others' mouths in this thread, I'm afraid. Never have I claimed a "distrust of third party information," so since this entire post proceeds from a "given" that isn't a given, you're proceeding from a false assumption. However, with this false assumption clarified, I'll still proceed to answer your question in the correct context. When receiving indirect information, I take the reliability of the source into account. This includes the likelihood of minsinterpretation (intentional or not) from that intermediary, as well as what facts can be independently corroborated. Returning to the specific example at hand, as I've established, I find the factual reliability lacking in a 2000+ year old compilation of documents by multiple authors, filled with content that more closely resembles fable and allegory, that is known to have been through multiple translations and reinterpretations - some of which were overtly and explicitly performed for the purpose of fostering particular agendas. That's not to say that there aren't some good lessons that can be learned from it; but then, the same can be said of Greek mythology, for example. As mankind matured, though, we outgrew the Olympians as a true explanation of the workings of the world, while carrying with us the lessons learned from their stories. For better or for worse, it doesn't seem that most of mankind is willing to let go of the security blanket of organized religion...it's still a big, scary universe out there, and it's comforting to think that something is out there at the proverbial steering wheel. And, going a step further (and tying into a different thread in the Politics and Religion forum), organized religion will never be ready for mankind to outgrow it, as that would require relinquishing their power over their followers. Posted via Mobile Device
You're two for two with putting words in others' mouths in this thread, I'm afraid. Never have I claimed a "distrust of third party information," so since this entire post proceeds from a "given" that isn't a given, you're proceeding from a false assumption.
Sorry. You also weren't clear with your objections. You seemed to mistrust non-first party sources, which most of news and history is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayson
Returning to the specific example at hand, as I've established, I find the factual reliability lacking in a 2000+ year old compilation of documents by multiple authors, filled with content that more closely resembles fable and allegory, that is known to have been through multiple translations and reinterpretations - some of which were overtly and explicitly performed for the purpose of fostering particular agendas.
The factual reliability of the Bible is an entirely separate issue from the accuracy of translation of early texts. Factual reliability is something that can't be scientifically ascertained. Accuracy of translation is a much easier question. There are some inaccuracies. But, as I've said, the inaccuracies usually don't reverse the meaning of verses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayson
For better or for worse, it doesn't seem that most of mankind is willing to let go of the security blanket of organized religion...it's still a big, scary universe out there, and it's comforting to think that something is out there at the proverbial steering wheel.
You could be correct. Religion can be comforting. And it's ironic that many of those who decry religion simply decry others' religion. Belief that inert chemicals magically formed life seems little different to me than belief that a supernatural God, or intelligent designer spun the universe into being. As I said earlier, po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
The factual reliability of the Bible is an entirely separate issue from the accuracy of translation of early texts. Factual reliability is something that can't be scientifically ascertained. Accuracy of translation is a much easier question. There are some inaccuracies. But, as I've said, the inaccuracies usually don't reverse the meaning of verses.
As you've presented them here, I'd agree that those are two separate issues, with the proviso that they are intertwined. How so? Because the strength of the Bible as a rule book for life (for want of a better term) is rooted in its veracity. Without the authority of its veracity, an entire theology is built around a work of fiction. And,hey...that's happened before (I point, once again, to the ancient Greeks as an example.) Likewise, I would also contend that meanings of verses don't need to be "reversed" to be muddied, misconstrued, misapplied, and so on.
Quote:
You could be correct. Religion can be comforting. And it's ironic that many of those who decry religion simply decry others' religion. Belief that inert chemicals magically formed life seems little different to me than belief that a supernatural God, or intelligent designer spun the universe into being.
The difference being that chemical reactions are observable, quantifiable phenomena. The invisible man in the sky allegedly pulling strings (and, in some cases, the wings off of flies)? Not so much.
A supernatural supreme being has had ample opportunity to make his/her/its existence undeniably known. "But what about free will?" you ask. It can still co-exist beside that indisputable proof. Say, for instance, said deity appears in front of everyone every Thursday at noon (local time) and says, "Yep. Still here. Join the club or you'll be sorry someday. As you were." But, he/she/it has been remarkably silent for a being once prone to tossing his weight around at the drop of a hat and making frequent personal appearances. If, that is, the Bible is believable and reliable. Posted via Mobile Device
As you've presented them here, I'd agree that those are two separate issues, with the proviso that they are intertwined. How so? Because the strength of the Bible as a rule book for life (for want of a better term) is rooted in its veracity.
But again, the veracity of the text is entirely separate from its accuracy of transcription. You may disagree whether Jesus said quote A or quote B. Or whether the meaning behind the quote is a good idea. Those are questions that can't be scientifically verified. But it's easily verifiable whether the English version of the New Testament accurately transcribes the quotes from early texts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayson
The difference being that chemical reactions are observable, quantifiable phenomena. The invisible man in the sky allegedly pulling strings (and, in some cases, the wings off of flies)? Not so much.
You are correct that chemical reactions are observable and quantifiable. Except for chemical reactions that result in the creation of life. Those? Not so much. That's a matter of faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayson
A supernatural supreme being has had ample opportunity to make his/her/its existence undeniably known.
That is true. And you're not the first person to demand that God meet him on his own terms. And you're not the first person to be disappointed. Sorry.
Have you heard the joke about the flood victim who sits on the roof of his house and sends away a boat, and then a helicopter, believing that God will save him? When he gets to heaven, God tells him that he sent a boat and helicopter. To many, evidence of God can be seen in infinitely complex structures that unbelievers simply believe spontaneously happened by accident.
81Likes
Re: Gimme a break...sorry I am so not spiritual 
Re: Gimme a break...sorry I am so not spiritual 
