# Gimme a break...sorry I am so not spiritual



## jennifer1986 (Feb 4, 2012)

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. :BoomSmilie_anim:


----------



## Pandakiss (Oct 29, 2010)

That kinda made me laugh...6 years yea no. 

I do not advocate violence but I would have punched husband in church. Then stormed out. 

Wanting sex with husband.....equals...lack of...discipline...right good to know....


----------



## Kurosity (Dec 22, 2011)

I think you H got the message wrong. Between husband and wife there is not need for control

I once heard a pastor say about the same thing. equal to save your self for one person only and then in the next moment was telling another person to not buy a car with out test driving it first because you'll not be happy with it once you find out it is all wrong for you or has problems. That got me to thinking and lets say I test drove before I committed to forever and I did not test drive every hot car that came around either.


----------



## 7737 (Feb 10, 2011)

Religion has and is causing so many problems in the world today.

Being told not to steal, respect your parents, do not kill etc are all right and give us guidance.....but look at how many wars have been caused by religion? 

If you are going to spend the rest of your life with someone and make those marriage vows....you want to know what 'they' look like first thing in the morning, are you sexually compatible etc.

When you buy a new car, you dont just walk into a showroom and buy it....you look at the specs, you take it for a test drive etc. If you dont like the way it corners, you dont buy it!

Its like people who say you have to go to church....no you don't. You can pray ANYWHERE....in a traffic jam, lying in bed, waiting for the kettle to boil and yes, even whilst sitting on the 'throne'!

Here endeth the lesson.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

You can't truly access sexual compatibility before marriage. Lots of LD types perform like freaks right up until the ceremony. You do usually get some clues but the frequency and quality of premarital sex isn't a good indicator of what you're likely to get after marriage.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

your husband is using it to control you by saying hes in control and your not.

I'd lay odds that hes masterbating when your not around.

I'd try a different church if it were me or if you don't believe the message the pastor is giving I would quit going with your husband to church.


----------



## 7737 (Feb 10, 2011)

Unbelievable - good point. Look at my own marriage....AND I took my wife for a 3 year test drive before!

If you live together, and by 'live together' I mean experience the full monty...the farts, the morning breath, the arguements over who finished the milk, the sex on the kitchen table, the stroppy behaviour, the laughs the tears...etc etc........

Well, you are going to get as good an idea as atall possible if you are suitably matched. Its not foolproof though!

If you don't....and on your wedding night you find out that she (or he!!) doesn't put the cap back on the toothpaste tube (which REALLY irritates you!!)...well, you haven't got off to a very good start have you!


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

In retrospect, I would pay closer attention to other indicators that she places greater emphasis on satisfying her own needs than those of others. Anyone can roll around in the rack, moan, scream, and put on an act for a time. A general attitude of self-centerdness is much harder to conceal. I can see some value in testing sexual compatibility but I also see a little danger in the practice. Personally, when sex is great, I become blind and stupid. I'd be able to convince myself that the devil was a great catch if the devil looked like a hot female and rode me like a stolen mule.


----------



## iGuy (Apr 23, 2012)

As a lay preacher, I agree that RELIGION is bad. It's much more about a relationship with God.
But I disagree on everyone's analogy about "test driving". I wish that my wife's YOUTH PASTOR didn't take her for "test drives" when he was 21 and she was 13 until age 17. 
I wish my wife and other guys then didn't take each other for "test drives" and led her to the belief that all men are bastards and that sex is dirty. I wish she didn't settle for me as a rebound and still went back to her ex for a night if sex after we started dating. 

I agree with your pastor OP. Sex is something that shouldn't be dished out like a broken candy dispenser before marriage. If men and women learnt to keep sex in their marriages, divorce rates would plummet.

Anyone in this day and age who gets married as a virgin deserves a medal


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

jennifer1986 said:


> 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 accually knew a couple like this, she was a Pastors daughter & she married a Pastor....she went to my Mops group, she didn't date THAT long though.... I remember the day we were talking about pre-marital anything in our little group...& she told us they waited for their 1st kiss on their Wedding day... My mouth dropped to the floor, I kinda made a big hoopla about it even telling her... Wow, I could NEVER in a million yrs do that, I'd go out of my mind. 

Me & mine did wait for intercourse for marriage, but we had lots of roaming hands all those years before, we surely knew what orgasms were...he knew I had them easily...and loved them.... there is no way in the world we could have not gone there, it would have been like torture.. for that reason, I think we both KNEW "sexually" - we wanted it B A D ...... while still trying to keep a measure of doing what was right before God.... though I struggled with sooo much GUILT over this stuff, that it took a toll on my sexuality... and the freedom there of. 

I don't regret waiting for what we did, I only regret the mindset that I had -feeling like God was displeased at us at every turn for touching each other. I did feel it was "sweet" we had something New to bring to our wedding night. Even if he couldn't get it in! Ha ha 

I told all those ladies the way we handled it ... I didn't care. The majority of them, Christians themselves....didn't wait for even that. 



> 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.


 I feel this way too, as I've read too many stories of men feeling like they are locked in a prison -because they wanted a virgin. My son is still a virgin by choice, he feels very strongly about waiting for the woman he marries... No surprise he is a wanna be Youth Pastor, he has lots of self discipline in this area...though I know he struggles with porn -so he is not gay & his sex drive is likely "fine". 

I feel these very strict beliefs- set people up for sexual repression many times, when you deny yourself these sexual urges for years before marraige -feeling like touching your BF or GF is sinful, wrong, even deserving of Hell (some are taught)...what does this to to your psyche! Many can not just turn a switch on their wedding night suddenly - and become a Vixen, after suppressing thier sex drive & natural urges like that -for years. 

This sort of philosophy is taught in those Silver Ring thing programs that travel around from Church to Church... 2 of my boys wear a silver ring. DId a thread on this a while back. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/family...r-silver-ring-thing-purity-ring-movement.html




> 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. :BoomSmilie_anim:


If I was you, I'd want to shoot him too. So your husband didn't try to get in your pants while dating ?? Was he uber self-disciplined then....were the signs there? 

I tell my son if the woman he falls for is not a Masterbator & is not showing signs she is BURNING, even raging in lust for him.... he better run like Hell -cause that is a clear sign she ain't into sex...and he will be suffering later on...at the very least. 

These are my thoughts on Pre-marital sex -what I will teach my own daughter, pretty much how I looked on it back then -*minus all the religious guilt & shame* (cause that is what screwed me up!)....

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/family...-sex-relation-love-her-emotions-her-life.html

As an adult, if I lost my husband , I still would not just jump into bed... I would have to feel the man was deeply & consumingly in love, not just LUST....before I went there. Sex means alot more to me than just pleasure, I need the emotional along with it. But that is just me.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

From a strictly Christian, biblical perspective, it doesn't matter whether your partner "likes" sex or not. According to scriptures, sex is something a spouse does in service for their partner. A husband surrenders his body to his wife and his wife surrenders her's to her husband. A husband doesn't have to worry about what he is or isn't getting, sexually. His job is to make sure his wife's needs are met. Her job is to attend to his. As designed, the more we give, the more we would get.


----------



## iGuy (Apr 23, 2012)

unbelievable said:


> From a strictly Christian, biblical perspective, it doesn't matter whether your partner "likes" sex or not. According to scriptures, sex is something a spouse does in service for their partner. A husband surrenders his body to his wife and his wife surrenders her's to her husband. A husband doesn't have to worry about what he is or isn't getting, sexually. His job is to make sure his wife's needs are met. Her job is to attend to his. As designed, the more we give, the more we would get.


And I believe that if more people REALLY grasped that, most if our social ills would vaporate like most before the sun. The lesson? There is no place in marriage for selfishness. That and this isn't a religious lesson - even "secular" people agree on this


----------



## FormerNiceGuy (Feb 13, 2012)

iGuy said:


> I wish that my wife's YOUTH PASTOR didn't take her for "test drives" when *he was 21 and she was 13* until age 17.
> 
> I wish my wife and other guys then didn't take each other for "test drives" and led her to the belief that all men are bastards and that sex is dirty. I wish she didn't settle for me as a rebound and still went back to her ex for a night if sex after we started dating.


iGuy - This isn't a test drive - it is a crime. Your wife is a CSA survivor and needs help. I remember your "Sexless Marriage" post and don't remember you disclosing this issue. Maybe you did. She needs counseling if you ever want to improve your relationship.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

Abstinence before marriage is the tradition I was raised in... I went to a Christian college with lots of people like me.. and had so many friends getting married as early as 19 or 20, for this exact reason.

Another couple, close friends of mine, were driving themselves crazy trying to wait.. under advice from some pastor or counselor they'd make out and then when they couldn't take it anymore they'd go masturbate in separate rooms. Weird.

I stayed a v until i was 26, it was a meaningless summer fling at a summer camp where I was working.. and then a few years later met my wife. We're both believers, but we certainly didn't abstain. Instead she got pregnant, despite taking all the precautions.

So I'm really torn about this issue. If we had waited to have sex, we might not be together today. OR we would have deepened our relationship, gotten married and enjoyed more couple time pre-baby.

But sexual compatibility *is* an important thing to address pre-marriage. I don't really know how two virgins can anticipate how much they're going to want sex, and what kind of sex. Nobody can predict the roller coaster fluctuating that their sex drive is going to take over time. There just has to be compromise, good communication, mutual understanding and desire to prioritize the other person's needs.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

The world is full of couples who never really even met before marriage. These unions typically last a whole lot longer than western marriages. I don't think sexual compatibility is nearly as important as compatibility of values. If two people seriously believe in the institution and both are committed to subordinating their own whims for the good of the marriage and family, it's going to work. Love is a decision. It's a choice. It's not just some freak accident that happens or not.


----------



## Aristotle (Apr 4, 2012)

7737 said:


> Unbelievable - good point. Look at my own marriage....AND I took my wife for a 3 year test drive before!


Hopefully the muffler was clean and not that loud.


----------



## Aristotle (Apr 4, 2012)

Stick or manual? Clean carpets? Upholstery in good shape? 0 to 69 in 5 seconds?


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

My grandparents never had a test drive. They've been married over 73 years. I've test-driven far more than my share but I keep crashing.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

jennifer1986 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Well, sex certaintly can show a lack of self-control if the only reason for a person's want of it is mostly to satisfy their own gratification with not so much thought for their partner and what they may need. In otherwords, if the basis of it rises from a well of utter selfishness. As well, a person who ridigly 'maintains control' also without regard to their partner's needs is being just as selfish.

Marriage is the ultimate in self-sacrifice ... and in learning how to dismantle the manacles of selfishness that we bind oursevles with daily ... giving of ourselves, our very bodies, for that of our spouse. When you can do that, sex can be a truly beautiful, spiritual thing that can transcend most of the earthly pleasures and treasures we all seem to crave.

Do not let the 'veil' of man-made religion shield or turn your eyes from the very real message and spiritual meaning that being truly giving in a marriage can have in your life. 

Best wishes.


----------



## Browncoat (Mar 25, 2012)

There's no verse in the bible that says: Thou shalt not kiss.

I grew up in the church, and never heard that churches pushed that type of restrictions to dating (until recently when I talked to a few folks here at TAM).

In my church it was just: don't have sex.

That was pretty much it.

I dated my wife for a little over a year before I proposed... and we kissed on our first real date. We kissed on every date after that, and I've never felt the slightest bit guilty about it.

Oh and let me tell you our kisses were VERY VERY long and exciting... and we did it a LOT most of the time we dated and during our engagement.


----------



## 7737 (Feb 10, 2011)

At the time it had great potential (undriven before me)....slightly racey exhaust, turbo,flappy paddle gear change, had sport/off road/economy settings, no 0-69 time but I thought with time once the engine had settled in etc that 0-69 could be done in just afew seconds.

Sadly over time the engine management unit got erased, so its now stuck in economy mode, it has never been anywhere close to 69, isn't interested in being serviced....and never goes off road. 

Not very economic either come to think of it....and the tyres (sorry - 'tires'!!) are a bit thicker and chunkier. I really ought to trade it in for a newer, different more sporty model....I'd be happier...


----------



## LoveMouse (Apr 22, 2012)

My ideal marriage~
:BoomSmilie_anim:
Yep, sex all the time!!
Mouse


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Browncoat said:


> There's no verse in the bible that says: Thou shalt not kiss.
> 
> I grew up in the church, and never heard that churches pushed that type of restrictions to dating (until recently when I talked to a few folks here at TAM).
> 
> ...


Like Brownie, maybe I've been fortunate to have been raised up as a Christian in a church that rarely tries to codify sexual relations other than "don't do it" and "if you must do it, be greatly prepared to take responsibility for your actions."

My particular church is not one of those prying, chaperoning, types of institutions that willingly tries to push its theology and political agenda on its parishoners. It does not revile sex as some illicit activity but rather as an act of love between two caring and loving people. The churches job, conversely, is to try its level best to create and foster a personal, special, bond between each parishoner and the Heavenly Father. 

That is why people universally find the presence of God in all different places, church and non-church alike. The church is only a vehicle to help foster that! I encourage each and everyone to try to find a church that richly identifies with your belief systems, meaning that if you go to one that you cannot identify with, to keep on trying.

Trust me! God is out there and is waiting for you find Him!


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

Meh, worked for us. We're both spiritual people, I was at least long before we got together. I consult God on every detail of my life, and wait for a prompting in the spirit. I _adore_ the Lord. I knew, in my spirit, that he was telling me this was going to be my wife years before we got together, ever went on a single date, and almost a decade before we actually tied the knot. When he first told me this my(now)wife couldn't even fathom being in a relationship with me at all, because we were best friends, and she saw me like a brother. He also told me how our marriage would look, and what radical changes my wife would undergo, and right now she, and our marriage, look _exactly_ like he whispered to me all those years ago. It's rather amazing when I recall that.

We also chose to be celibate for many years, for spiritual reasons (true celibacy, not "everything but vaginal penetration"). We kissed, made out, but that was the extent of it. We didn't sleep together until we wed. I didn't worry about our sexual compatibility because I talk to God frankly about sex, he knows me, knows how important it is to me, and wouldn't be directing me toward a cold fish, or a sexual mismatch. And after our very first kiss we didn't have a single doubt about our sexual chemistry. That moment was like worlds colliding, the stuff they write novels about. To this day my jimmy shoots up just kissing her for a couple seconds.

Do I think it would have been "wrong" if we'd broken our celibacy before? Not necessarily, no. We both knew, in every fiber of our being, we were meant to be together. After a few years of our celibacy, we both recognized that it was likely pointless in waiting. We didn't feel spiritually "wrong" about breaking it, but to be honest after putting in so many years of abstaining, we said we might as well go ahead and finish the challenge. We did. 

And it worked. We have far more sex than any of our friends, all of which had plenty of sex prior to marriage. Our chemistry still astounds us, we are extraordinarily compatible in drive, and sexual outlook, and our bodies crave one another. 

I can not speak to anyone else's convictions. I don't run around shouting to anybody about celibacy, abstinence, or waiting till marriage. It was a far, far easier feat to pull off in centuries past, and even in some modern non-Western cultures, because people routinely wed considerably earlier than we do, much closer to their sexual awakening. What my wife and I did was almost superhuman, very unusual, and most people would find that damn near impossible. 


But when you walk in the spirit, you tend to look usual, and do unusual things. I trusted God back when there were no signs, or evidence, that what he was telling me was true. He honored that faith, and I am so, so glad he did.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

unbelievable said:


> From a strictly Christian, biblical perspective, it doesn't matter whether your partner "likes" sex or not. According to scriptures, sex is something a spouse does in service for their partner. A husband surrenders his body to his wife and his wife surrenders her's to her husband. A husband doesn't have to worry about what he is or isn't getting, sexually. His job is to make sure his wife's needs are met. Her job is to attend to his. As designed, the more we give, the more we would get.


The funny thing about scripture is that several times frequent sex is advised. Scripture tells men to be ravished by the breasts of the wife of your youth, and to not abstain from sex unless for very specific reasons.

I tend to take those scriptures quite literally. :rofl:


----------



## Browncoat (Mar 25, 2012)

unbelievable said:


> From a strictly Christian, biblical perspective, it doesn't matter whether your partner "likes" sex or not. According to scriptures, sex is something a spouse does in service for their partner. A husband surrenders his body to his wife and his wife surrenders her's to her husband. A husband doesn't have to worry about what he is or isn't getting, sexually. His job is to make sure his wife's needs are met. Her job is to attend to his. As designed, the more we give, the more we would get.


Have you read Song of Solomon? It doesn't sound like you have, or at least understood it. Not trying to be confrontational, but that book oozes the sexual excitement that husband and wife had for each other. They wanted not just sex, but ultra passionate sex where they enjoyed every part of each other and adored each other. It wasn't out of service at all.


----------



## Dr. Rockstar (Mar 23, 2011)

I found the exact verses where it says that husbands and wives are commanded to meet their spouses sexual needs:

1 Corinthians 7:3-5
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Drop those on your husband and see how he reacts. The answer to a lack of control is MORE SEX.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Browncoat said:


> Have you read Song of Solomon? It doesn't sound like you have, or at least understood it. Not trying to be confrontational, but that book oozes the sexual excitement that husband and wife had for each other. They wanted not just sex, but ultra passionate sex where they enjoyed every part of each other and adored each other. It wasn't out of service at all.


I've read it but I don't read any selfish motives in it. Both Solomon and his beloved are praising and adoring each other. I also have to remember that Solomon had a whole slew of wives and concubines, so his situation isn't quite the same as what we would call "marriage".


----------



## Browncoat (Mar 25, 2012)

unbelievable said:


> I've read it but I don't read any selfish motives in it. Both Solomon and his beloved are praising and adoring each other. I also have to remember that Solomon had a whole slew of wives and concubines, so his situation isn't quite the same as what we would call "marriage".


You are right on that front for certain. He was a polygamist... and probably the biggest polygamist in the bible. He had more wives and concubines than he could shake a stick at... crazy numbers for sure. Not trying to justify that at all, because frankly I don't care how sexual you are... no one *needs* that many partners.

Still, and I'm sure you got my point, was that the bible doesn't say: don't be passionate that sex is only for procreation. It doesn't say that sex is only a duty and nothing more.


----------



## Heheals (May 20, 2012)

If you love someone and you have a deep connection with them, sexual compatibility follows, it's inevitable. You don't need to test drive to find out.

My husband and I never had sex before we were married. We barely even kissed except for maybe a quick peck as to not start a fire we couldn't put out. The desire was there, but we chose to wait because we knew that ours was special and we wanted that first night together to be something to remember. And not spoil it by spoiling the surprise...kinda like christmas I suppose*lol* Not to mention we're both believers so we believed in waiting. He had too much respect for me and I for him, and for God to not wait. 

14 years later and we're still going strong so no, a test drive is not necessary in a relationship. Many confuse lust with love.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

Watched my fundamentalist Christian neighbors daughters grow up two doors from us.

My wife went to the eldest daughters wedding a year or so ago where the pastor proudly announced that their wedding kiss was their first kiss.

I just....uggghh...talk about asking for trouble.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

jennifer1986 said:


> 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. :BoomSmilie_anim:


The NT teaches no such thing. And I'm not saying this as a Christian; (I'm not) I'm saying it as a student of the source language.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

I think the most interesting thing about the "test drive" theory, which is now being widely practiced in all Western societies, is that it sounds logical, and plausible...

Yet it hasn't really lived up to the promise. We are divorcing, and separating, in record numbers. The entire concept of marriage is in tatters for millions of people. Behaving like a married couple before you're a married couple hasn't done anything whatsoever for the collective state of marriage.

Meanwhile the "old fashioned" way worked just fine for thousands of years, and still does in many cultures in this world.

It's an interesting observation.


----------



## sandc (Dec 15, 2011)

So happy to see others stepping up and defending a Godly view of sex based on scripture, not on tradition or opinion. The Bible is fairly clear on the subject of sex as far as I've studied. The Bible commands us not to have sex with some one else's spouse. it strongly suggests not having sex outside of a loving marriage. For myself I take that as a commandment. It also says that we are to enjoy our spouse to the fullest sexually. NOWHERE can I find where it says to control your sexual urges with your spouse. Song of Solomon was written in the poetic language of the day so can be hard to understand but it's clear that husband and wife were having no holds barred sweaty freaky sex. It's just hard to read through all the imagery. For instance when he compares her to a mare among pharoahs chariots... You have to know that the king of Egypt only used choice stallions to draw his chariots. Any horse people out here? What happens when you put one mare among hundreds of stallions? It was his way to tell her how desirable he found her.

So anyway, God made sex and called it good. Therefore sex is good. And it's best in a loving marriage.


----------



## sandc (Dec 15, 2011)

tacoma said:


> Watched my fundamentalist Christian neighbors daughters grow up two doors from us.
> 
> My wife went to the eldest daughters wedding a year or so ago where the pastor proudly announced that their wedding kiss was their first kiss.
> 
> I just....uggghh...talk about asking for trouble.


Same thing for a young man and young woman in our church. I fully expect them to be in love with each other for the rest of their lives.


----------



## lamaga (May 8, 2012)

well, sandc, that's what they call the triumph of hope over experience.

(With apologies to A. Pope)


----------



## sandc (Dec 15, 2011)

Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Time will tell.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> You can't truly access sexual compatibility before marriage. Lots of LD types perform like freaks right up until the ceremony. You do usually get some clues but the frequency and quality of premarital sex isn't a good indicator of what you're likely to get after marriage.


This isn't true in my case. Our sex life became even better after we got married and we shacked up for more than a year before.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

7737 said:


> Being told not to steal, respect your parents, do not kill etc are all right and give us guidance.....but look at how many wars have been caused by religion?


Good point. It would be so much better if we were all secular humanists, like the Nazis, or the Communists, er, wait a minute. Well, they may have killed 100 million people in the last century, but at least they weren't preachy about it.


----------



## lamaga (May 8, 2012)

Oh, can we keep politics out of this? Hitler, by the way, was a Christian.


----------



## sandc (Dec 15, 2011)

Anyone can claim to be anything, if their actions show they are not what they claim, then they are not what they claim to be.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lamaga said:


> Oh, can we keep politics out of this? Hitler, by the way, was a Christian.


We're discussing religion. Not politics.

Hitler was born Catholic. Stalin was born Russian Orthodox. Mao was raised Buddhist. All three renounced religion and even went so far as to persecute religion.

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." - Adolf Hitler


----------



## romantic_guy (Nov 8, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> From a strictly Christian, biblical perspective, it doesn't matter whether your partner "likes" sex or not. According to scriptures, sex is something a spouse does in service for their partner. A husband surrenders his body to his wife and his wife surrenders her's to her husband. A husband doesn't have to worry about what he is or isn't getting, sexually. His job is to make sure his wife's needs are met. Her job is to attend to his. As designed, the more we give, the more we would get.


Yep...read my signature. Premarital sex aside, once you are married the verse on my signature tells me that I need to make sure my wife is sexually satisfied and that she needs to do the same for me. 

The problem with most "Christians" (and I am one) is that they do not follow His teachings. If they did, wars would not be started in the name of "religion" there would have never been slavery, we would love and forgive one another, etc.


----------



## Minncouple (Sep 9, 2009)

To the OP:

I feel for you, that would have been my breakig point. 

I never liked religious people or the whole church thing, they all seem so fake and like they are lying for some reason. These folks are typically the ones that go nuts on society after years of oppression.

Good luck with all this, I would have gotten up and left my spouse sitting there.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Minncouple said:


> I never liked religious people or the whole church thing, they all seem so fake and like they are lying for some reason. These folks are typically the ones that go nuts on society after years of oppression.


Don't judge all Churches or all Christians by the unfortunate behavior exhibited by a handful of zealots who profess to be doing whatever they want, or have a hand in richly telling you what to do in His name.

Try to visit more Churches. Trust me! They're not all alike and most are very open-minded. Don't judge a book by it's cover!


----------



## jennifer1986 (Feb 4, 2012)

Where in the Bible does it say "no sex before marriage"? And do we do everything the Bible says? (Oh, I hope not). 

Flashbacks to high school, active in youth group, and all the guilt I had over sexual desire, over masturbation, over the "flesh"...I blame it on dear Paul and his incessant advice to flee from the FLESH. 

But we are fleshy beings. God has put sexual desire in us. I find it amusing how people can assume these psychological burdens are not carried over to marriage life. (esp. for women) Once you are married all of a sudden everything sexual is legit. Before everything was wrong and forbidden. 2 completely inexperienced people will discover the joy of each other's body and please each other in every way. Heck, it took me 20 yrs to know I have a G spot because I never masturbated with my fingers INSIDE! My H could not teach me anything either. I certainly want my son to have enough dating experience (and safe behavior involving sex if he chooses to) before marriage. 

I have gone from feeling ashamed to being proud of who I am, and if God indeed created us, and knew each of us better than anyone else, then what is the point of being ashamed? I do not care if I do everything Paul said to do or not to do. I do not care if I do as the church's pastor says to do or not to do. I only care about what God says. The difficult part is to get to that point of hearing Him well. 

Anyways, as far as HD and LD goes, I blatantly ask God "hey you have made me this way(i.e. horny *****) and I am proud, but my H just doesn't buy it...I assume he is the partner you've chosen for me, after all these years and what we've been through, so YOU had better let me know how to resolve the situation". 

Still waiting to hear the answer though, but it's a fight to keep my self image up while being rejected.


----------



## jennifer1986 (Feb 4, 2012)

This is a completely off-the-topic discovery:

I wonder how many spouses of LD will have the destructive complication of weight gain....

It's 1 AM and I am sitting in front of the computer and I just went to make myself *cup-a-noodle*! I have always been a zealot to maintain my size 0 figure. Now I can see where this is heading.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

He made some folks faster, some folks stronger,some folks taller, some smarter, etc. We all have strengths and weaknesses. If we were all 100% high speed, we'd never have need to ask for His help and we'd never practice patience, compassion, understanding, or helpfulness with each other.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

jennifer1986 said:


> Where in the Bible does it say "no sex before marriage"?


1 Corinthians 7:2 states that premarital sex is sinful. Hebrews 13:4 states that marriage is pleasing to God, while sexual immorality and adultery will be judged.



jennifer1986 said:


> But we are fleshy beings. God has put sexual desire in us.


Natural desire doesn't preclude sin. We are all predisposed toward sin. Some people have a natural inclination toward drugs or alcohol. That doesn't mean God wants those people to be drunkards or drug addicts. Some people have an inclination toward violence. That doesn't excuse the sin of assault. We must all bear our own crosses.



jennifer1986 said:


> I find it amusing how people can assume these psychological burdens are not carried over to marriage life. (esp. for women) Once you are married all of a sudden everything sexual is legit. Before everything was wrong and forbidden.


Premarital sex is wrong. Marital sex is right. The difference is clear. If girls have trouble with the concept, then it has either been taught to them incorrectly, or they have incorrectly interpreted it. That's not the fault of the Bible, or religion.



jennifer1986 said:


> I have gone from feeling ashamed to being proud of who I am, and if God indeed created us, and knew each of us better than anyone else, then what is the point of being ashamed? I do not care if I do everything Paul said to do or not to do. I do not care if I do as the church's pastor says to do or not to do. I only care about what God says. The difficult part is to get to that point of hearing Him well.


Since you reject Scripture as God's word, how do you know what God wants? Do you think God wants you to do everything that feels good? If so, do you think sin can ever feel good?


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

jennifer1986 said:


> Where in the Bible does it say "no sex before marriage"? And do we do everything the Bible says? (Oh, I hope not).
> 
> Flashbacks to high school, active in youth group, and all the guilt I had over sexual desire, over masturbation, over the "flesh"...I blame it on dear Paul and his incessant advice to flee from the FLESH.
> 
> ...


Anyone growing up with guilt and shame over their God given sexual urges is a victim of poor teaching, and clear misunderstanding of scripture. Sex is a gift, designed by God. God isn't ashamed of sex, and he's not upset with us for wanting what HE programmed us to crave.

The bible talks about sex in a specific context. It's a guide line for righteous living, given to aide, not hinder. For example, if mankind collectively followed the rules of no adultery, and keeping to one singular sex partner, millions of people wouldn't be sick and dying of sexually transmitted diseases. If we followed the imploration to love our spouses, and treat them well, there goes divorce out the window, and shattered families. If we gave our bodies willingly to our spouses, refusing to keep them locked away from their God given right for sexual gratification, there goes a lot of people's need to even look outside the marriage. These rules and guidelines are given to help, not hinder. Yet we are rampantly ignoring, and rebelling, against these notions and the result is hard to stomach. It's not working.

Yet the bible is a story about a flawless God in relationship with flawed men. There are no scriptures about thunderbolts striking down people involved in premarital sex, which some bad theology basically suggests. David, a man God was deeply in love with, was a w-hore. He slept with anything that moved, as did his son Solomon. He adored them anyway.

Human beings are given free will, and people who God loves do often use that free will in ways he does not approve of. But that is why God's love, and grace, indeed covers a multitude of sin. God is not some old church buzzard sitting up on the stoop, hand over gaping mouth, appalled by who we sleep with. God is far more understanding of us than most people ever give him credit for, and far more forgiving. 

The key is to have relationship with him, to seek that mercy, to be the righteous person that, if they fall down seven times, gets back up seven times. That is pleasing to the Lord, the person who rises again, not the person who claims to never fall.


----------



## jennifer1986 (Feb 4, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Since you reject Scripture as God's word, how do you know what God wants? Do you think God wants you to do everything that feels good? If so, do you think sin can ever feel good?


Here we go. Take Bible word by word as God's word. So women need to cover their heads in congregation as Paul said, and you want to start me on all the "teachings" that we still should follow from Old Testament? I admire Paul, but he is not bigger than Jesus. Oh, here comes the sin talk. There is no sin. Jesus has washed us clean. A healthy relationship with Gods is not built on fear. I love my own father and I do things he desires because I respect and love him, not because if I do something he says is wrong I will be punished. 

How do I know what God wants is the exact question. Who said that means to do everything that feels good? Have you read any of Kierkegaard's work and why he rejected the Danish Church?  (Actually, my Kierkegaard collection is collecting dust, I confess, I have to majorly review it). A Christian that tries to establish a strong God-human relationship is taking a very difficult path, even more difficult than just following the church's teaching. The ultimate goal is, in my opinion, to really have God in your heart and to know what's right and what's wrong naturally. This is in accordance with many Eastern philosophies. It's like a state of being enlightened. I am not saying I have achieved that state, but I strive for that. In the meantime, I do not have any problem with people who follow the scripture to the T, but I have a problem with people who do that and point their fingers to others who do not. Brother, how come you didn't come to Sunday service last week? You know we should never stop meeting in God's Hall! 

But I digress. This is a SEX FORUM. I am the typical HD/LD struggle spouse. Guess religious themes always start some people off. Again, it's OK to keep your way of faith, but do not fall in the most common Christian trap of condemning others. Christians today need more tolerance. What do you say to a homosexual who REALLY wants to come in church to become God's child? (and PLEASE do not say you will till him/her to CONVERT, for God's sake).


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

I'd invite a homosexual to come to church and hear the Word with all the rest of us sinners.


----------



## Browncoat (Mar 25, 2012)

unbelievable said:


> I'd invite a homosexual to come to church and hear the Word with all the rest of us sinners.


Same. I have homosexual neighbors and family members... and I love and respect them as much as the next person. To me they are just people, not "those HOMOSEXUALS!!!"... just folks. Heck one of my best friends from California happens to be a gay man and we talk on the phone weekly anywhere from 20-120 minutes. We talk about EVERYTHING, we are just close friends.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Hospitals aren't for the well and churches aren't for the saintly. If someone's perfect, they would have no need for salvation. Sin is sin and death is death. Without the sacrifice of Jesus, I'd be headed for hell as surely as anyone who has ever lived. Those who realize they are sick and seek medical attention are in better shape than those who convince themselves they have no problem. It doesn't matter what any person believes is right or wrong. It doesn't matter which sins we believe are worse than others. God made us. He makes the rules. We aren't in a position to second-guess Him. Does the valve stem cap on a Ford F150 know more about operating a truck than the one who designed the truck?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

jennifer1986 said:


> Here we go. Take Bible word by word as God's word. So women need to cover their heads in congregation as Paul said, and you want to start me on all the "teachings" that we still should follow from Old Testament? I admire Paul, but he is not bigger than Jesus.


I didn't say that every word in the Bible is literally the word of God. Many Old Testament rules are for Jews. Gentiles have no need to follow them. But none of that means that the Bible should be ignored. It doesn't mean that anything goes.



jennifer1986 said:


> Oh, here comes the sin talk. There is no sin. Jesus has washed us clean.


Of course there is sin. Jesus told an adulteress to "sin no more." He didn't tell her do whatever felt good. He said the gate is narrow. If you think his sacrifice means that we are incapable of sin, then you have profoundly misunderstood the New Testament.



jennifer1986 said:


> A Christian that tries to establish a strong God-human relationship is taking a very difficult path, even more difficult than just following the church's teaching. The ultimate goal is, in my opinion, to really have God in your heart and to know what's right and what's wrong naturally.


But, as you said, that is very rare. There aren't very many prophets in the Bible who can hear God's will directly. Most of us have to rely on others. Fortunately, God came to Earth and taught His will to others. Some of these wrote it down. It seems arrogant to ignore God's words in favor of one's own feelings that one hopes will be influenced by God.



jennifer1986 said:


> In the meantime, I do not have any problem with people who follow the scripture to the T, but I have a problem with people who do that and point their fingers to others who do not. Brother, how come you didn't come to Sunday service last week? You know we should never stop meeting in God's Hall!


Hypocrisy and arrogance are hardly sins unique to Christians. It's curious why so many seem to believe that they are.



jennifer1986 said:


> Christians today need more tolerance. What do you say to a homosexual who REALLY wants to come in church to become God's child? (and PLEASE do not say you will till him/her to CONVERT, for God's sake).


I would argue that the Church today needs less tolerance. I have gone to church all my life and very rarely heard the topic of sin addressed directly to encourage people to live holy lives. Most sermons sound like tapings of the Oprah show with an, "I'm OK, you're OK," message. The problem is that most of us aren't OK.

If a homosexual wanted to come to church, I would welcome him. I would also welcome an addict. Or a thief. And I would try to encourage each of them to repent of their sins. I would never do any of them the disservice of enabling them in their sins by telling them that God gave them their desires, so they must not be sinful. Each of us have sinful desires we must struggle against. PLEASE don't say that you would encourage sinners to continue sinning for God's sake.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

God didn't flood the earth because it had become too intolerant. He didn't destroy Soddom and Gommorah because they were too intolerant.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

Interesting thread here.

I've discussed some pretty graphic stuff with some of you guys in other threads and never would have guessed your religious views! :lol:



> Where in the Bible does it say "no sex before marriage"? And do we do everything the Bible says? (Oh, I hope not).


the word is 'fornication' or just generally 'sexual immorality' and it's all over. Just Google it or something. Not all the rules in the Bible are the same. Issues pertaining to human sexuality go a bit deeper than some of that stuff in Leviticus, because it has to do with the way we were created. 

There is a kind of mystical element to the Biblical understanding of marriage.. the idea being that marriage as a sacrament is so special and so holy that it's often used as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and believers. The 'Church' being the bridge and Christ being the groom. Or that God specifically designed marriage/sex as a lesson for understanding Christ's love for us. Deep and heady stuff, to be sure.

*However...*

I'm really kind of torn about it. people got married so much sooner back then. It's one thing to tell kids to wait til they get married, but staying a v through your 20s-30s? That's tough. 

Most people I know who waited, would tell me they're glad they did. But not everyone.

I did *not* wait... we got pregnant before we had even decided to get married and as a result missed out on having a real honeymoon period. That's just a natural consequence of our choices - despite taking all the precautions.

Anyway, I'd say that Scripture is pretty explicit on this... yet at the same time it's open to interpretation. 

I'm saying this as a pastor's kid... I majored in religion... I have a relationship with God/Christ, I still believe in the core principles but I don't always drink the Kool-Aid.


----------



## jennifer1986 (Feb 4, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> If a homosexual wanted to come to church, I would welcome him. I would also welcome an addict. Or a thief. And I would try to encourage each of them to repent of their sins. I would never do any of them the disservice of enabling them in their sins by telling them that God gave them their desires, so they must not be sinful. Each of us have sinful desires we must struggle against. PLEASE don't say that you would encourage sinners to continue sinning for God's sake.


I have no interest in continuing an argument that gets sidetracked eventually. The point made here seems obvious: many Christians would embrace all SINNERS (of course, we are taught to do that), then tell them to REPENT. 

My point is, a homosexual is NOT a thieve. Nor an addict. A homosexual very likely will remain homosexual all his or her life. And we are calling this a SIN. I do not agree. Of course now the reference of Sodom and Gomorrah is brought up. See how we are relying on Old Testament one second and next second say "oh that was a different circumstance so incest, infanticide, etc, were justified"? 

If someone believed premarital sex is wrong, then the person will remain a virgin until marriage, and if the person does not end up finding his CHOSEN one, then he/she is majorly screwed or will have a sore hand. :rofl: Again, each person has his or her own choice. Obviously I used to believe in this because I saved my virginity for my spouse. I do not find it right anymore, but some people do and that's fine. I am not throwing my Bible in the trash, but yes, I do believe it's more important to talk to God than quoting Bible. I can probably quote my verses as well as most of you. Of course it's hard to hear God, but I'd rather be trying hard on that then just holding up the 1 KG book. If Peter, who was actually WITH God when he was here, died for God, blah blah blah...needed God to tell him THRICE that the Gentiles were now accepted before he changed his view, then we need to be 100000 more times patient to hear what God has to say to each of us. 

I will withdraw from any further argument. My point is simple: rigid rules have done many people harm. Everyone is different and precious in God's eyes, and no one should tell anyone else what to do or not to do. I am half of a pastor's kid and my pastor uncle (he and my aunt are the people I respect the most on earth and I grew up with the family) has told me since I was a kid: the meaning of hell is eternal separation from God. It is not burning fire. Heaven is not a place adorned with gemstones. It is the state of being with God. Everyone is so freaking out about people doing what they like without rules. But if you have God, you do not need RULES. You will know what to do or not. You will know how to love your spouse also. That's why it's meaningless to tell your LD spouse "it's your duty to satisfy me" unless the person has internalized this concept. It's got to come from inside. 

And anyone who thinks I am finding excuses to commit whatever _sin_ I wish, really no need to come back and repeat your message. We are living on different planets.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> I didn't say that every word in the Bible is literally the word of God. Many Old Testament rules are for Jews. Gentiles have no need to follow them. But none of that means that the Bible should be ignored. It doesn't mean that anything goes.


In point of fact, NO words in the Bible are "literally the word of god," as they were written by human beings two millennia ago. In that time, they have been translated, retranslated, interpreted and reinterpreted time and again, with each new interpretation sponsored by a person or group with their own agenda to further. And that's without even considering the editing process that went into the initial compilation of the writings that came to be collectively known as the Bible.



> I would argue that the Church today needs less tolerance. I have gone to church all my life and very rarely heard the topic of sin addressed directly to encourage people to live holy lives. Most sermons sound like tapings of the Oprah show with an, "I'm OK, you're OK," message. The problem is that most of us aren't OK.


So, basically, the church today needs to follow the mold of the OT deity: angry, petty, vengeful, and genocidal to any who dare think differently. As opposed to the NT deity: needy, desperate for devotion, and at least paying lip service to embracing different ideas and beliefs to get that following it so craves.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

jennifer1986 said:


> I have no interest in continuing an argument that gets sidetracked eventually. The point made here seems obvious: many Christians would embrace all SINNERS (of course, we are taught to do that), then tell them to REPENT.
> 
> My point is, a homosexual is NOT a thieve. Nor an addict. A homosexual very likely will remain homosexual all his or her life. And we are calling this a SIN. I do not agree. Of course now the reference of Sodom and Gomorrah is brought up. See how we are relying on Old Testament one second and next second say "oh that was a different circumstance so incest, infanticide, etc, were justified"?
> 
> ...


My guest wouldn't be a sinner necessarily because he was a homosexual. He's a sinner because he's a human being and all have fallen short.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

jennifer1986 said:


> My point is, a homosexual is NOT a thieve. Nor an addict. A homosexual very likely will remain homosexual all his or her life.


The sins are different. That is true. That doesn't mean the sins aren't real. An adulterer isn't a thief. But they're both sinners.

And yes, a homosexual may remain so all his life. Just as an addict may remain an addict. Does that mean we should encourage addicts to get high? Just because a person has a predilection for a certain sin, you believe we should encourage it? I disagree.



jennifer1986 said:


> And we are calling this a SIN. I do not agree.


I'm not calling it a sin. The Bible calls it a sin. Actually, the Bible refers to it as an abomination to the Lord.



jennifer1986 said:


> I am not throwing my Bible in the trash, but yes, I do believe it's more important to talk to God than quoting Bible. I can probably quote my verses as well as most of you. Of course it's hard to hear God, but I'd rather be trying hard on that then just holding up the 1 KG book.


If you are a true prophet, then I'm thrilled for you. Of course, I'm not aware of many prophets who encouraged people to ignore Scripture. I think those would qualify as false prophets.



jennifer1986 said:


> If Peter, who was actually WITH God when he was here, died for God, blah blah blah...needed God to tell him THRICE that the Gentiles were now accepted before he changed his view, then we need to be 100000 more times patient to hear what God has to say to each of us.


That's true. All of us have heard God's word and ignored it. The difference between us is that I'm not actively encouraging people to ignore God's will. I think we should encourage people to heed God's will.



jennifer1986 said:


> My point is simple: rigid rules have done many people harm.


Rigid adherence to foolish rules has done harm. Rigid adherence to wise rules, such as no adultery or no murder, is actually very beneficial. I think the Bible has many more wise rules than foolish ones.



jennifer1986 said:


> Everyone is different and precious in God's eyes, and no one should tell anyone else what to do or not to do.


Everyone is precious. But I think God has the right to lay down rules. And I think the Church has the obligation to encourage people to follow them. I know it's sometimes hard to follow rules. And it would be much easier if we all just rationalize our sins away. But it doesn't make it right.



jennifer1986 said:


> Everyone is so freaking out about people doing what they like without rules. But if you have God, you do not need RULES.


If that's true, then why did God give us rules? In fact, he even went so far as to give us COMMANDMENTS. You think he actually gave us the Ten Suggestions?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> In point of fact, NO words in the Bible are "literally the word of god," as they were written by human beings two millennia ago. In that time, they have been translated, retranslated, interpreted and reinterpreted time and again, with each new interpretation sponsored by a person or group with their own agenda to further. And that's without even considering the editing process that went into the initial compilation of the writings that came to be collectively known as the Bible.


That's true. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the meaning has been corrupted. If you receive a letter that was dictated, do you ignore it because it could be inaccurate? I wouldn't.



Grayson said:


> So, basically, the church today needs to follow the mold of the OT deity: angry, petty, vengeful, and genocidal to any who dare think differently. As opposed to the NT deity: needy, desperate for devotion, and at least paying lip service to embracing different ideas and beliefs to get that following it so craves.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You hate God and don't understand the Bible. That's fine. It's your right.

I'm saying the Church needs to stand up for righteousness. Disapprove of sin. If a woman in the congregation wants to get married for the 5th time because her first four husbands didn't make her every dream come true, then tell her that the Church believes in lifetime marriage and she should use a judge rather than a preacher.

Insist on having people who strive to live a holy life as pastors. That means no unrepentant adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, molesters, or other sinners qualify to lead a congregation.

We should strive to have a Church consistent with the teachings of Christ. We should welcome sinners, tell them God loves them, and tell them to sin no more. We should absolutely not welcome sinners, tell them they're not actually sinners because there's no such thing as sin, and tell them that everyone goes to Heaven, so don't worry about reforming yourself. That is exactly the opposite of Christ's teachings.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

it doesn't matter what I believe is sin and what I think is ok. I didn't create the universe so I don't get to make the rules. If I just want something to make me feel better, I'd pick a jacuzzi and not a religion.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> If that's true, then why did God give us rules? In fact, he even went so far as to give us COMMANDMENTS. You think he actually gave us the Ten Suggestions?


That's actually an interesting discussion in its own rite. As the Jewish half in a Jewish/Christian marriage, it's an argument our families get into fairly often


----------



## Blue Moon (Sep 7, 2009)

I too am a Christian, and find myself thinking about these things and what extremes to take. Right now, my thought is God created us, so he understands our urges and desires. I don't believe that means to run wild and frolic by having orgies, but at its core, if you strip away everything, our sole purpose for being here is to have SEX and repopulate.

There is even a verse in the bible that states that it's better to have sex than to burn with passion, because that passion will eat you alive.

I guess what I'm saying is, while I understand waiting for marriage, I think we might take it a bit too far in the name of scripture sometimes. I just don't think waiting for years to kiss your husband or wife is what got intended or would want for us.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

When a person can create a universe, they will be free to set rules as they see fit. If I got to decide what's right and wrong and what God intends and what He doesn't, then I'd actually be substituted my will for His and making myself god. I'm only responsible for doing what I'm told the best way I can. It'd seem pretty fanatical to build a huge boat and load it with animals to save the world. It'd seem pretty audacious to believe you could tell a dead person to rise or to tell a blind person to see or a cripple to walk. Human logic would dictate that none of that would have made sense. God isn't human and He isn't bound by some psychologist's idea of which human behaviors can be changed. He says "all things are possible".


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

unbelievable, if it were as simple as that people wouldn't be debating it.

The Bible is complicated! 'inspired,' 'inerrant' or not, it's been compiled by dozens of authors who span hundreds to thousands of years, using highly nuanced language that is difficult to translate. The canon of scripture itself has been debated over centuries.. there are people who wanted to exclude James or Song of Songs, for various reasons. And there are plenty of other Gospels that *didn't* get included, for other reasons.

There is always the question of, who is writing, who is the original intended recipient, what differences and similarities exist between their world and today's world? Which teachings are universal, and what is relegated to a certain culture?

In Leviticus, if a man rapes a woman, she has to marry him. if he took her virginity his punishment is that he has to compensate her parents. In Joshua, a man's entire household - his children, wife, servants, etc. - is put to death because he kept some of the battle-loot for himself. Paul says that women shouldn't speak up in church, and that men shouldn't have long hair.

In today's world, what are we supposed to make of these things? You can say we can't pick and choose which teachings to follow or not follow, but of course we do!

The criteria you use to decide which scriptures are applicable... that is a subject of much debate.

Of course God gets to decide what's right and wrong. But he hasn't made it so easy to read all the signs.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> .
> I'm not calling it a sin. The Bible calls it a sin. Actually, the Bible refers to it as an abomination to the Lord.


Doesn't it also refer to eating shellfish as an abomination?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

Only God can judge. Nobody is in a position to point fingers at anyone else because we are all sinners. 

I feel that Christians are held to a higher moral standard in our society. That is why so many people are bothered by the ones who are very hypocritical and duplicitous. Of course, Christians are just imperfect human beings who make mistakes.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> That's true. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the meaning has been corrupted. If you receive a letter that was dictated, do you ignore it because it could be inaccurate? I wouldn't.


If the letter was dictated in, say, French, passed on to someone who translated it to Spanish, who then passed it on to someone who translated it into Chinese, who then passed it back to someone else who translated it back into French who then passed it on to someone to translate into English before it made its way to me, then yes...the odds of the original content and meaning getting lost in those translations and interpretations are pretty high.



> You hate God and don't understand the Bible. That's fine. It's your right.


I don't hate "God" any more than any other fictional character. And I understand the Bible just fine. It's a great compilation of fable, allegory and analogy serving as an exploration of the unexplained and an examination of humankind. Much like the mythology of the ancient Greeks, the Norsemen and the works of Aesop.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Doesn't it also refer to eating shellfish as an abomination?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


An abomination to man. Not to the Lord. Although Acts clarified that Gentiles aren't bound by this law. Although they are obligated to abstain from sexual immorality. Sorry.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

It's going to be hard to reach any kind of consensus here because there are so many different starting points. The bible is inspired and taken literally; the bible some good ideas; God is real; there's no God; flying spaghetti monster... people tend to already have their minds made up.

Playing Scripture ping-pong really doesn't' accomplish much, unless both people already agree on its validity. Otherwise you're debating the validity and not the interpretation.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> If the letter was dictated in, say, French, passed on to someone who translated it to Spanish, who then passed it on to someone who translated it into Chinese, who then passed it back to someone else who translated it back into French who then passed it on to someone to translate into English before it made its way to me, then yes...the odds of the original content and meaning getting lost in those translations and interpretations are pretty high.


The Old Testament has very few translation issues. I grant that the most popular version of the New Testament (KJV) was translated from Greek, to Latin, to English. And there are some mistakes. But the mistakes tend to be fairly minor. For example, when Jesus told the adulteress to sin no more, the original Greek or Hebrew writings don't translate to "keep sinning." That would be a major change that would be relevant to this discussion. Arguing that the KJV translators missed a few commas or changed an "or" to an "and" may be academically interesting. But, it isn't really relevant.



Grayson said:


> I don't hate "God" any more than any other fictional character. And I understand the Bible just fine. It's a great compilation of fable, allegory and analogy serving as an exploration of the unexplained and an examination of humankind. Much like the mythology of the ancient Greeks, the Norsemen and the works of Aesop.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


We just have different religions. I believe that a supernatural God created life. You believe that inert chemicals magically created life. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.


----------



## Blue Moon (Sep 7, 2009)

nader said:


> I'm really kind of torn about it. people got married so much sooner back then. It's one thing to tell kids to wait til they get married, but staying a v through your 20s-30s? That's tough.



This. People were getting married at 15 and 16 in those days. Not making excuses, but again, I don't think being a 40-year-old virgin is in God's plan for anyone.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Blue Moon said:


> This. People were getting married at 15 and 16 in those days. Not making excuses, but again, I don't think being a 40-year-old virgin is in God's plan for anyone.


Add to it the evidence that many girls (and some boys) are hitting puberty earlier than even 50 years ago (probably due to improved nutrition). It is a much different task to remain a virgin for a year or two then to do so for 10-15 years.


----------



## Browncoat (Mar 25, 2012)

FirstYearDown said:


> Only God can judge. Nobody is in a position to point fingers at anyone else because we are all sinners.
> 
> I feel that Christians are held to a higher moral standard in our society. That is why so many people are bothered by the ones who are very hypocritical and duplicitous. Of course, Christians are just imperfect human beings who make mistakes.


I agree FYD. I'll go a bit further by saying something that's a bit controversial. 

I lay a lot of the blame on the state of Christian churches in America (don't know how it is in other countries). So many churches imo fail to teach the basic tenants of Christianity, that many who identify themselves as Christians don't even understand the religion they follow.

I'm not personally familiar with this Barna group, but I was Googling for statistical proof of what I'm talking about. In a poll done in 2004 only 51% of US Protestant Pastors believe in a so called "Biblical Worldview" (The Barna Group - Only Half Of Protestant Pastors Have A Biblical Worldview). In the article they define "Biblical Worldview" as:



> Defining such a worldview as believing that absolute moral truth exists, that it is based upon the Bible, and having a biblical view on six core beliefs (the accuracy of biblical teaching, the sinless nature of Jesus, the literal existence of Satan, the omnipotence and omniscience of God, salvation by grace alone, and the personal responsibility to evangelize).


I'd say that definition/statement is a fairly simple and should in theory be a viewpoint that spans all major US Protestant denominations.

So it shouldn't surprise me when so many pastors in America don't hold to basic tenets of Christianity that so many Americans themselves many church goers are not well taught either.

My fear is that many Christians in America today don't really feel that deep connection to God (and the Holy Spirit). Without solid teaching it's all the more difficult IMO. Without that connection to God it's all the more difficult to steer clear of temptation (like you talked about FYD). That is individuals feel that they have to resist temptation on their own, rather than relying on God (and really knowing how to rely on God and what scripture to read to help you through specific difficulties). At times it's next to impossible to resist temptation alone given that we are all imperfect people.

Sorry that I rambled there a lot. I hope that was somewhat clear because I typed this out rather hastily.


----------



## Browncoat (Mar 25, 2012)

Blue Moon said:


> This. People were getting married at 15 and 16 in those days. Not making excuses, but again, I don't think being a 40-year-old virgin is in God's plan for anyone.


Since I'm saying one controversial thing, I might as well say two. I may be unusual but if my children have met a great SO, are serious about marriage (both of them), have both sets of parent's blessings, and they've gone through some kick butt premartial counselling (on my dime)... then I have no problem with my kids marrying as young as 20.

I think modern society has stretched out childhood (in a sense) all the way to the mid-30's. In that you are expected to live the single life and do w/e you want... and then get serious and settle down.

It's unreasonable to expect children/young adults to stay virgins until then. Human biology is largely the same as it has been through all recorded history. When people get to their late teens early 20's their bodies are screaming at them to have sex.

So if as a Christian you are supposed to wait until marriage, I say marry younger than we have in recent Western culture. They can have your kids younger and enjoy the fact that their kids will be on their own by their mid-40's to early 50's. They'll likely have money to travel and enjoy the world... and still be young enough to really enjoy it!


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

jennifer1986 said:


> Where in the Bible does it say "no sex before marriage"? And do we do everything the Bible says? (Oh, I hope not).


There are many places in the Bible that forbid fornication. Fornication is sex between unmarried, heterosexual people.

Here are a few: 

In every form, fornication is sternly condemned by the Mosaic law among God's people, the Israelites (Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20-11, 23-29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16). 

Fornication is also mentioned many times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4).

You have every right to believe as you do.

Those who believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong have just as much right to your beliefs.

My personals beliefs are somewhere between the two. It’s not a black/white issue to me.

However, one strong argument for the idea that sex outside of marriage being forbidden is that the promiscuity in our society is leading to a huge number of social ills. 

At least abstaining from sex until after marriage does not lead to things like the huge number of babies born into single parent homes in which the babies do not get adequate parenting, it does not transmit sexual deceases which are ramped in our society, and it does not lead to people being so used by multiple partners before marriage that they suffer from what can be seen as a form of stress and distrust disorders.

As we can see in the many stories here, having sex before marriage is not an indicator of what the couple's sex life will be like after marriage... not by a long shot. I can attess to that from my own life. 

Living together before marriage also does not help us assess what a person will be like after marriage because people change after marriage.. most people seem to have a preset idea of what being a husband and wife is like.. and as soon as they are married they fall into that roll. And that roll is often quite differnt than the roll they were in as a live-in partner. I have read that one of the biggest indicators of whether or not a couple will get a divorce is if they lived together before marriage.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> I grant that the most popular version of the New Testament (KJV) was translated from Greek, to Latin, to English.


Could you be thinking of Douay/Rheims, which was translated directly from the Vulgate? 

The translators deferred to the Vulgate in multiple instances, but Jamesian English was still the target language for the KJV, although there are a number of Greek master texts that are regarded today as more authoritative than Beza and the Textus Receptus.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> The Old Testament has very few translation issues. I grant that the most popular version of the New Testament (KJV) was translated from Greek, to Latin, to English. And there are some mistakes. But the mistakes tend to be fairly minor. For example, when Jesus told the adulteress to sin no more, the original Greek or Hebrew writings don't translate to "keep sinning." That would be a major change that would be relevant to this discussion. Arguing that the KJV translators missed a few commas or changed an "or" to an "and" may be academically interesting. But, it isn't really relevant.


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. And, as mentioned before, factor in the agendas involved in those translations and interpretations (something not even touched upon in my letter translation example) along with later translators and interpreters themselves working from a translated interpretation and you've got a recipe for unreliability as anything other than fable and allegory.

Think of a game of "Telephone." For example, we played it at one of our high school play cast parties. There were maybe 15 of us there. What started with the first girl in the circle saying, "I like boys and Chitaquah (sp?) Lake." came back around to her as, "I like Joel and we did it in a lake." That's just 15 people, in the same room, mere feet from one another, all speaking the same language, and all supposedly with the intent of keeping the original message intact by the time it completes the circle. Now, wouldn't you agree that a two millennia long game of telephone, with transitions between languages and agendas behind reinterpreting from a previous version I any language (for instance, with the King James version you referenced, James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy), that there's a margin of error that widens each time the book is retranslated and/or reinterpreted?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Now, wouldn't you agree that a two millennia long game of telephone....


Well again I'm not a Christian, but the NT really is one of the best preserved pieces of ancient literature anywhere. 

We have small fragments dating from within a generation of the era and papyri codices from within just a few centuries. I agree that glosses and outright errors probably occurred, but it's really not fair to characterize Bible translation as a two millennium long game of telephone. 

The implication in the telephone analogy is that each iteration is a little less accurate. But translations today are fresher than translations four and five hundred years ago, because more is known about the Koine dialect today and more accurate master texts are available. 

It's also a fair point that some translations lean toward the theological bias of the translators, but reputable translation committees today are intentionally composed of as diverse a group of scholars as possible to avoid that. Even Jewish scholars are included in NT revisions and translations today (!)


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

If my Commander dictates an order to the Lieutenant and the Lieutenant passes it to the Platoon Sergeant and I eventually get it from the Corporal, I am accountable to the Commander to obey his order as I received it. If the order was inadvertently changed a little between the CO and me, that's not my beer. Just because I didn't hear the order directly from the mouth of the CO doesn't relieve me of my duty to obey. It's not my place to speculate as to which orders the CO wants obeyed. It doesn't matter if I agree entirely with his orders or even if I completely understand his intent. He's the Commander and I'm not.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> So if as a Christian you are supposed to wait until marriage, I say marry younger than we have in recent Western culture. They can have your kids younger and enjoy the fact that their kids will be on their own by their mid-40's to early 50's. They'll likely have money to travel and enjoy the world... and still be young enough to really enjoy it!


I have mixed feelings about this as well. I went to a Christian college where LOTS of my friends got married early. I have close friends who seemed happily married but then went through terrible divorces ... largely because they didn't understand what they wanted out of life when they got married, or failed to read some serious red flags because they were so geared up to get married. As far as I know, these people waited to have sex.. and it didn't seem to do them much good.

On the other hand, my brother got married at 19 and they seem to be doing well.


----------



## jennifer1986 (Feb 4, 2012)

I was gonna leave this thread but some recent posts make me want to say:

*WHY ARE PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED IF THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE FINANCIAL STABILITY, SOME IDEA ABOUT LIFE, AND ENOUGH MATURITY?*

I have seen so many posts here from young people that made me want to shout. One guy was having ED and asking his *FATHER* to give him $ to buy Cialis. For #&^$ sake!!! Several couples did not have enough financial means and were living with parents and you can imagine all the problems. Many did not know what was going on and the relationship soured quickly. 

So, to get married young, just because you need SEX, is a terrible idea to me. I would much rather have my son be in a serious relationship, live together with the person, have sex if they choose to, and eventually settle down if the person proves to be the right one. Otherwise, once you have kids, it becomes REALLY ugly when things fall apart. And it's sooooo not fair for the innocent children. Please do not get me wrong. I AM NOT SAYING ALL YOUNG MARRIAGES ARE BAD. I know may people who married out of high school. I myself married out of college. But marriage should be based on many solid grounds, not NEED FOR SEX.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

I've stayed out of this thread because I find religious discussions fruitless when they move beyond the realm of discussion into debate. 

But I would like to address the point above. In the vast scope of humanity, if most men and women waited until they were "financially stable", mature, and had some "idea about life", then most men and women would never have gotten married.

These are very Western, modern ideas. Marriage has traditionally been done young, and even in dowry situations the average couple went in pretty poor the world over. Two young people built a life together, not strong lives apart, and then they'd merge together. Of course there were always exceptions, but this was the general case for many millions of people.

And the marriages lasted longer. I believe we now have an entire gambit of marital, and pre-marital, "rules" and guidelines that sound perfectly logical to our Western mind, but that actually are not panning out in practice at all. Because we are collectively pushing off marriage further and further, and coming into marriages with both parties having built financial lives, and careers, and yet still those marriages too are ending in divorce.

I think we might need to face the fact that we're getting it all wrong on some level.


----------



## jennifer1986 (Feb 4, 2012)

jaquen said:


> I've stayed out of this thread because I find religious discussions fruitless when they move beyond the realm of discussion into debate.
> 
> But I would like to address the point above. In the vast scope of humanity, if most men and women waited until they were "financially stable", mature, and had some "idea about life", then most men and women would never have gotten married.
> 
> ...


I am not really disagreeing with this, actually I agree with the very last statement. My parents got to know each other by a "marriage arrangement". They are doing perfectly fine (with 2 big TVs on different channels). However--

It doesn't work well for many people in today's society. I pointed out some examples I saw in this forum. Again, everyone is different. Many Hispanic friends I know married in high school or right out, and it's customary to live with parents for a long time, get their help with kids, and the divorce rate in Hispanics is amazingly low....

But another cultural group would find living with parents very stressful. Since this is a sex forum, ask people here how sex life would suffer if your folks r around and a bunch would say NO WAY. 

"Financial stability" to me does not me you have a house/a car/a well-stocked portfolio. It means you will not ask anyone for help and be responsible for your life. It's an attitude. I borrowed money for professional school and returned it. Otherwise, we were on our own even though it was extremely tough. 

Oh, and there was at least one thread where the woman was working 2 jobs and stressed out, and probably 10 threads where the couple said THEY HAD NO MONEY TO GO FOR COUNSELING!!! 

I've got to leave this thread also. This is a SEX FORUM! Sorry but the reason I shouted over this issue is I feel very strongly about people who take marriage too lightly, have kids, and end up divorcing. I work with kids, love kids, and hate it when kids suffer from these incidences. I think I have made myself very clear I did not mean all young marriages are doomed to fail.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> Many Hispanic friends I know married in high school or right out, and it's customary to live with parents for a long time, get their help with kids, and the divorce rate in Hispanics is amazingly low....


I'm speaking in general terms here, but wouldn't this be because they are mostly Catholic, and don't they tend to have more infidelity than people who aren't forbidden to get divorced?

My wife's family is Hispanic.. I recently found out that her dad has a girlfriend and is completely open about it, yet there they are, still together. I don't know the whole story but I hate it for both of them; of course more for my mother inlaw. Very sad


----------



## Browncoat (Mar 25, 2012)

jennifer1986 said:


> *WHY ARE PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED IF THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE FINANCIAL STABILITY, SOME IDEA ABOUT LIFE, AND ENOUGH MATURITY?*


My FIL used to say: "If you wait until you can afford kids, you'll never have them".

It think that's largely true.

Fact of the matter is that these days people expect to have a lot of things people didn't in times past. Fancy vacations, new cars, cute electronic gadgets (iPhones/smart phones, etc.), cable tv, etc... All those things cost money, and you get enough of them and it all adds up. People are accustomed to so much, but frankly you don't need much to be happy.

Money does cause a lot of divorce, but when my wife and I married we just lived within our means. We drove very old beat up pieces of junk. Had no fancy electronic devices, no cable, no boat... nothing but a small apartment, clothes, a phone, and the cheapest furniture we could get (and not much of it, lol much of it was crates and other ultra cheap things). I had a hand me down bed from my mom, and we slept on that thing for another 7 years or so. We didn't go out much at all, and when we did it was on the ultra cheap. We saved our money so we could get into our first house, and even when we did get in we didn't rack up any debts other than our mortgage.

We avoided debt like the plague, and we still do. When we did borrow some money to help us get into our first home it was from my mother to help with the down payment... and we paid her back every bit and then some as soon as we could.

I think if more young couples had this attitude, there would be far fewer money related problems in their marriage.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> If my Commander dictates an order to the Lieutenant and the Lieutenant passes it to the Platoon Sergeant and I eventually get it from the Corporal, I am accountable to the Commander to obey his order as I received it. If the order was inadvertently changed a little between the CO and me, that's not my beer. Just because I didn't hear the order directly from the mouth of the CO doesn't relieve me of my duty to obey. It's not my place to speculate as to which orders the CO wants obeyed. It doesn't matter if I agree entirely with his orders or even if I completely understand his intent. He's the Commander and I'm not.


If (to oversimplify a bit), the Commander's order is "Don't fire." and, in going through the chain, the order related to you by the Corporal is "Fire," and you do, did you obey the Commander's order?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Grayson said:


> If (to oversimplify a bit), the Commander's order is "Don't fire." and, in going through the chain, the order related to you by the Corporal is "Fire," and you do, did you obey the Commander's order?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


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.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> 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.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> 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.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

jennifer1986 said:


> 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.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

EleGirl said:


> 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_


----------



## jennifer1986 (Feb 4, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> 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.


----------



## lightafire26 (May 2, 2012)

jennifer1986 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

jennifer1986 said:


> 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.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Grayson said:


> 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.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> 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?


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> 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_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> 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.



Grayson said:


> 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.



Grayson said:


> 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.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

grayson said:


> ....that is known to have been through multiple translations...



Διατι την λαλιαν την εμην ου γινωσκετε;


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> 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.



> 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_


----------



## Cookie99 (May 21, 2012)

removed by author


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> 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.



Grayson said:


> 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.



Grayson said:


> 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.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Cookie99 said:


> The dozen or so “sex” precepts hammered on in church rarely help any of us male or female with the problems we see here on the sex forum.
> 
> There are those that test drove the new sex vehicle and those that did not before marriage and many of those marriages failed that took both routes or are truly unhappy. It is not that simple.
> 
> ...


I don't think that the issue would be wanting more sex (more than what?). Especially not wanting more sex in a committed relationship like marriage.

The topic of self control and sex has to do with promiscuity... sleeping around. This can be a lack of self control. There are people who have had hundreds, even thousands of sex partners... I think that shows a true lack of control.

I've spoken to young people who are 18, 19 or 20 years old who claim to have had 25 to 50 sex partners. I'd say that was lack of control.


----------



## ScubaSteve61 (Mar 20, 2012)

I once heard a visiting pastor say that he would never even think of dancing with his wife because he respects her too much, and he would have lustful thoughts of her while dancing. 

If there is one person in the world who it is ok to have lustful thoughts towards, it is your spouse!


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> 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.


Not so easily, really, when given that different translations and interpretations have made no bones about wanting to foster a particular point of view.

So, to summarize, yes, two intertwined subjects:

1) Accuracy of the text's contents. Highly suspect, given the contents have more in common with fairy tales than reality.

2) Reliability of translation and interpretation. Also highly suspect, given the multiple translations and interpretations, some (most? all?) of which were done with the express intent of conveying particular agendas.



> 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.


More a matter of extrapolating observable phenomena.



> 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.


Yes, I have heard that quite smug joke (although, I can't say I've ever heard it referred to as a joke before, but rather a parable). And undeniable proof of existence does not require interceding on behalf of individuals or a group as noted in my earlier example. Or am I really to believe that a supposedly loving deity who can see all and wants all of humanity to follow his/her/its example looks at us on this little blue marble, sees so many in conflict (sometimes quite deadly) over his/her/its instructions or - yes - even very existence, and couldn't/wouldn't at least undeniably say, "Hey! I'm here! Knock it off, or you get a time out!"? We're not talking about the kind of tantrums this supreme being supposedly threw a few thousand years ago: flooding the world to commit genocide, turning people into pillars of seasoning, etc. We're talking about a simple personal appearance. No autographs, even. So I applaud your straw man...it's quite nice. But I don't need a straw man just this moment.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Not so easily, really, when given that different translations and interpretations have made no bones about wanting to foster a particular point of view.


I'll simply disagree. There are thousands of early texts to use. Most of these are very consistent with each other. For someone with so much faith in chemists, I'm surprised at how much you lack in linguists.



Grayson said:


> 1) Accuracy of the text's contents. Highly suspect, given the contents have more in common with fairy tales than reality.


And still irrelevant to the issue of transcription. To use your favorite example of Greek mythology, scholars could study the issue of whether the legend of Hercules' labors were accurately transcribed from ancient Greek to English without debating whether the legend is historically accurate.



Grayson said:


> More a matter of extrapolating observable phenomena.


LOL. Extrapolating reactions between inert chemical molecules into the creation of life is like a biologist observing a child first crawl, then walk, then run, and extrapolating that to believe that adults will be able to teleport.



Grayson said:


> So I applaud your straw man...it's quite nice. But I don't need a straw man just this moment.


It's no straw man. I'm simply allowing for the possibility that God isn't interested in jumping through whatever hoops you set up for Him to prove His existence to you. He exists on His own terms. If you lack the faith to believe in Him, it's not His problem.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> Or am I really to believe that a supposedly loving deity who can see all and wants all of humanity to follow his/her/its example looks at us on this little blue marble, sees so many in conflict (sometimes quite deadly) over his/her/its instructions or - yes - even very existence, and couldn't/wouldn't at least undeniably say, "Hey! I'm here! Knock it off, or you get a time out!"? We're not talking about the kind of tantrums this supreme being supposedly threw a few thousand years ago: flooding the world to commit genocide, turning people into pillars of seasoning, etc. We're talking about a simple personal appearance.


Most Christians will tell you that this is what the Incarnation is all about. Jesus told a good number of people to 'knock it off,' I'd say.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> I'll simply disagree. There are thousands of early texts to use. Most of these are very consistent with each other. For someone with so much faith in chemists, I'm surprised at how much you lack in linguists.


And, it's fair for us to disagree. Especially when you continue to misdirect and/or ignore the points I make. Which actually kinda makes part of my point for me. So, thanks for that.




> And still irrelevant to the issue of transcription. To use your favorite example of Greek mythology, scholars could study the issue of whether the legend of Hercules' labors were accurately transcribed from ancient Greek to English without debating whether the legend is historically accurate.


See above and previous posts. My fingers are getting tired.



> LOL. Extrapolating reactions between inert chemical molecules into the creation of life is like a biologist observing a child first crawl, then walk, then run, and extrapolating that to believe that adults will be able to teleport.


If you say so.

Is it any more LOL-worthy than a biologist observing a child first crawl, then walk, then run and concluding that an invisible being in the sky snapped its fingers and did it?



> It's no straw man. I'm simply allowing for the possibility that God isn't interested in jumping through whatever hoops you set up for Him to prove His existence to you. He exists on His own terms. If you lack the faith to believe in Him, it's not His problem.


I'm afraid it is a straw man, as my point was concerning proof of existence, and you attempted to refute it with a parable about direct intervention. And, here we see another attempt at misdirection and/or misrepresentation, as I've set no hoops for anyone/anything to jump through, despite your words to the contrary. At most, I'm simply given examples of how a supposed supreme being who, if the book we're discussing IS to be believed, has directly made his/her/its presence known in the past could do so again.

All that said, it would appear (as often happens in discussions such as this) that we're just going 'round and 'round in circles. So, let's leave it at this: you believe in a supreme being and the accuracy of said being's rulebook...I don't. One of us may be right...or we may both be wrong. At the end of the day, as long as such philosophies don't interfere in others' lives, does it really matter?


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

nader said:


> Most Christians will tell you that this is what the Incarnation is all about. Jesus told a good number of people to 'knock it off,' I'd say.


Or, at least, the book of fables and parables whose accuracy and veracity has been discussed for a few pages says that was the case. Even if the existence of a historical figure upon whom the "Jesus" of the Bible was based is accepted as a given, that doesn't necessarily mean that the stories told in the book are true.

By way of example, John Malkovich is a real person. He even played himself in _Being John Malkovich_. So, does that mean there's a little door I can crawl through to take control of him for a limited time?


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

I mention this because I noticed you saying basically that God should just come down here and make himself known - a simple personal appearance. That's a fundamental principle of what Christianity is.

But you already don't believe in 'the Jesus of the Bible,' so if he was here today and did the same things, wouldn't you just find some other way to write it off?

You seem to already have your mind made up.

There's nothing in 'Being In John Malkovich" that says "this is real. these things really happened and lots of people saw them. we're making this movie so you'll believe it."

There is an incredible amount of eyewitness detail in them, mentions of geneologies, references to how was king at the time and how many years he'd been king. They are written like history.. Luke particularly was a historian. It's mentioned so many times in the NT.. things like "these are things we've seen.. other people have seen them too. We're writing this because we want to tell you about it." The writers of the Gospels genuinely believed that what they were writing was real, and needed to be passed down.

You can believe it or not, but you can't write it off as 'fables and parables.'

If something like this actually happened.. people would want to pass it down and they would say things like this. If the Gospel writers were simply deluded, they were incredibly eloquent about it. Or ... just making things up. What would they have had to gain from it?


----------



## JTL (Dec 14, 2009)

nader said:


> I mention this because I noticed you saying basically that God should just come down here and make himself known - a simple personal appearance. That's a fundamental principle of what Christianity is.
> 
> But you already don't believe in 'the Jesus of the Bible,' so if he was here today and did the same things, wouldn't you just find some other way to write it off?
> 
> ...


It can and is easily written off this way. All of the so-called "personal stories and accounts" were written LONG after the death of Jesus (if indeed he existed). The closest story was written almost 20 years after his death. Now really, what kind of personal account or story is accurate 20 years after the fact? And that, was the closest. Most stories were written 30-70 years after his death. There is an incredible amount of detail in most of the fiction novels people read as well. Stories that paint a picture in the minds eye. If Jesus was here he would be written off today as the schitzophrenic he was, because he did none of the things contributed to him LATER on by others. If someone came from the heavens and could actually do anything remotely close to anything written in the bible, they would be heralded as the second coming. But, that's not going to happen. If it does, i'll be the first to eat my piece of humble pie.
As to WHY create this ficticious account? Control. Over a population feuding over religion. Put the so called "fear of god" into them and they fall in line like sheep. It's easier to control people with a common belief system. The rules and fundamentals of christianity (and almost all other religions) are put in place to refute questions of validity. The overwhelming contradictions (in "facts" , "stories" and portrayals) between the old and new testaments should be enough for most open minded people to see that the bible was certainly no historical or factual book


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

Holy threadjack!


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

ScubaSteve61 said:


> I once heard a visiting pastor say that he would never even think of dancing with his wife because he respects her too much, and he would have lustful thoughts of her while dancing.
> 
> If there is one person in the world who it is ok to have lustful thoughts towards, it is your spouse!


Sad comment by the pastor. Everyone should have lustful thoughts about their spouse. That's part of a healthy marrital relationship.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> If Jesus was here he would be written off today as the schitzophrenic he was, because he did none of the things contributed to him LATER on by others. If someone came from the heavens and could actually do anything remotely close to anything written in the bible, they would be heralded as the second coming. But, that's not going to happen. If it does, i'll be the first to eat my piece of humble pie.


Where to begin... where do you get this notion that Christ was schizophrenic, if not from the same source material you are trying to discredit?



> As to WHY create this ficticious account? Control. Over a population feuding over religion. As to WHY create this ficticious account? Control. Over a population feuding over religion.


Which population exactly? and what religion is being 'feuded over'? This period in church history is too early for "them" to be in any kind of position of power trying to control people.

You are making some huge generalizations here and talking about things you obviously haven't studied in detail. There is lots of information out there if you are really interested, but from the tone of your post it appears you just don't like Christianity.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> And, it's fair for us to disagree. Especially when you continue to misdirect and/or ignore the points I make. Which actually kinda makes part of my point for me. So, thanks for that.


You're welcome, I guess. :scratchhead: If you think that thousands of early texts that are consistent with each other and English translations is irrelevant to the issue of the accuracy of transcription, then I think you don't understand the issue at hand.



Grayson said:


> See above and previous posts. My fingers are getting tired.


I agree. This is another issue where you miss the point entirely. One issue we're discussing is accuracy of transcription. Another issue we're discussing is historical veracity of the texts. They're two issues. You keep confusing them.



Grayson said:


> Is it any more LOL-worthy than a biologist observing a child first crawl, then walk, then run and concluding that an invisible being in the sky snapped its fingers and did it?


IMO, yes. But perhaps that's my bias. If I see an exquisitely ordered machine, like a Ferrari, I conclude that it must have been designed, engineered, and built by intelligent people. Others may conclude that inert chemicals accidentally arranged themselves in just such a fashion as to produce the machine. Each group will LOL at the other.



Grayson said:


> I'm afraid it is a straw man, as my point was concerning proof of existence, and you attempted to refute it with a parable about direct intervention. And, here we see another attempt at misdirection and/or misrepresentation, as I've set no hoops for anyone/anything to jump through, despite your words to the contrary. At most, I'm simply given examples of how a supposed supreme being who, if the book we're discussing IS to be believed, has directly made his/her/its presence known in the past could do so again.


The parable was no straw man. It dealt with the subject of proof. What is proof to many is insufficient to you. What you have proposed as sufficient proof seems to me to be directing God to jump through hoops.

You say he should announce his presence from the skies. If we allow for the fact that he has done this before, in biblical times, how often would he have to announce his presence? Obviously, once is not enough. Would he need to do it once every generation? Or every year? These are the kinds of hoops I mean.



Grayson said:


> All that said, it would appear (as often happens in discussions such as this) that we're just going 'round and 'round in circles. So, let's leave it at this: you believe in a supreme being and the accuracy of said being's rulebook...I don't. One of us may be right...or we may both be wrong. At the end of the day, as long as such philosophies don't interfere in others' lives, does it really matter?


You're correct here. No, it doesn't matter.


----------



## JTL (Dec 14, 2009)

nader said:


> Where to begin... where do you get this notion that Christ was schizophrenic, if not from the same source material you are trying to discredit?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have and will continue to read. I find it fascinating. I will not try to convince you of anything, certainly not my beliefs. I apologize if i came off hostile-that certainly wasn't my intent. I have no particular dislike for christianity per se-just the underlying need for christians to "convert" non believers. I have never been courted by Jews, Hindu's, Buddists, etc. but have and will continue to be hounded by those in the christian faith to "believe" in their version of religion. I grew up with an extended family with deep christian beliefs. Luckily for me, my immediate family let me grow and learn things for myself. It soon becomes obvious for those not brainwashed that the facts simply do not line up. Hey, i'm all for blind faith. If it feels good-do it. Many people require it and it makes them feel better, so, they are better for it. Just don't pass it off as fact or conclude that others require it. How many 20 year old people believe in god (any god)when they have not been brainwashed and exposed to it through their formitive years? Once a mind has time to develop and become educated free of religious bias, one can see the utter ridiculousness of religion.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

JTL, you and I might have more in common than you think. I'm not into converting people; Everyone's decision to believe or not believe, or believe something else, is 100% up to them. I don't like fundamentalists; I support gay marriage; I've read Bertrand Russell and have plenty of friends who are atheist or agnostic; I'm down with evolution and sometimes I say cuss words. I especially enjoy drinking beer.

I mention these things to point out that i am a thinking person who is not brainwashed. There are aspects of Christianity (or modern interpretations of it!) that I take issue with, and find myself at odds with believers and nonbelievers alike.

It just happens that I have come to believe that a man came to earth, claimed to be the Son of God and said lots of other weird stuff. He was put to death and subsequently resurrected; and this event continues to impact my life today. I find the Gospel accounts to be quite compelling, but don't feel some burden to prove this to anyone. I'm ok with having a degree of uncertainty about it. If I die and it turns out somehow that i was wrong, well, I had a good run.

I do think there is a great deal of ignorance about historical aspects of Christianity, the preservation of ancient texts and whatnot. It is an academic field and people have dedicated their lives to uncovering these mysteries, so when someone drops in on a message board with little more to say than 'it's a conspiracy, man!' ... well I take issue with that as well.



> Once a mind has time to develop and become educated free of religious bias, one can see the utter ridiculousness of religion.


This is an awfully biased thing to say... 'nonreligious bias?' And not to mention condescending - not knowing what experiences I've had or how educated I am.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

JTL said:


> It can and is easily written off this way. All of the so-called "personal stories and accounts" were written LONG after the death of Jesus (if indeed he existed). The closest story was written almost 20 years after his death. Now really, what kind of personal account or story is accurate 20 years after the fact? And that, was the closest. Most stories were written 30-70 years after his death.


Historically, that's not such a problem. Contemporary sources are usually preferred to later sources, but it's not necessarily a problem. Winston Churchill wrote an excellent history of English-speaking peoples in the 20th century. He went back to the time of the Roman invasion of Britain in 55 BC.



JTL said:


> If Jesus was here he would be written off today as the schitzophrenic he was, because he did none of the things contributed to him LATER on by others.


And you say you're not intending to be hostile? Of course you are.



JTL said:


> As to WHY create this ficticious account? Control.


You didn't learn everything you know about the first century from the DaVinci Code, did you? You need to brush up on your history if you think the early Christian church was about control. The early Christians were persecuted. They were killed by both the Jews and the Romans. There are easier ways to gain power than inventing a religion that will flourish hundreds of years after the original progenitors are dead.

You don't think George Washington accepted command of the American army during the Revolutionary War so that our country could eventually gain control over Middle-Eastern oil reserves, do you?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

JTL said:


> I will not try to convince you of anything, certainly not my beliefs.


Of course you will. That is the point of your posts. You resent Christianity and you want to preach your own brand of religion. That's OK. Everyone believes their own religion is the one, true belief.



JTL said:


> It soon becomes obvious for those not brainwashed that the facts simply do not line up.


Not to all of us. Most of the facts that atheists believe completely discredit religion, or Christianity in particular, seem perfectly congruent to the faithful.



JTL said:


> How many 20 year old people believe in god (any god)when they have not been brainwashed and exposed to it through their formitive years? Once a mind has time to develop and become educated free of religious bias, one can see the utter ridiculousness of religion.


You're looking to 20 year-olds for wisdom? Talk about your blind faith. :scratchhead:

I wouldn't trust a 20 year-old to recommend a beer, let alone a world-view.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> The early Christians were persecuted. They were killed by both the Jews and the Romans.


Well the very earliest Christians were mostly Jews themselves who had added belief in Jesus to a full observance of the Law. The Jewishness of James the Just, and other _very_ prominent Christian figures is a matter of history. 

Jewish/Christian relations broke down by the end of the first century, but we're talking about a pretty small window in time. By the early fourth century, the tables had turned and the Jews were paid back in spades.


----------



## JTL (Dec 14, 2009)

PHTlump said:


> Of course you will. That is the point of your posts. You resent Christianity and you want to preach your own brand of religion. That's OK. Everyone believes their own religion is the one, true belief.
> 
> 
> Not to all of us. Most of the facts that atheists believe completely discredit religion, or Christianity in particular, seem perfectly congruent to the faithful.
> ...


Sorry, no hostility here.
I don't follow a religion but would not consider myself an athiest. I choose to keep an open mind and am willing to believe in anything that can be proven with facts and without blind faith
I hear you about 20 year olds but their wisdom was not my point. The point is without religious influence during a persons formitive years, the less likely a person is to believe in it.
Again, i don't hate religion, christianity, whatever. Just the belief that the quaran, bible, torah (sp?) are somehow historically factual.
P.S. No, i do not base my opinion ( for that is all it is) on the Davinci code, but that certainly was a great comment!:lol:


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

nader said:


> I mention this because I noticed you saying basically that God should just come down here and make himself known - a simple personal appearance. That's a fundamental principle of what Christianity is.


In actuality, that was merely an example of what would seem to be the most expedient method...the occasional, indisputable "personal appearance." Given that the deity in question is alleged in part of the book we're talking about to directly and overtly, that doesn't appear to beyond the scope of said deity.



> But you already don't believe in 'the Jesus of the Bible,' so if he was here today and did the same things, wouldn't you just find some other way to write it off?
> 
> You seem to already have your mind made up.


First, a bit of clarification. When I say "the Jesus of the Bible," I refer to the character in the book with supernatural powers. There very well may have been a real human being around whom the Bible stories were written. So, that clarification out of the way, based upon the information available, about the stories of the Bible, how the world works, and what human beings are capable of, you are correct...I don't believe in "the Jesus of the Bible." If that person were here today, and could demonstrate the supernatural powers attributed to him, that would be additional information to take into account, wouldn't it? New information can lead to new conclusions being reached.



> There is an incredible amount of eyewitness detail in them, mentions of geneologies, references to how was king at the time and how many years he'd been king. They are written like history.. Luke particularly was a historian. It's mentioned so many times in the NT.. things like "these are things we've seen.. other people have seen them too. We're writing this because we want to tell you about it." The writers of the Gospels genuinely believed that what they were writing was real, and needed to be passed down.


If we give the writers of the Gospels the benefit of the doubt that they held no ulterior motives, we must also remember that the writers of (what we now refer to as) Greek mythology genuinely believed that what they were writing was real, and needed to be passed down, as well. That they _believed _it was real doesn't mean that it _was _real.



> You can believe it or not, but you can't write it off as 'fables and parables.'


Of course it can be written off as fables and parables. Or, if you prefer, mythology, because the writings compiled into the Bible share more in common with those three forms of writing than straightforward historical documentation.



> If something like this actually happened.. people would want to pass it down and they would say things like this. If the Gospel writers were simply deluded, they were incredibly eloquent about it. Or ... just making things up. What would they have had to gain from it?


Again, assuming no ulterior motive, what they have to gain is the same thing those ancient Greeks, or the Norsemen had to gain...a record of their theories (for want of a better term) of how the world worked, along with a narrative method of delineating their beliefs, which is always more engaging to an audience than a dry lecture. (This is, in fact, similar to how the Biblical story of Jesus' birth became associated with December 25. The context of the story would tend to indicate the birth happening in spring. However, as Christianity sought to convert followers other belief systems that celebrated the winter solstice, it became necessary for Christianity to have a holiday during this time period of the year to attract and appease these potential converts. So, the birth story was grafted onto many of the traditions of pagan celebrations of the winter solstice to form the holiday known as Christmas. It's often said during the holidays that "Jesus is the reason for the season," but it seems more apt to say that PR is the reason for the season.)

If we do assume an ulterior motive, which is more in line with "just making things up," then as JTL suggested, they stood to gain control of the followers of their new religion. They stood to gain a structure to their religion that allowed the imposition of rules that dictated the conduct of the followers. And, again assuming that it was purely fictional as opposed to simply a limited understanding of the world, by couching the fiction within fact, their stories gain verisimilitude.


----------



## mace85 (Mar 12, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> The sins are different. That is true. That doesn't mean the sins aren't real. An adulterer isn't a thief. But they're both sinners.
> 
> And yes, a homosexual may remain so all his life. Just as an addict may remain an addict. Does that mean we should encourage addicts to get high? Just because a person has a predilection for a certain sin, you believe we should encourage it? I disagree.
> 
> ...


Really? You interpret the bible as the word of god, and ignore the historical and social context of the language? The term abomination at that time in that culture meant "not consistent with custom". Not nearly the same context as today. This is what pisses me off about Christians. You use this book to give yourself a "moral superiority" to others. Just like history used it to treat minorities and women as second class citizens years ago. 

I truly feel sorry for people that believe everything they are spoonfed without examining the source for themselves. 

Would you take a new drug for diabetes that just arrived on the market without research? Hell no, I would read the raw data, put it in context, and then decide. 

Science will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings. Keep telling homosexuals to ignore their sexual desires and that their behavior is sinful. Thats why gay teens take their own lives at such a high rate. But if your or your churches opinions is like the "Christians" I have met, Maybe that's alright because they are second to people who believe as you do, and they were destined to a life of sin anyway. 

Maybe the person you quoted is a prophet, but just not of your particular fan club. There are many religions in this world. Which one is right? As an outside observer I can see one making more sense than the other. Maybe your scripture is wrong.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> Of course it can be written off as fables and parables. Or, if you prefer, mythology, because the writings compiled into the Bible share more in common with those three forms of writing than straightforward historical documentation.


If you're referring to the Gospels, I have to respectfully disagree here. Have looked at any of it lately? Read the opening of the Odyssey and then read the first chapter of Mathew. See the difference?



> Again, assuming no ulterior motive, what they have to gain is the same thing those ancient Greeks, or the Norsemen had to gain...a record of their theories (for want of a better term) of how the world worked, along with a narrative method of delineating their beliefs, which is always more engaging to an audience than a dry lecture.


If the Gospels are authentic, this motivation would be the same.



> (This is, in fact, similar to how the Biblical story of Jesus' birth became associated with December 25. The context of the story would tend to indicate the birth happening in spring. However, as Christianity sought to convert followers other belief systems that celebrated the winter solstice, it became necessary for Christianity to have a holiday during this time period of the year to attract and appease these potential converts. So, the birth story was grafted onto many of the traditions of pagan celebrations of the winter solstice to form the holiday known as Christmas. It's often said during the holidays that "Jesus is the reason for the season," but it seems more apt to say that PR is the reason for the season.)


nobody disputes this.. but again, that doesn't make the gospels any more or less authentic. You are just describing a basic human phenomenon here.



> > If we do assume an ulterior motive, which is more in line with "just making things up," then as JTL suggested, they stood to gain control of the followers of their new religion. *They stood to gain a structure to their religion that allowed the imposition of rules that dictated the conduct of the followers.* And, again assuming that it was purely fictional as opposed to simply a limited understanding of the world, by couching the fiction within fact, their stories gain verisimilitude.


Actually, the earliest Christians spent more time breaking rules than creating new ones.

They abandoned Jewish customs such as circumcision and dietary restrictions, and included Gentiles in their fellowship. The Epistle to the Galatians deals with this and is actually quite radical. 

For the Romans, the practice of communion was often confused with sorcery and cannibalism; additionally their refusal to worship the Emperor or the Roman deities was even worse. That level of singlemindness and devotion was what led to such widespread persecution.

Someone trying to gain power and control would have made more of an effort to synthesize their teaching with the contemporary religious/philosophical climate. Instead we are looking at a radical, underground movement whose adherents and used secret codes (the fish symbol) to recognize each other in public.

It was never about "controlling people" until much later.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

mace85 said:


> Really? You interpret the bible as the word of god, and ignore the historical and social context of the language?


Not at all. I do think the Scriptures are holy. But, I recognize that there is context to consider.



mace85 said:


> The term abomination at that time in that culture meant "not consistent with custom". Not nearly the same context as today.


I haven't seen that argument before. My understanding was that the original Hebrew word in Leviticus was "tow' ebah," which means "morally disgusting." Given that the punishment prescribed in Leviticus for homosexual acts was death, it seems that the authors considered the crime pretty grave and not just a matter of taste.



mace85 said:


> This is what pisses me off about Christians. You use this book to give yourself a "moral superiority" to others.


This is what pisses me off about atheists. They think that having morals means being hypocritical and superior.

I, for one, have never portrayed myself as morally superior to most other people. Homosexual acts are sinful. So are many other acts. While I've never committed any homosexual acts, I have committed sins. I've committed sexual sins. The difference between me and most homosexuals is that I recognize and admit my sins.



mace85 said:


> Science will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings. Keep telling homosexuals to ignore their sexual desires and that their behavior is sinful. Thats why gay teens take their own lives at such a high rate. But if your or your churches opinions is like the "Christians" I have met, Maybe that's alright because they are second to people who believe as you do, and they were destined to a life of sin anyway.


Religion can be used badly. So can science. Non-religious, scientific eugenics has killed millions of people. The Church didn't inject black men with syphilis in Tuskegee.

As for gay suicide, I agree that it's tragic. But other sinners suicide as well. I think it's foolish to argue that we, as a society, should abolish morals because immoral people might feel badly and suicide. I think a better solution is to encourage people to behave morally.


----------



## mace85 (Mar 12, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Religion can be used badly. So can science. Non-religious, scientific eugenics has killed millions of people. The Church didn't inject black men with syphilis in Tuskegee.
> 
> As for gay suicide, I agree that it's tragic. But other sinners suicide as well. I think it's foolish to argue that we, as a society, should abolish morals because immoral people might feel badly and suicide. I think a better solution is to encourage people to behave morally.


Assuming that lifestyle is a choice.... But that is indeed another thread jack.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

nader said:


> Actually, the earliest Christians spent more time breaking rules than creating new ones.
> 
> They abandoned Jewish customs such as circumcision and dietary restrictions, and included Gentiles in their fellowship. The Epistle to the Galatians deals with this and is actually quite radical.


As a Jewish person, that's one of the most fascinating things to me about the NT.

The Christian movement became sharply divided in just a few decades, with a Jewish faction centered around James the Just and a Gentile faction centered around Paul.

Fellowship with Gentiles became possible and the rift in the movement was (mostly) mended under the terms of the Apostolic Decree, which were the four minium requirements of the 'alien resident' (Ger Toshav) stated in the exact same order in which they appear in the Torah. 

Still, Paul's writings and James' writings are full of barbs which seem to be directed at each other. For example, Eusibius quoting Hegesippus (Who actually knew James personally) tells us that James was a life-long Nazarite who neither cut his hair nor ate meat.

Paul who certainly knew this wrote that "..if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." and that "...a man who's faith is weak eats only vegetables." 

There's a lot more to it than this. (There's entire books on the subject) The point (In agreement with what you've said) is that control doesn't really exist while it's still being fought over. The imposition of a code of conduct arguably didn't exist at least until the Didache was written and criculated in the early Second century.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

ocotillo - 

fascinating - the 'long hair' verse never made sense to me until now! I love discovering things like this.


----------



## Mr B (Feb 6, 2009)

Where's this "church"..... Saudi Arabia?


----------

