The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
One thing that really astonishes me is the number of people who sleep around in the world today. For those of us among us who believe in the Bibile, sex outside marriage is forbidden, yet so many people, religeous and otherwise, see it their duty to have multiple sexual partners. Its only a symbol of social standing in some places in AFRICA. How can we call ourselves the civilised world when we see fit to stick our john thomas in every place we can think of. Its level with the animals, and even some of them have the decency to confine themselves to one partner. (i.e. swans)
Im not trying to push chastity and say all sexual acticity is WRONG outside marriage, but I really think that sex and similar acts are something that you should share with only someone special. The only purpose of one night stands is to get some POONTANG with whatever skank can be found on the street. (I dont mean to degrade women, I just have to write this from the male perspective, the same applies to women)
Chastity generally means that you dont do ANYTHING sexual at all outside of marraige. Personally I dont see whats wrong with a little frolic in the garden of eden if its legal, legal by the bible, and doesnt put your future in jeprody through inadvertant pregnancy. What happens if the chick you boned on a one night stand get knocked up? Its your obligation to raise the b*****d child, and wed the whench. lol. I just enjoy using biassed language. I'll stop now.
Since (as I have been informed by a good friend of mine whos a history guru) the general practise of prolific intercourse has been going on for millenia, were not really doing anything different, however if we didnt do anything different we'd still be eating leaves, not even using tools. Evolution and invention meant progress, technological and personal. Sleeping around like this means that sex isnt sacred. It becomes meaningless when you finally meet someone you marry, and all you can do is compare them to your previous partners.
I know Im on a losing side. Most of you are probably against me, but Id just like you to consider the idea of, not chastity, but, however hard it may be, not sleeping around. If you meet someone special to you, by all means, even if its not the first. At least then its actually meaningful. But having shallow, meaningless sex is....well...m**********g. YOU'LL GO BLIND SON!!
Im not trying to push chastity and say all sexual acticity is WRONG outside marriage, but I really think that sex and similar acts are something that you should share with only someone special. The only purpose of one night stands is to get some POONTANG with whatever skank can be found on the street. (I dont mean to degrade women, I just have to write this from the male perspective, the same applies to women)
Chastity generally means that you dont do ANYTHING sexual at all outside of marraige. Personally I dont see whats wrong with a little frolic in the garden of eden if its legal, legal by the bible, and doesnt put your future in jeprody through inadvertant pregnancy. What happens if the chick you boned on a one night stand get knocked up? Its your obligation to raise the b*****d child, and wed the whench. lol. I just enjoy using biassed language. I'll stop now.
Since (as I have been informed by a good friend of mine whos a history guru) the general practise of prolific intercourse has been going on for millenia, were not really doing anything different, however if we didnt do anything different we'd still be eating leaves, not even using tools. Evolution and invention meant progress, technological and personal. Sleeping around like this means that sex isnt sacred. It becomes meaningless when you finally meet someone you marry, and all you can do is compare them to your previous partners.
I know Im on a losing side. Most of you are probably against me, but Id just like you to consider the idea of, not chastity, but, however hard it may be, not sleeping around. If you meet someone special to you, by all means, even if its not the first. At least then its actually meaningful. But having shallow, meaningless sex is....well...m**********g. YOU'LL GO BLIND SON!!
Page:
Fozz wrote:
> Firstly lalalalala. Thank you. (wow, come together by the beatles is
> reall cool) Basicly Soul and I have been getting loads of heat for
> preaching and telling people what to think, and WERE NOT!
>
> "I think the difference was that Fozzo and Soulby seemed to
> be saying "This is the way I do things and it's wrong that
> people do different." wheras everyone else tended to be saying,
> "fair play to you, but why should we have to do something just
> because it worked for you?".
>
> Well what we're actually saying is "this is
> the way I do things and I THINK its wrong that people do different,
> but I dont blame them, and I dont think theyre bad people for
> it" and what people seem to be saying is "Do you want a
> f**king medal? Shut the hell up!"
Maybe I sort of got the wrong angle on it, but they way you were showing it was wrong seemed to be by putting down the people who did it. Comparing them to animals and stereotyping them as people who didn't feel any emotions, just because they didn't feel that they should wait to be married. But then again perhaps some of us were doing the same back.
So I guess bad on all of us.
I PARTIALLY take it back! :-P
> Anysway, I still want to see what they make of what I
> said..."
This one was me too, but I wasn't talking about that other quote you picked up. I was talking about this one:
By the by, I think that the fact that the two of you disagree shows that there isn't a God's word on it. Just individual belief's on what people think God want's for them.
Soul doesn't feel he should do anything remotely sexual until he's married. And fairplay to him.
Fozz feels that so long as saves the biggie until he's got rings on his fingers, then anything else is fine. That's good. Enjoy what you're doing and there's no rush to go further.
But can't you both see how what works so perfectly for you and for the other is so different. That everyone should have their own standards.
I know what you mean to say. Some people do over indulge so it all becomes meaningless. It can happen.
Wha'd'ya say?
I was sort of interested in what you'd both make of this, because it's more of a constructive insight, rather than another potshot at you both.
:-)
> Firstly lalalalala. Thank you. (wow, come together by the beatles is
> reall cool) Basicly Soul and I have been getting loads of heat for
> preaching and telling people what to think, and WERE NOT!
>
> "I think the difference was that Fozzo and Soulby seemed to
> be saying "This is the way I do things and it's wrong that
> people do different." wheras everyone else tended to be saying,
> "fair play to you, but why should we have to do something just
> because it worked for you?".
>
> Well what we're actually saying is "this is
> the way I do things and I THINK its wrong that people do different,
> but I dont blame them, and I dont think theyre bad people for
> it" and what people seem to be saying is "Do you want a
> f**king medal? Shut the hell up!"
Maybe I sort of got the wrong angle on it, but they way you were showing it was wrong seemed to be by putting down the people who did it. Comparing them to animals and stereotyping them as people who didn't feel any emotions, just because they didn't feel that they should wait to be married. But then again perhaps some of us were doing the same back.
So I guess bad on all of us.
I PARTIALLY take it back! :-P
> Anysway, I still want to see what they make of what I
> said..."
This one was me too, but I wasn't talking about that other quote you picked up. I was talking about this one:
By the by, I think that the fact that the two of you disagree shows that there isn't a God's word on it. Just individual belief's on what people think God want's for them.
Soul doesn't feel he should do anything remotely sexual until he's married. And fairplay to him.
Fozz feels that so long as saves the biggie until he's got rings on his fingers, then anything else is fine. That's good. Enjoy what you're doing and there's no rush to go further.
But can't you both see how what works so perfectly for you and for the other is so different. That everyone should have their own standards.
I know what you mean to say. Some people do over indulge so it all becomes meaningless. It can happen.
Wha'd'ya say?
I was sort of interested in what you'd both make of this, because it's more of a constructive insight, rather than another potshot at you both.
:-)
soul101 wrote:
> Lots of very humble words
Wow...I'm genuinely shocked. And very pleasantly surprised. Anyway, I hope that by questioning I've helped make your faith stronger and a source of joy rather than a millstone round your neck.
Wow...
[edit] I'm still in shock...one other thing, I know I'm somewhat of a sarcastic and patronising *&%% when arguing with someone I take personal issue with. But there's not meant to be anything sarcastic or patronising about my response to soul. If anything, I'm rather humbled by it.
> Lots of very humble words
Wow...I'm genuinely shocked. And very pleasantly surprised. Anyway, I hope that by questioning I've helped make your faith stronger and a source of joy rather than a millstone round your neck.
Wow...
[edit] I'm still in shock...one other thing, I know I'm somewhat of a sarcastic and patronising *&%% when arguing with someone I take personal issue with. But there's not meant to be anything sarcastic or patronising about my response to soul. If anything, I'm rather humbled by it.
Fozz wrote:
>
> "What is it with you Christian types assuming that anyone who
> disagrees with you is automatically saying "You mustn't state
> your opinion at all"? That says more about the workings of your
> mind than anyone elses." Well actually a lot of people in
> this forum have been saying to shut up. You yourself have been
> acusing me of preaching, when were clearly not.
Hang on a sec; your initial post was saying that you "really think that sex and all similar acts is something you should share with someone special", and round off with "but Id just like you to consider the idea of, not chastity, but, however hard it may be, not sleeping around"
Clearly we have different interpretations of what is preachy and what isn't, cos that sounded very much like you were extolling the virtues of your own lifestyle at the expense of someone elses.
Incidentally, can you give me any example where you're being told to shut up (apart of course from Hedfix's comment, which I believe to be a joke unless you can evidence otherwise)?
>
> "For the record, I'm merely disagreeing with what they say,
> NOT trying to force them not to say it. There is a difference, and
> might I suggest you engage your brain and learn it?" Wow,
> hes p*ssed off ......again. I think thats really immature. It sure
> seemed like you were trying to get us to stop saying it, hmm?
So let me see now...I make it clear that I'm not trying to stop you saying something, and you respond with "Well obviously you are, because you're angry". Heh; nice way to avoid addressing the initial point; lalalalala's assumption that anyone disagreeing with a Christian is trying to tell 'em to be quiet. What is it with Christian's and their persecution complex?
>
> "That begs the obvious question; if you don't know much about
> history, how can you state so confidently that the numbers of people
> having premarital sex and sleeping around hasn't changed much through
> the ages? Where are you getting your info from?" I get some
> of my info from my own knowlege, and some from my
> history/languages/music guru of a girlfriend. Wow, your tactic of
> trying to discredit me, as opposed to arguing using your own knowlege
> to counter it is really effective. I wonder if I could argue that
> bananas are radioactive. Actually they are.
Okay...you're getting increasingly disingenuous here; I asked a perfectly legitimate question about where you get your info from. Rather than answer the question, you make a wild accusation about being discredited (incidentally, when you avoid a question you discredit yourself far better than I ever could). I'm not trying to do that my dear boy; I'm asking you a question. What, aren't you used to being asked them? As to using my own knowledge to counter it, I've already done that by giving a few examples of differing attitudes to sex in a couple of different social groupings through history.
Okay then; where does your girlfriend get her info about the pre-marital sexual habits of people through the ages? Won't you agree that it's a fair question to ask being as you've spent a fair bit of time telling me that pre-marital sexual habits haven't changed through history?
>
> "Again, how do you know this if you don't know much about the
> history of both the church and of Europe as a whole?" I know
> quite a lot myself, not a huge amount, and it doesnt take a genuis to
> know certain things.
Again, avoidance of the question; it doesn't take a genius to know that pre-marital sexual habits haven't changed much? Lets assume I'm no genius; why don't you provide me with some evidence that what you're saying is true. Because so far, you seem to be going to extreme lengths and attempting numerous provocations to avoid having to actually provide any evidence beyond "This is what I'm saying".
>
> "That's fair enough. But why do you think God cares what you
> do, so long as you've not violated your own code of ethics?"
> I dont think that God cares much as far as your own code of ethics
> goes. (rocks out to wicked stairway to heaven guitar solo) I think
> every persons individual code of ethics is for their own guidance and
> benefit. I dont really think its that religeous, its more of a
> personal moral thingey. God cares about more thna just your personal
> ethics. I think the old testements view of God as being vengeful isnt
> at all true. I think Gods quite loving, and careing as opposed to
> angry.
Then in that case, assuming God doesn't care as long as you follow your own code of ethics, and bearing in mind you accept in your original post that the majority of people see no wrong in sex before marriage, where's the problem with it and why do you think more people should avoid it?
>
> "Fair enough. But nor does everyone who does have sex before
> marriage consider it a pleasure without meaning. You'd do well to
> remember that." Quite, however the general impression I got
> from those who posted in this forum is that people who do have casual
> sex generally find it meaningless, to a certain extent, and it
> certainly doesnt have as much meaning as I find it to have.
And? Sometimes sex is meaningless fun. Sometimes it's a deep and meaningful bond between two people. It depends what mood you're both in. So where is the problem with that?
> Ah, sweet flattery how I live for thee..[/I]" Having read your
> recent posts I take that back. Youre not a great debater. You
> concentrate on belittling people rather than actually debating.
Heh. So that's your excuse to avoid providing any evidence for your assertion that premarital sexual habits haven't changed through history. Are you going to actually give any evidence for that at all or are you going to continue hurling such breathtaking insults as "you're immature" and "you're belittling people" in an effort to distract attention from the fact that all you've done is state a personal opinion as fact?
>
> "Nope. I'm arguing that sex is whatever the 2 or more people
> invovled choose to make of it. It's not up to any external parties to
> tell them how it should or shouldn't be done. Unless, of course,
> that's what gets them off and they've paid for that to be done. In
> which case, fine." I dont think thats the case at all. How
> can you say that sex is meaningless if you can also think its
> meaningful. I think that to 2 people sex is whatever they make of it,
> that doesnt mean it is. You can think what you like of sex, but its
> always going to be either meaningless or meaningful. I personally
> find meaning in it, which to me makes the experience so much better.
How can you say that sex HAS to be either meaningful OR meaningless when you've never actually had sex? I'm with a woman whom I very much love, and we've had both deep and meaningful sex that was an excellent medium for expressing the strength of our emotional bond. We've also had wild and abandoned sex that was about no more than satisfying our libido. Sometimes both in the same night. You're of course entitled to your opinion, but as you're telling people about an activity which you have no personal experience of, there comes a point where your opinion falls down because of it.
>
>
> "Heh. That's the most graceful reply to an obvious baiting
> line I've read in a while." Baiting line? (looks all
> innocent)
>
Quite.
>
> "Yeah, I know. And I'm saying that neither does everyone want
> to wait until marriage. Whatever people want to do, then that's what
> they should do." This is where we start talking aobut free
> will. People have free will and they should by all means choose what
> to do. Nobody should be able to tell them what to do. Of course not
> everybody wants to wait untill marriage. What I would like to see is
> people actually trying to. Its one thing to want to have sex before
> marriage, its another thing to need to. Im not talking about sexual
> repression, Im talking about control, and responsibility. At this
> stage most people dont have a problem with sex before marriage. I
> cant do a lot about that, except tell you that this is what Im doing,
> and there is another way to go. Im not preaching, or telling you what
> to do.
See, I'd define "preaching" as "telling someone how best to live their life". And by that definition, you are preaching. Though I accept you're not trying to tell anyone what they must do.
Control and responsibility? I'd say there are better ways to teach that then simply saying "Don't!" Promoting abstinence leads to a higher rate of teen pregnancy (as in the US and UK) than one gets if one tries to educate people about sex (as they do in most European countries).
Here are a couple of links (or 'evidence') to back that statement up;
[URL]http://www.brook.org.uk/content/M7_2003_8_5.asp[/URL]
[URL]http://www.mnaidsproject.org/policy/Abstinencereport.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4485691/[/URL]
>
> "The point I'm driving at is why do you care what
> braggadocios say? They want to make themselves out to be a walking
> orgasmotron? Well...why shouldn't they? Why are you even giving them
> the steam from your urine?" Because I dont like bragging in
> the first place. I try not to, but dont always succeed. Also because
> bes coming up to me, and telling me about his sexual exploits,
> expecting me to respect him, and I dont at all. Firstly hes bragging
> which I have a problem and then he expects me to respect him for
> doing something I think is wrong.
Well then, don't respect him. This whole thread seems to be rooted in "I have a problem with people bragging about sex". Fine, so you have a problem. Why not tell the people who are bragging about it?
>
> "And the problem with casual sex is....? You don't want to
> indulge in it, well fine. Are you saying that anyone who does is not
> enjoying it really? Can't you appreciate that people have different
> opinions toward casual sex, and imposing any one opinion on others is
> control freakery of Catholic proportions?" Sure theyre
> enjoying it. I just find that with ME personally I'll enjoy it more
> with one person. (not at a time, althogether) I cant speak for other
> people. The problem with casual sex is ....Im really sick of saying
> the same stuff over and over again. If youve read my previous posts
> you'll know what my problem is. Im not imposing my opinion. Im
> stating it. You seen to have a huge problem with it. If anything is
> "control freakery of Catholic proportions" then that is.
> Its 1984 for pitys sake!
Not really; 1984 showed a totalitarian state which sought to control every aspect of people's lives. One of the ways it did this was throught the pro-abstinence Anti Sex League. So you can maybe see why I'm so suspicious of religions that seek to control their followers' sex lives.
All you've done is given me your particular opinion on casual sex. If that's all you wished to do, then great; you've succeeded in your aim. I'm now asking you whether you think your opinion should count more than the opinion of someone who is in favour of casual sex, and making a flippant comment about how doing so would be control freakery. And your response is to, once again, avoid the question. Oh, and to do a Ridley*. Again.
* Apologies to Law of the Playground; A Ridley (perhaps it should be called a Belldandy on this board) is the weakest argument available and requires the least thought. It simply requires the Ridley-maker to respond "I know you are but what am I". Thus far, after making comments about how I'm not trying to stop people stating an opinion, and a comment about control freakery, I've been treated to a Ridley. Way to take the moral high ground about maturity, eh Fozz? Now, lets see how many more Ridleys you dump onto the page.
>
> "Who's bragging? Heh; who posted a topic specifically about
> waiting until after marriage for sex?" Well, was the guy who
> posted about anal sex bragging? The fact you think its something I
> would brag about implies that you admire it, lol. You seem to think
> it is something to brag about, dont you? I really dont care.
Yeah, he was bragging. As are you, and judging by your avoidance of the point (and another Ridley), you don't particularly want to acknowledge the fact that you are bragging about your self control.
Do I admire it? Not as much as I admire your determination to provoke me into a sufficiently angry state that I'll fail to notice how many questions you're avoiding.
>
> "I'll ask again though; You do know some people don't want to
> wait until after marriage, and that just because they don't it
> doesn't make them less of a person, right?" You sound like a
> poor little boy who just got in trouble for throw rocks at monkeys.
> Why should it. I think its wrong, but thats just me. Maybe its fine?
> It doesnt matter all the same, if it is wrong, and people realise
> they've sinned they'll be sorry, so problem solved. I dont have a
> problem with inadvertantly sinning, (I mean accidental sinning) but
> thats what your local priest is for (NO NOT FOR A QUICKIE). The
> clergy are there to give guidance on matters that are grey to you.
Ah, more angry avoidence. All I'm doing is asking you to confirm something, and yet you react with defensive displays of what I believe you'd call wit.
Anyway, to analyse your response, it seems to be a thing writ in water. First you say, you don't mind, then you say you think it's wrong, and finally you're telling me that it's a sin but if they acknowledge it as such then all will be well. The implication seems to be that, as it's a sin in your eyes, they will be better people if they acknowledge that sin and then avoid any other sex until marriage. Is that a correct interpretation, and if not would you like to correct it?
>
> "How do you know that people who wait generally find more
> meaning in sex? You've drawn things in black and white here; those
> like yourself, and those who shag their way round the accomodating
> folk of their village. It might be your experience that those who
> wait generally find more meaning in sex, but couldn't that just as
> easily be said to be because you talk about it so much cos you're not
> having it? I'm being completely serious when I say that I find it
> incredibly insulting that you dismiss those who have pre-marital sex
> as less likely to find meaning in it." If youve read
> previous posts in this forum then you'll see that most of the people
> whove posts in favour of casual sex find less/no meaning in it than I
> do. Im sorry if you find it insulting, but thats my experience. I
> would appreciate it if you stop attacking me and other people in the
> room immaturely.
Mwahahahahahahaha. You throw a few Ridleys at me, make numerous comments about how immature I am, then say "Stop attacking everyone immediately". Are you familiar with the term "hypocrisy"? I'm attacking Soul101 because of his extraordinary arrogance, and his blinkered fundamentalism. I'm debating with you because i'm interested to know just why you think the way you do, and I'm seeking clarification on the finer points of it. I thought you said you welcomed that, or are you going to make increasingly shrill claims that I'm trying to silence you?
That said, thank you for apologising.
>
> "I think faith is entirely a personal matter. If people stick
> to the dictates of their conscience, then that's fine by me. When an
> organisation tries to tell someone that their faith is wrong, then it
> stops being about religion and starts being about control."
> Some religeons do strive for power, as can be seen from the history
> of the Catholic church. In this case its nothing aobut control. How
> can you call yourself a catholic if you go to mass and lie about your
> beliefs like that? Its up to the leaders of the faith to point out
> peoples mistakes. If people really want to devote themselves to a
> religeon, then they should believe in the ways of that religeon. If
> not I think they're in the wrong faith. This is more about guidance
> than control.
Yet earlier on, you've said that you regard sex before marriage as a sin and suggested that they should seek the guidance of the clergy. If that person's own conscience tells them that there is no problem with sex before marriage, and a church leader tells them that they are wrong, would you say that the person would be entirely correct to opt out of that church altogether, or should they amend their behaviour in order to comply with the church?
>
> "Anyway, the point I was driving at is that using the Bible
> to justify a belief that one is somehow a better person for waiting
> until after marriage to have sex is not a good argument when one
> ignores other parts of the Bible." This isnt about being a
> better person, its about principles and morals, and what you
> personally see as right. Anyway, what other parts of the bible would
> that ignore? If its to become a better person whats wrong?
So...sticking to principles and morals doesn't make you a better person then?
To clarify my point; you're using the Bible as one of the justifications for only having sex after marriage (quite why you're doing that is beyond me; we've talked a lot about personal morality, so why should the Bible make any difference if you're already sure what you're doing is right?). Yet the Bible has also, in it's time, been used as a justification for slavery, anti-semitism, racism, and war. Therefore, isn't it a moot point if the Bible is telling you that what you are doing is right, when there are so many different interpretations of the bible?
>
> SHUT UP![/I]" What a great way to treat a newbie. I just hope
> youre that welcoming at your own house. If I stay with you, will you
> promise not to ace me during the night? By saying that you just
> proved lalalalala to be correct. What kind of debate is "shut
> up". Can you imagine it "Id like to propose to raise taxes
> to fund a new transport system which will reduce traffic congestion
> in london by 20%." (person at the back) "SHUT UP".
> "ok then maybe not...". Well Hedfix, you sure turned me to
> your side. I'll never argue against casual sex again! Please ignore
> him lalalalala. It may be a mental condition.
Irony; are you aware of it?
>
> "Ah, so you're an Arian! Shame that particular heresy was
> stamped out in the 5th century AD. Still, over 1500 years late isn't
> too bad, eh?"
> Whats wrong with you?? I see, we're resorting to insults then?
> Debating forums are for DEBATING, and you insulting people so much
> only points to the fact you cant argue against them.
Heh. Despite the fact that I've been debating with you, arguing against you, and you're avoiding answering questions and refusing to give evidence for your statements?
A hint; criticising someone for insults when you've already thrown them yourself really just makes you sound like a hypocrite. You don't like me insulting Soul101? I don't have a problem with that. Complaining about something you do so much and so poorly yourself? Nah...
>
> "I'm also particularly impressed with the arrogance you
> display; not many will understand it?" Well Im sure its so
> easy for everyone to understand the nature of Souls blind faith and
> how it has enabled him to practise chastity when so many people are
> having casual sex. Dont you? I dont think its that understandable.
Wow; you admit it's blind faith then? That's a fairly negative term, don't you think? These people certainly do...
[URL]http://www.thepolypost.com/story.php?story=858[/URL]
[URL]http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/faith.htm[/URL]
I'm impressed; you lambast me for insulting Soul and you casually insult him in the same breath!
Okay, that said you've also given a pretty good clarification of what he was trying to say. However, it still to me sounds like he's taking perverse pride in just how unfathomable his blind faith is.
>
> "Seeing as you don't even understand some of the basics of
> your own religion, that's a little presumptuous of you." Who
> are you to say what he does and doesnt understand? Why are you driven
> to leave a barrage of personal attacks in this forum? Why do you have
> to attack peoples faith and beliefs so much?
Well, as you're posting about how sex before marriage isn't as meaningful as sex after, I'd call that an attack on the beliefs of others, no? As to why I'm subjecting Soul to questions about his faith, well I rather think that's the point of debate, don't you? Read the post; he states he doesn't understand a quote from James. Ergo, he doesn't understand one of the basics of his own religion. He has also stated that I, as a non christian, don't understand his faith. So my post was a response to that, and it had the backing of his own words.
It's nice to see you defending your fellow christian and all, but it'd be nice if you read the posts involved. After all, you're happy to lambast me for not reading back through things, and complain about repeating yourself. Shouldn't you practice what you preach?
>
> "But thanks for confirming that you're that worst of all
> religious types; the type who is only interested in their faith
> because of how special and superior it makes them feel."
> (this guy is nuts) Youre really too much light. I know that after
> this post youre going to attack me. I admire his faith. Surely the
> feeling of superiority is nothing in comparisson to having sex? If
> you really think thats all there is to it I pity you.
Heheheheh. Wow; you know I'm going to attack you? I'm certainly going to respond to your insults, yeah. But mainly, I'm going to ask you questions. And, it seems, you're going to avoid them.
Incidentally, are you saying that the feeling of having sex is better than pure faith in the eternal and unconditional love and compassion of God? Just that, if you are, it doesn't sound like you rate God too highly.
>
> "Heh. And if you take offense to having your beliefs called
> into question, that's your problem my dear boy." You have
> absolutely no right to question his beliefs! You can question motives
> and opinions, but I draw the line there. Thats just insulting.
Yes I do have the right; you're calling into question the belief that there is nothing wrong with sex before marriage. Seems to me you want the right to question the beliefs of others, but believe your own should be sacrosanct. Can you explain to me just what is wrong with asking questions about your beliefs? An opinion is just a belief. And a belief is just something you happen to believe. Doesn't make it necessarily right. I fully expect and welcome people questioning my beliefs; why are you so unhappy about anyone doing it to you?
>
> ". Thus far, you're assuming that anyone disagreeing with you
> must be demanding your silence, because that's the way his mind
> works." Most people, including you are demanding silence
> (see Hedfix).
So...you don't see the irony or sarcasm in responding to a post about demanding silence by saying "Shut up"? Maybe I was wrong, but I read that as Hedfix making a jocular comment.
Now then; would you like to point to the exact place where I am demanding silence from either you or Soul? Please; take you time. After all, I'd like you give some actual evidence for this, rather than just blankly repeating it over and over in the hope that that will make it true.
>
> "Heh. So we don't have to use the Old Testament, but the New
> Testament is referenced from the Old. Which is now obsolete. Don't
> you find that at all contradictory?" Im the first to admit
> that the bible is contradictory, but it still has a lot of good
> lessons. I think its up to you to pick out what you think is
> relevant.
I 100% agree with you there. And yet, when fundamentalists say that they follow the Bible and the literal word of it, they tend to neglect to mention all those contradictions, wouldn't you agree?
>
> "Heh. I suggest you attempt to read that book you're placing
> so much stock in. Perhaps then you can replace that sarcasm with a
> little humility? I believe that Jesus chappy mentioned humility once
> or twice..." This doesnt even deserve a comment. I cant
> believe you light.
Really? So bearing in mind Soul admitted he was being sarcastic, and I'm merely acknowledging his sarcasm and comparing him to the man who's teachings he claims to follow, what's not to believe?
>
> "First let us look at an example where a verse in the Old
> Testament contradicts that in the Old" typo I guess?
> "in the New"?
Gah! Yup, a typo. My apologies.
> "Am I to understand that you're boasting of your own
> ignorance? Wow...
> " I didnt understand that quote either. You obviously means
> you didnt explain your interpretation properly. Also in Romans is it
> actually God talking? or is it someone else talking FOR God? Maybe
> its just for peoples benefit. I dont know enough about it but I do
> know theres no reason to continiously attack people.
Well, not understanding something is fine. In my opinion, making a virtue of not understanding it is not. I'm not sure whether it's God himself or someone talking for God. Does that make a difference when it's one of the teachings of the Bible? Tell me; your views on sex before marriage and the biblical support for them that you claim...is it God who states specifically you shouldn't. or is it someone talking FOR God?
>
> "Should a fundamentalist like you be more aware of the
> fundamentals of his own religion?" Youre ridiculous. So what
> IS his religeon? How can you argue about the fundementals of his
> religeon when you dont even know what it is??
Well, he's a blindly faithful fundamentalist Christian according to you. Bearing in mind Soul's sarcastic comments about how I don't understand christianity, you seem very unhappy when I deploy that same sarcasm in return? Tell me, why are you happy for yourself and Soul to display insulting and sarcastic behaviour but so deeply unhappy when anyone returns the favour?
>
> "It explains why you're being so prissy, yeah;" I
> should actually count how many immature attacks youre launched at
> people.
Please do, and list exactly what they are if you can. I'd prefer if you simply answered my questions though.
>
> "An extreme christian...is that like extreme sports? Anyhoo,
> your hollow apology aside, as has been mentioned earlier the fact
> that 2 christians disagree on such fundamental points kinda
> illustrates that there is no one true way; just varying
> interpretations." This only reveals you own ignorance, and
> the only thing hollow is your skull. So what fundemental points to we
> disagree on? MOST Christians disagree on one thing or another,
> sometimes more fundemental than this. Id hardly call chastity
> fundemental. As far as I know chastity isnt even mentioned in the
> bible so I dont see how its fundemental.
Umm...well, the sex before marriage for starters; he says no sexual contact of any kind, you say otherwise. Chastity isn't fundemental? Hmmm...that must be why the 3 main vows of Christian Monastic orders are Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience. Yup, they clearly put those 3 in cos they're not important.
>
> "Nah; what about porno stars who shave themselves? I'm not
> gonna condemn them to a life of chastity..." Wow, condemn,
> what a strong word. For pity sake, theres no reason to insult peoples
> choice of lifestyle.
I should again, perhaps, draw your attention to the concept of Ironic comment...
>
> "What is it with you Christian types assuming that anyone who
> disagrees with you is automatically saying "You mustn't state
> your opinion at all"? That says more about the workings of your
> mind than anyone elses." Well actually a lot of people in
> this forum have been saying to shut up. You yourself have been
> acusing me of preaching, when were clearly not.
Hang on a sec; your initial post was saying that you "really think that sex and all similar acts is something you should share with someone special", and round off with "but Id just like you to consider the idea of, not chastity, but, however hard it may be, not sleeping around"
Clearly we have different interpretations of what is preachy and what isn't, cos that sounded very much like you were extolling the virtues of your own lifestyle at the expense of someone elses.
Incidentally, can you give me any example where you're being told to shut up (apart of course from Hedfix's comment, which I believe to be a joke unless you can evidence otherwise)?
>
> "For the record, I'm merely disagreeing with what they say,
> NOT trying to force them not to say it. There is a difference, and
> might I suggest you engage your brain and learn it?" Wow,
> hes p*ssed off ......again. I think thats really immature. It sure
> seemed like you were trying to get us to stop saying it, hmm?
So let me see now...I make it clear that I'm not trying to stop you saying something, and you respond with "Well obviously you are, because you're angry". Heh; nice way to avoid addressing the initial point; lalalalala's assumption that anyone disagreeing with a Christian is trying to tell 'em to be quiet. What is it with Christian's and their persecution complex?
>
> "That begs the obvious question; if you don't know much about
> history, how can you state so confidently that the numbers of people
> having premarital sex and sleeping around hasn't changed much through
> the ages? Where are you getting your info from?" I get some
> of my info from my own knowlege, and some from my
> history/languages/music guru of a girlfriend. Wow, your tactic of
> trying to discredit me, as opposed to arguing using your own knowlege
> to counter it is really effective. I wonder if I could argue that
> bananas are radioactive. Actually they are.
Okay...you're getting increasingly disingenuous here; I asked a perfectly legitimate question about where you get your info from. Rather than answer the question, you make a wild accusation about being discredited (incidentally, when you avoid a question you discredit yourself far better than I ever could). I'm not trying to do that my dear boy; I'm asking you a question. What, aren't you used to being asked them? As to using my own knowledge to counter it, I've already done that by giving a few examples of differing attitudes to sex in a couple of different social groupings through history.
Okay then; where does your girlfriend get her info about the pre-marital sexual habits of people through the ages? Won't you agree that it's a fair question to ask being as you've spent a fair bit of time telling me that pre-marital sexual habits haven't changed through history?
>
> "Again, how do you know this if you don't know much about the
> history of both the church and of Europe as a whole?" I know
> quite a lot myself, not a huge amount, and it doesnt take a genuis to
> know certain things.
Again, avoidance of the question; it doesn't take a genius to know that pre-marital sexual habits haven't changed much? Lets assume I'm no genius; why don't you provide me with some evidence that what you're saying is true. Because so far, you seem to be going to extreme lengths and attempting numerous provocations to avoid having to actually provide any evidence beyond "This is what I'm saying".
>
> "That's fair enough. But why do you think God cares what you
> do, so long as you've not violated your own code of ethics?"
> I dont think that God cares much as far as your own code of ethics
> goes. (rocks out to wicked stairway to heaven guitar solo) I think
> every persons individual code of ethics is for their own guidance and
> benefit. I dont really think its that religeous, its more of a
> personal moral thingey. God cares about more thna just your personal
> ethics. I think the old testements view of God as being vengeful isnt
> at all true. I think Gods quite loving, and careing as opposed to
> angry.
Then in that case, assuming God doesn't care as long as you follow your own code of ethics, and bearing in mind you accept in your original post that the majority of people see no wrong in sex before marriage, where's the problem with it and why do you think more people should avoid it?
>
> "Fair enough. But nor does everyone who does have sex before
> marriage consider it a pleasure without meaning. You'd do well to
> remember that." Quite, however the general impression I got
> from those who posted in this forum is that people who do have casual
> sex generally find it meaningless, to a certain extent, and it
> certainly doesnt have as much meaning as I find it to have.
And? Sometimes sex is meaningless fun. Sometimes it's a deep and meaningful bond between two people. It depends what mood you're both in. So where is the problem with that?
> Ah, sweet flattery how I live for thee..[/I]" Having read your
> recent posts I take that back. Youre not a great debater. You
> concentrate on belittling people rather than actually debating.
Heh. So that's your excuse to avoid providing any evidence for your assertion that premarital sexual habits haven't changed through history. Are you going to actually give any evidence for that at all or are you going to continue hurling such breathtaking insults as "you're immature" and "you're belittling people" in an effort to distract attention from the fact that all you've done is state a personal opinion as fact?
>
> "Nope. I'm arguing that sex is whatever the 2 or more people
> invovled choose to make of it. It's not up to any external parties to
> tell them how it should or shouldn't be done. Unless, of course,
> that's what gets them off and they've paid for that to be done. In
> which case, fine." I dont think thats the case at all. How
> can you say that sex is meaningless if you can also think its
> meaningful. I think that to 2 people sex is whatever they make of it,
> that doesnt mean it is. You can think what you like of sex, but its
> always going to be either meaningless or meaningful. I personally
> find meaning in it, which to me makes the experience so much better.
How can you say that sex HAS to be either meaningful OR meaningless when you've never actually had sex? I'm with a woman whom I very much love, and we've had both deep and meaningful sex that was an excellent medium for expressing the strength of our emotional bond. We've also had wild and abandoned sex that was about no more than satisfying our libido. Sometimes both in the same night. You're of course entitled to your opinion, but as you're telling people about an activity which you have no personal experience of, there comes a point where your opinion falls down because of it.
>
>
> "Heh. That's the most graceful reply to an obvious baiting
> line I've read in a while." Baiting line? (looks all
> innocent)
>
Quite.
>
> "Yeah, I know. And I'm saying that neither does everyone want
> to wait until marriage. Whatever people want to do, then that's what
> they should do." This is where we start talking aobut free
> will. People have free will and they should by all means choose what
> to do. Nobody should be able to tell them what to do. Of course not
> everybody wants to wait untill marriage. What I would like to see is
> people actually trying to. Its one thing to want to have sex before
> marriage, its another thing to need to. Im not talking about sexual
> repression, Im talking about control, and responsibility. At this
> stage most people dont have a problem with sex before marriage. I
> cant do a lot about that, except tell you that this is what Im doing,
> and there is another way to go. Im not preaching, or telling you what
> to do.
See, I'd define "preaching" as "telling someone how best to live their life". And by that definition, you are preaching. Though I accept you're not trying to tell anyone what they must do.
Control and responsibility? I'd say there are better ways to teach that then simply saying "Don't!" Promoting abstinence leads to a higher rate of teen pregnancy (as in the US and UK) than one gets if one tries to educate people about sex (as they do in most European countries).
Here are a couple of links (or 'evidence') to back that statement up;
[URL]http://www.brook.org.uk/content/M7_2003_8_5.asp[/URL]
[URL]http://www.mnaidsproject.org/policy/Abstinencereport.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4485691/[/URL]
>
> "The point I'm driving at is why do you care what
> braggadocios say? They want to make themselves out to be a walking
> orgasmotron? Well...why shouldn't they? Why are you even giving them
> the steam from your urine?" Because I dont like bragging in
> the first place. I try not to, but dont always succeed. Also because
> bes coming up to me, and telling me about his sexual exploits,
> expecting me to respect him, and I dont at all. Firstly hes bragging
> which I have a problem and then he expects me to respect him for
> doing something I think is wrong.
Well then, don't respect him. This whole thread seems to be rooted in "I have a problem with people bragging about sex". Fine, so you have a problem. Why not tell the people who are bragging about it?
>
> "And the problem with casual sex is....? You don't want to
> indulge in it, well fine. Are you saying that anyone who does is not
> enjoying it really? Can't you appreciate that people have different
> opinions toward casual sex, and imposing any one opinion on others is
> control freakery of Catholic proportions?" Sure theyre
> enjoying it. I just find that with ME personally I'll enjoy it more
> with one person. (not at a time, althogether) I cant speak for other
> people. The problem with casual sex is ....Im really sick of saying
> the same stuff over and over again. If youve read my previous posts
> you'll know what my problem is. Im not imposing my opinion. Im
> stating it. You seen to have a huge problem with it. If anything is
> "control freakery of Catholic proportions" then that is.
> Its 1984 for pitys sake!
Not really; 1984 showed a totalitarian state which sought to control every aspect of people's lives. One of the ways it did this was throught the pro-abstinence Anti Sex League. So you can maybe see why I'm so suspicious of religions that seek to control their followers' sex lives.
All you've done is given me your particular opinion on casual sex. If that's all you wished to do, then great; you've succeeded in your aim. I'm now asking you whether you think your opinion should count more than the opinion of someone who is in favour of casual sex, and making a flippant comment about how doing so would be control freakery. And your response is to, once again, avoid the question. Oh, and to do a Ridley*. Again.
* Apologies to Law of the Playground; A Ridley (perhaps it should be called a Belldandy on this board) is the weakest argument available and requires the least thought. It simply requires the Ridley-maker to respond "I know you are but what am I". Thus far, after making comments about how I'm not trying to stop people stating an opinion, and a comment about control freakery, I've been treated to a Ridley. Way to take the moral high ground about maturity, eh Fozz? Now, lets see how many more Ridleys you dump onto the page.
>
> "Who's bragging? Heh; who posted a topic specifically about
> waiting until after marriage for sex?" Well, was the guy who
> posted about anal sex bragging? The fact you think its something I
> would brag about implies that you admire it, lol. You seem to think
> it is something to brag about, dont you? I really dont care.
Yeah, he was bragging. As are you, and judging by your avoidance of the point (and another Ridley), you don't particularly want to acknowledge the fact that you are bragging about your self control.
Do I admire it? Not as much as I admire your determination to provoke me into a sufficiently angry state that I'll fail to notice how many questions you're avoiding.
>
> "I'll ask again though; You do know some people don't want to
> wait until after marriage, and that just because they don't it
> doesn't make them less of a person, right?" You sound like a
> poor little boy who just got in trouble for throw rocks at monkeys.
> Why should it. I think its wrong, but thats just me. Maybe its fine?
> It doesnt matter all the same, if it is wrong, and people realise
> they've sinned they'll be sorry, so problem solved. I dont have a
> problem with inadvertantly sinning, (I mean accidental sinning) but
> thats what your local priest is for (NO NOT FOR A QUICKIE). The
> clergy are there to give guidance on matters that are grey to you.
Ah, more angry avoidence. All I'm doing is asking you to confirm something, and yet you react with defensive displays of what I believe you'd call wit.
Anyway, to analyse your response, it seems to be a thing writ in water. First you say, you don't mind, then you say you think it's wrong, and finally you're telling me that it's a sin but if they acknowledge it as such then all will be well. The implication seems to be that, as it's a sin in your eyes, they will be better people if they acknowledge that sin and then avoid any other sex until marriage. Is that a correct interpretation, and if not would you like to correct it?
>
> "How do you know that people who wait generally find more
> meaning in sex? You've drawn things in black and white here; those
> like yourself, and those who shag their way round the accomodating
> folk of their village. It might be your experience that those who
> wait generally find more meaning in sex, but couldn't that just as
> easily be said to be because you talk about it so much cos you're not
> having it? I'm being completely serious when I say that I find it
> incredibly insulting that you dismiss those who have pre-marital sex
> as less likely to find meaning in it." If youve read
> previous posts in this forum then you'll see that most of the people
> whove posts in favour of casual sex find less/no meaning in it than I
> do. Im sorry if you find it insulting, but thats my experience. I
> would appreciate it if you stop attacking me and other people in the
> room immaturely.
Mwahahahahahahaha. You throw a few Ridleys at me, make numerous comments about how immature I am, then say "Stop attacking everyone immediately". Are you familiar with the term "hypocrisy"? I'm attacking Soul101 because of his extraordinary arrogance, and his blinkered fundamentalism. I'm debating with you because i'm interested to know just why you think the way you do, and I'm seeking clarification on the finer points of it. I thought you said you welcomed that, or are you going to make increasingly shrill claims that I'm trying to silence you?
That said, thank you for apologising.
>
> "I think faith is entirely a personal matter. If people stick
> to the dictates of their conscience, then that's fine by me. When an
> organisation tries to tell someone that their faith is wrong, then it
> stops being about religion and starts being about control."
> Some religeons do strive for power, as can be seen from the history
> of the Catholic church. In this case its nothing aobut control. How
> can you call yourself a catholic if you go to mass and lie about your
> beliefs like that? Its up to the leaders of the faith to point out
> peoples mistakes. If people really want to devote themselves to a
> religeon, then they should believe in the ways of that religeon. If
> not I think they're in the wrong faith. This is more about guidance
> than control.
Yet earlier on, you've said that you regard sex before marriage as a sin and suggested that they should seek the guidance of the clergy. If that person's own conscience tells them that there is no problem with sex before marriage, and a church leader tells them that they are wrong, would you say that the person would be entirely correct to opt out of that church altogether, or should they amend their behaviour in order to comply with the church?
>
> "Anyway, the point I was driving at is that using the Bible
> to justify a belief that one is somehow a better person for waiting
> until after marriage to have sex is not a good argument when one
> ignores other parts of the Bible." This isnt about being a
> better person, its about principles and morals, and what you
> personally see as right. Anyway, what other parts of the bible would
> that ignore? If its to become a better person whats wrong?
So...sticking to principles and morals doesn't make you a better person then?
To clarify my point; you're using the Bible as one of the justifications for only having sex after marriage (quite why you're doing that is beyond me; we've talked a lot about personal morality, so why should the Bible make any difference if you're already sure what you're doing is right?). Yet the Bible has also, in it's time, been used as a justification for slavery, anti-semitism, racism, and war. Therefore, isn't it a moot point if the Bible is telling you that what you are doing is right, when there are so many different interpretations of the bible?
>
> SHUT UP![/I]" What a great way to treat a newbie. I just hope
> youre that welcoming at your own house. If I stay with you, will you
> promise not to ace me during the night? By saying that you just
> proved lalalalala to be correct. What kind of debate is "shut
> up". Can you imagine it "Id like to propose to raise taxes
> to fund a new transport system which will reduce traffic congestion
> in london by 20%." (person at the back) "SHUT UP".
> "ok then maybe not...". Well Hedfix, you sure turned me to
> your side. I'll never argue against casual sex again! Please ignore
> him lalalalala. It may be a mental condition.
Irony; are you aware of it?
>
> "Ah, so you're an Arian! Shame that particular heresy was
> stamped out in the 5th century AD. Still, over 1500 years late isn't
> too bad, eh?"
> Whats wrong with you?? I see, we're resorting to insults then?
> Debating forums are for DEBATING, and you insulting people so much
> only points to the fact you cant argue against them.
Heh. Despite the fact that I've been debating with you, arguing against you, and you're avoiding answering questions and refusing to give evidence for your statements?
A hint; criticising someone for insults when you've already thrown them yourself really just makes you sound like a hypocrite. You don't like me insulting Soul101? I don't have a problem with that. Complaining about something you do so much and so poorly yourself? Nah...
>
> "I'm also particularly impressed with the arrogance you
> display; not many will understand it?" Well Im sure its so
> easy for everyone to understand the nature of Souls blind faith and
> how it has enabled him to practise chastity when so many people are
> having casual sex. Dont you? I dont think its that understandable.
Wow; you admit it's blind faith then? That's a fairly negative term, don't you think? These people certainly do...
[URL]http://www.thepolypost.com/story.php?story=858[/URL]
[URL]http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/faith.htm[/URL]
I'm impressed; you lambast me for insulting Soul and you casually insult him in the same breath!
Okay, that said you've also given a pretty good clarification of what he was trying to say. However, it still to me sounds like he's taking perverse pride in just how unfathomable his blind faith is.
>
> "Seeing as you don't even understand some of the basics of
> your own religion, that's a little presumptuous of you." Who
> are you to say what he does and doesnt understand? Why are you driven
> to leave a barrage of personal attacks in this forum? Why do you have
> to attack peoples faith and beliefs so much?
Well, as you're posting about how sex before marriage isn't as meaningful as sex after, I'd call that an attack on the beliefs of others, no? As to why I'm subjecting Soul to questions about his faith, well I rather think that's the point of debate, don't you? Read the post; he states he doesn't understand a quote from James. Ergo, he doesn't understand one of the basics of his own religion. He has also stated that I, as a non christian, don't understand his faith. So my post was a response to that, and it had the backing of his own words.
It's nice to see you defending your fellow christian and all, but it'd be nice if you read the posts involved. After all, you're happy to lambast me for not reading back through things, and complain about repeating yourself. Shouldn't you practice what you preach?
>
> "But thanks for confirming that you're that worst of all
> religious types; the type who is only interested in their faith
> because of how special and superior it makes them feel."
> (this guy is nuts) Youre really too much light. I know that after
> this post youre going to attack me. I admire his faith. Surely the
> feeling of superiority is nothing in comparisson to having sex? If
> you really think thats all there is to it I pity you.
Heheheheh. Wow; you know I'm going to attack you? I'm certainly going to respond to your insults, yeah. But mainly, I'm going to ask you questions. And, it seems, you're going to avoid them.
Incidentally, are you saying that the feeling of having sex is better than pure faith in the eternal and unconditional love and compassion of God? Just that, if you are, it doesn't sound like you rate God too highly.
>
> "Heh. And if you take offense to having your beliefs called
> into question, that's your problem my dear boy." You have
> absolutely no right to question his beliefs! You can question motives
> and opinions, but I draw the line there. Thats just insulting.
Yes I do have the right; you're calling into question the belief that there is nothing wrong with sex before marriage. Seems to me you want the right to question the beliefs of others, but believe your own should be sacrosanct. Can you explain to me just what is wrong with asking questions about your beliefs? An opinion is just a belief. And a belief is just something you happen to believe. Doesn't make it necessarily right. I fully expect and welcome people questioning my beliefs; why are you so unhappy about anyone doing it to you?
>
> ". Thus far, you're assuming that anyone disagreeing with you
> must be demanding your silence, because that's the way his mind
> works." Most people, including you are demanding silence
> (see Hedfix).
So...you don't see the irony or sarcasm in responding to a post about demanding silence by saying "Shut up"? Maybe I was wrong, but I read that as Hedfix making a jocular comment.
Now then; would you like to point to the exact place where I am demanding silence from either you or Soul? Please; take you time. After all, I'd like you give some actual evidence for this, rather than just blankly repeating it over and over in the hope that that will make it true.
>
> "Heh. So we don't have to use the Old Testament, but the New
> Testament is referenced from the Old. Which is now obsolete. Don't
> you find that at all contradictory?" Im the first to admit
> that the bible is contradictory, but it still has a lot of good
> lessons. I think its up to you to pick out what you think is
> relevant.
I 100% agree with you there. And yet, when fundamentalists say that they follow the Bible and the literal word of it, they tend to neglect to mention all those contradictions, wouldn't you agree?
>
> "Heh. I suggest you attempt to read that book you're placing
> so much stock in. Perhaps then you can replace that sarcasm with a
> little humility? I believe that Jesus chappy mentioned humility once
> or twice..." This doesnt even deserve a comment. I cant
> believe you light.
Really? So bearing in mind Soul admitted he was being sarcastic, and I'm merely acknowledging his sarcasm and comparing him to the man who's teachings he claims to follow, what's not to believe?
>
> "First let us look at an example where a verse in the Old
> Testament contradicts that in the Old" typo I guess?
> "in the New"?
Gah! Yup, a typo. My apologies.
> "Am I to understand that you're boasting of your own
> ignorance? Wow...
> " I didnt understand that quote either. You obviously means
> you didnt explain your interpretation properly. Also in Romans is it
> actually God talking? or is it someone else talking FOR God? Maybe
> its just for peoples benefit. I dont know enough about it but I do
> know theres no reason to continiously attack people.
Well, not understanding something is fine. In my opinion, making a virtue of not understanding it is not. I'm not sure whether it's God himself or someone talking for God. Does that make a difference when it's one of the teachings of the Bible? Tell me; your views on sex before marriage and the biblical support for them that you claim...is it God who states specifically you shouldn't. or is it someone talking FOR God?
>
> "Should a fundamentalist like you be more aware of the
> fundamentals of his own religion?" Youre ridiculous. So what
> IS his religeon? How can you argue about the fundementals of his
> religeon when you dont even know what it is??
Well, he's a blindly faithful fundamentalist Christian according to you. Bearing in mind Soul's sarcastic comments about how I don't understand christianity, you seem very unhappy when I deploy that same sarcasm in return? Tell me, why are you happy for yourself and Soul to display insulting and sarcastic behaviour but so deeply unhappy when anyone returns the favour?
>
> "It explains why you're being so prissy, yeah;" I
> should actually count how many immature attacks youre launched at
> people.
Please do, and list exactly what they are if you can. I'd prefer if you simply answered my questions though.
>
> "An extreme christian...is that like extreme sports? Anyhoo,
> your hollow apology aside, as has been mentioned earlier the fact
> that 2 christians disagree on such fundamental points kinda
> illustrates that there is no one true way; just varying
> interpretations." This only reveals you own ignorance, and
> the only thing hollow is your skull. So what fundemental points to we
> disagree on? MOST Christians disagree on one thing or another,
> sometimes more fundemental than this. Id hardly call chastity
> fundemental. As far as I know chastity isnt even mentioned in the
> bible so I dont see how its fundemental.
Umm...well, the sex before marriage for starters; he says no sexual contact of any kind, you say otherwise. Chastity isn't fundemental? Hmmm...that must be why the 3 main vows of Christian Monastic orders are Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience. Yup, they clearly put those 3 in cos they're not important.
>
> "Nah; what about porno stars who shave themselves? I'm not
> gonna condemn them to a life of chastity..." Wow, condemn,
> what a strong word. For pity sake, theres no reason to insult peoples
> choice of lifestyle.
I should again, perhaps, draw your attention to the concept of Ironic comment...
This is officially my last post in this topic.
Firstly i would like to thank Light for helping me to see the light... no i haven't turned my back on God, no i don't agree with you about your views of the church, but i do agree that we have been preaching. After reading your quote from James i decided to go home and make sense of it in my NIV. I read the whole of James, and, feeling thoroughly condemned, decided that what i am doing through this forum is not going to change the world, and simply makes me doubt my faith (which i did, but don't any more.)
Light's knowlegde of the church structure through the ages seems to indicate that either you did believe in God, or you have some sort of hate-case against Him? It is certainly more vast than mine; i've never heards of Adrians (although your interpretation of what i said clearly shows that you did misunderstand me, although perhaps that was the fault of my wording. The bible says that no-one comes to the father except through him, and that the church is founded on the fact that he is the Christ.) I also checked the geneology thing. My bible is footnoted "Hebrew; Septuagint father of Cainan, and Cainan was the father of" you make sense of that, seeing as your knowledge of these things is better than mine.
I apologise if what i have said has been boastful or arrogant. that has not been my intention.
I do believe that God is always right. That quote in Romans simply say that we have been saved through Christ, and not the law. That means the law still exists, but but it is our faith that makes us christian. Having said that, James 2:26 says "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead" meaning that one cannot claim to have faith and then perform deeds contrary to the words of God. I know that this will probably bring the whole Leviticus thing up again, but i don't have time for that, or anything else unfortunately.
If you want to know why i am stopping in this topic, read James 3. I bid u all adieu, and i look forward to meeting u in other topics. God bless you all, and i would appreciate it if you pretended i never entered this topic when chatting to me in others. thanks.
EDIT: Oh yes, and have fun with my terrible explanations of what i mean Light. Just so you know i will be resisting the temptation to read this topic again, so i won't see your reply. Feel free to reply for the sake of everyone else.
Firstly i would like to thank Light for helping me to see the light... no i haven't turned my back on God, no i don't agree with you about your views of the church, but i do agree that we have been preaching. After reading your quote from James i decided to go home and make sense of it in my NIV. I read the whole of James, and, feeling thoroughly condemned, decided that what i am doing through this forum is not going to change the world, and simply makes me doubt my faith (which i did, but don't any more.)
Light's knowlegde of the church structure through the ages seems to indicate that either you did believe in God, or you have some sort of hate-case against Him? It is certainly more vast than mine; i've never heards of Adrians (although your interpretation of what i said clearly shows that you did misunderstand me, although perhaps that was the fault of my wording. The bible says that no-one comes to the father except through him, and that the church is founded on the fact that he is the Christ.) I also checked the geneology thing. My bible is footnoted "Hebrew; Septuagint father of Cainan, and Cainan was the father of" you make sense of that, seeing as your knowledge of these things is better than mine.
I apologise if what i have said has been boastful or arrogant. that has not been my intention.
I do believe that God is always right. That quote in Romans simply say that we have been saved through Christ, and not the law. That means the law still exists, but but it is our faith that makes us christian. Having said that, James 2:26 says "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead" meaning that one cannot claim to have faith and then perform deeds contrary to the words of God. I know that this will probably bring the whole Leviticus thing up again, but i don't have time for that, or anything else unfortunately.
If you want to know why i am stopping in this topic, read James 3. I bid u all adieu, and i look forward to meeting u in other topics. God bless you all, and i would appreciate it if you pretended i never entered this topic when chatting to me in others. thanks.
EDIT: Oh yes, and have fun with my terrible explanations of what i mean Light. Just so you know i will be resisting the temptation to read this topic again, so i won't see your reply. Feel free to reply for the sake of everyone else.
Wow...that was long. Well I almost managed to destroy it again by closing the window before I posted it. Luckily I backed it up this time.
Ok so here I am posting the same thing AGAIN. grr.
Firstly lalalalala. Thank you. (wow, come together by the beatles is reall cool) Basicly Soul and I have been getting loads of heat for preaching and telling people what to think, and WERE NOT!
"I think the difference was that Fozzo and Soulby seemed to be saying "This is the way I do things and it's wrong that people do different." wheras everyone else tended to be saying, "fair play to you, but why should we have to do something just because it worked for you?".
Anysway, I still want to see what they make of what I said..." Well what we're actually saying is "this is the way I do things and I THINK its wrong that people do different, but I dont blame them, and I dont think theyre bad people for it" and what people seem to be saying is "Do you want a f**king medal? Shut the hell up!"
"What is it with you Christian types assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically saying "You mustn't state your opinion at all"? That says more about the workings of your mind than anyone elses." Well actually a lot of people in this forum have been saying to shut up. You yourself have been acusing me of preaching, when were clearly not.
"For the record, I'm merely disagreeing with what they say, NOT trying to force them not to say it. There is a difference, and might I suggest you engage your brain and learn it?" Wow, hes p*ssed off ......again. I think thats really immature. It sure seemed like you were trying to get us to stop saying it, hmm?
"That begs the obvious question; if you don't know much about history, how can you state so confidently that the numbers of people having premarital sex and sleeping around hasn't changed much through the ages? Where are you getting your info from?" I get some of my info from my own knowlege, and some from my history/languages/music guru of a girlfriend. Wow, your tactic of trying to discredit me, as opposed to arguing using your own knowlege to counter it is really effective. I wonder if I could argue that bananas are radioactive. Actually they are.
"Again, how do you know this if you don't know much about the history of both the church and of Europe as a whole?" I know quite a lot myself, not a huge amount, and it doesnt take a genuis to know certain things.
"That's fair enough. But why do you think God cares what you do, so long as you've not violated your own code of ethics?" I dont think that God cares much as far as your own code of ethics goes. (rocks out to wicked stairway to heaven guitar solo) I think every persons individual code of ethics is for their own guidance and benefit. I dont really think its that religeous, its more of a personal moral thingey. God cares about more thna just your personal ethics. I think the old testements view of God as being vengeful isnt at all true. I think Gods quite loving, and careing as opposed to angry.
"Fair enough. But nor does everyone who does have sex before marriage consider it a pleasure without meaning. You'd do well to remember that." Quite, however the general impression I got from those who posted in this forum is that people who do have casual sex generally find it meaningless, to a certain extent, and it certainly doesnt have as much meaning as I find it to have.
"if you dont eat your meat, you cant have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you dont eat yer meat!" sorry, just a weird song I was listening to.
"> Again, you assumed I didnt like you replying. Youre a great debater,
> its fun.
Ah, sweet flattery how I live for thee.." Having read your recent posts I take that back. Youre not a great debater. You concentrate on belittling people rather than actually debating.
"Nope. I'm arguing that sex is whatever the 2 or more people invovled choose to make of it. It's not up to any external parties to tell them how it should or shouldn't be done. Unless, of course, that's what gets them off and they've paid for that to be done. In which case, fine." I dont think thats the case at all. How can you say that sex is meaningless if you can also think its meaningful. I think that to 2 people sex is whatever they make of it, that doesnt mean it is. You can think what you like of sex, but its always going to be either meaningless or meaningful. I personally find meaning in it, which to me makes the experience so much better.
"Heh. That's the most graceful reply to an obvious baiting line I've read in a while." Baiting line? (looks all innocent)
"Yeah, I know. And I'm saying that neither does everyone want to wait until marriage. Whatever people want to do, then that's what they should do." This is where we start talking aobut free will. People have free will and they should by all means choose what to do. Nobody should be able to tell them what to do. Of course not everybody wants to wait untill marriage. What I would like to see is people actually trying to. Its one thing to want to have sex before marriage, its another thing to need to. Im not talking about sexual repression, Im talking about control, and responsibility. At this stage most people dont have a problem with sex before marriage. I cant do a lot about that, except tell you that this is what Im doing, and there is another way to go. Im not preaching, or telling you what to do.
"The point I'm driving at is why do you care what braggadocios say? They want to make themselves out to be a walking orgasmotron? Well...why shouldn't they? Why are you even giving them the steam from your urine?" Because I dont like bragging in the first place. I try not to, but dont always succeed. Also because bes coming up to me, and telling me about his sexual exploits, expecting me to respect him, and I dont at all. Firstly hes bragging which I have a problem and then he expects me to respect him for doing something I think is wrong.
"And the problem with casual sex is....? You don't want to indulge in it, well fine. Are you saying that anyone who does is not enjoying it really? Can't you appreciate that people have different opinions toward casual sex, and imposing any one opinion on others is control freakery of Catholic proportions?" Sure theyre enjoying it. I just find that with ME personally I'll enjoy it more with one person. (not at a time, althogether) I cant speak for other people. The problem with casual sex is ....Im really sick of saying the same stuff over and over again. If youve read my previous posts you'll know what my problem is. Im not imposing my opinion. Im stating it. You seen to have a huge problem with it. If anything is "control freakery of Catholic proportions" then that is. Its 1984 for pitys sake!
"Who's bragging? Heh; who posted a topic specifically about waiting until after marriage for sex?" Well, was the guy who posted about anal sex bragging? The fact you think its something I would brag about implies that you admire it, lol. You seem to think it is something to brag about, dont you? I really dont care.
"I'll ask again though; You do know some people don't want to wait until after marriage, and that just because they don't it doesn't make them less of a person, right?" You sound like a poor little boy who just got in trouble for throw rocks at monkeys. Why should it. I think its wrong, but thats just me. Maybe its fine? It doesnt matter all the same, if it is wrong, and people realise they've sinned they'll be sorry, so problem solved. I dont have a problem with inadvertantly sinning, (I mean accidental sinning) but thats what your local priest is for (NO NOT FOR A QUICKIE). The clergy are there to give guidance on matters that are grey to you.
"How do you know that people who wait generally find more meaning in sex? You've drawn things in black and white here; those like yourself, and those who shag their way round the accomodating folk of their village. It might be your experience that those who wait generally find more meaning in sex, but couldn't that just as easily be said to be because you talk about it so much cos you're not having it? I'm being completely serious when I say that I find it incredibly insulting that you dismiss those who have pre-marital sex as less likely to find meaning in it." If youve read previous posts in this forum then you'll see that most of the people whove posts in favour of casual sex find less/no meaning in it than I do. Im sorry if you find it insulting, but thats my experience. I would appreciate it if you stop attacking me and other people in the room immaturely.
"I think faith is entirely a personal matter. If people stick to the dictates of their conscience, then that's fine by me. When an organisation tries to tell someone that their faith is wrong, then it stops being about religion and starts being about control." Some religeons do strive for power, as can be seen from the history of the Catholic church. In this case its nothing aobut control. How can you call yourself a catholic if you go to mass and lie about your beliefs like that? Its up to the leaders of the faith to point out peoples mistakes. If people really want to devote themselves to a religeon, then they should believe in the ways of that religeon. If not I think they're in the wrong faith. This is more about guidance than control.
"Anyway, the point I was driving at is that using the Bible to justify a belief that one is somehow a better person for waiting until after marriage to have sex is not a good argument when one ignores other parts of the Bible." This isnt about being a better person, its about principles and morals, and what you personally see as right. Anyway, what other parts of the bible would that ignore? If its to become a better person whats wrong?
"firstly, my faith is founded on the belief that jesus is god, ie that he was a manifestation of God as a human. " I agree with that, my faith is based on that too. Thats how I call myself a christian, but I havent decided enough yet to know which religeon I think most suits me. I dont think there is any one true religeon, I think its all relateive. well, thats just inside Christianity, I dont know about other relgieons like Islam and Hindu.
"I'm also sorry to say that i don't agree with the relativist view that what each person does is good for him." I dont think so either, but I dont think it makes them a bad person. I think Im right, I just think people dont know the whole truth about it.
"lalalalala wrote:
> i must say, you guys certainly don't make a very good first impression
> lol. i'm new to this site.. and i think the way some of you treat
> each other is revolting.
SHUT UP!" What a great way to treat a newbie. I just hope youre that welcoming at your own house. If I stay with you, will you promise not to ace me during the night? By saying that you just proved lalalalala to be correct. What kind of debate is "shut up". Can you imagine it "Id like to propose to raise taxes to fund a new transport system which will reduce traffic congestion in london by 20%." (person at the back) "SHUT UP". "ok then maybe not...". Well Hedfix, you sure turned me to your side. I'll never argue against casual sex again! Please ignore him lalalalala. It may be a mental condition.
"Ah, so you're an Arian! Shame that particular heresy was stamped out in the 5th century AD. Still, over 1500 years late isn't too bad, eh?"
Whats wrong with you?? I see, we're resorting to insults then? Debating forums are for DEBATING, and you insulting people so much only points to the fact you cant argue against them.
"I'm also particularly impressed with the arrogance you display; not many will understand it?" Well Im sure its so easy for everyone to understand the nature of Souls blind faith and how it has enabled him to practise chastity when so many people are having casual sex. Dont you? I dont think its that understandable.
"Seeing as you don't even understand some of the basics of your own religion, that's a little presumptuous of you." Who are you to say what he does and doesnt understand? Why are you driven to leave a barrage of personal attacks in this forum? Why do you have to attack peoples faith and beliefs so much?
"But thanks for confirming that you're that worst of all religious types; the type who is only interested in their faith because of how special and superior it makes them feel." (this guy is nuts) Youre really too much light. I know that after this post youre going to attack me. I admire his faith. Surely the feeling of superiority is nothing in comparisson to having sex? If you really think thats all there is to it I pity you.
"Heh. And if you take offense to having your beliefs called into question, that's your problem my dear boy." You have absolutely no right to question his beliefs! You can question motives and opinions, but I draw the line there. Thats just insulting.
". Thus far, you're assuming that anyone disagreeing with you must be demanding your silence, because that's the way his mind works." Most people, including you are demanding silence (see Hedfix).
"Heh. So we don't have to use the Old Testament, but the New Testament is referenced from the Old. Which is now obsolete. Don't you find that at all contradictory?" Im the first to admit that the bible is contradictory, but it still has a lot of good lessons. I think its up to you to pick out what you think is relevant.
"Heh. I suggest you attempt to read that book you're placing so much stock in. Perhaps then you can replace that sarcasm with a little humility? I believe that Jesus chappy mentioned humility once or twice..." This doesnt even deserve a comment. I cant believe you light.
"First let us look at an example where a verse in the Old Testament contradicts that in the Old" typo I guess? "in the New"?
"Am I to understand that you're boasting of your own ignorance? Wow...
" I didnt understand that quote either. You obviously means you didnt explain your interpretation properly. Also in Romans is it actually God talking? or is it someone else talking FOR God? Maybe its just for peoples benefit. I dont know enough about it but I do know theres no reason to continiously attack people.
"Should a fundamentalist like you be more aware of the fundamentals of his own religion?" Youre ridiculous. So what IS his religeon? How can you argue about the fundementals of his religeon when you dont even know what it is??
"It explains why you're being so prissy, yeah;" I should actually count how many immature attacks youre launched at people.
"An extreme christian...is that like extreme sports? Anyhoo, your hollow apology aside, as has been mentioned earlier the fact that 2 christians disagree on such fundamental points kinda illustrates that there is no one true way; just varying interpretations." This only reveals you own ignorance, and the only thing hollow is your skull. So what fundemental points to we disagree on? MOST Christians disagree on one thing or another, sometimes more fundemental than this. Id hardly call chastity fundemental. As far as I know chastity isnt even mentioned in the bible so I dont see how its fundemental.
"Nah; what about porno stars who shave themselves? I'm not gonna condemn them to a life of chastity..." Wow, condemn, what a strong word. For pity sake, theres no reason to insult peoples choice of lifestyle.
Firstly lalalalala. Thank you. (wow, come together by the beatles is reall cool) Basicly Soul and I have been getting loads of heat for preaching and telling people what to think, and WERE NOT!
"I think the difference was that Fozzo and Soulby seemed to be saying "This is the way I do things and it's wrong that people do different." wheras everyone else tended to be saying, "fair play to you, but why should we have to do something just because it worked for you?".
Anysway, I still want to see what they make of what I said..." Well what we're actually saying is "this is the way I do things and I THINK its wrong that people do different, but I dont blame them, and I dont think theyre bad people for it" and what people seem to be saying is "Do you want a f**king medal? Shut the hell up!"
"What is it with you Christian types assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically saying "You mustn't state your opinion at all"? That says more about the workings of your mind than anyone elses." Well actually a lot of people in this forum have been saying to shut up. You yourself have been acusing me of preaching, when were clearly not.
"For the record, I'm merely disagreeing with what they say, NOT trying to force them not to say it. There is a difference, and might I suggest you engage your brain and learn it?" Wow, hes p*ssed off ......again. I think thats really immature. It sure seemed like you were trying to get us to stop saying it, hmm?
"That begs the obvious question; if you don't know much about history, how can you state so confidently that the numbers of people having premarital sex and sleeping around hasn't changed much through the ages? Where are you getting your info from?" I get some of my info from my own knowlege, and some from my history/languages/music guru of a girlfriend. Wow, your tactic of trying to discredit me, as opposed to arguing using your own knowlege to counter it is really effective. I wonder if I could argue that bananas are radioactive. Actually they are.
"Again, how do you know this if you don't know much about the history of both the church and of Europe as a whole?" I know quite a lot myself, not a huge amount, and it doesnt take a genuis to know certain things.
"That's fair enough. But why do you think God cares what you do, so long as you've not violated your own code of ethics?" I dont think that God cares much as far as your own code of ethics goes. (rocks out to wicked stairway to heaven guitar solo) I think every persons individual code of ethics is for their own guidance and benefit. I dont really think its that religeous, its more of a personal moral thingey. God cares about more thna just your personal ethics. I think the old testements view of God as being vengeful isnt at all true. I think Gods quite loving, and careing as opposed to angry.
"Fair enough. But nor does everyone who does have sex before marriage consider it a pleasure without meaning. You'd do well to remember that." Quite, however the general impression I got from those who posted in this forum is that people who do have casual sex generally find it meaningless, to a certain extent, and it certainly doesnt have as much meaning as I find it to have.
"if you dont eat your meat, you cant have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you dont eat yer meat!" sorry, just a weird song I was listening to.
"> Again, you assumed I didnt like you replying. Youre a great debater,
> its fun.
Ah, sweet flattery how I live for thee.." Having read your recent posts I take that back. Youre not a great debater. You concentrate on belittling people rather than actually debating.
"Nope. I'm arguing that sex is whatever the 2 or more people invovled choose to make of it. It's not up to any external parties to tell them how it should or shouldn't be done. Unless, of course, that's what gets them off and they've paid for that to be done. In which case, fine." I dont think thats the case at all. How can you say that sex is meaningless if you can also think its meaningful. I think that to 2 people sex is whatever they make of it, that doesnt mean it is. You can think what you like of sex, but its always going to be either meaningless or meaningful. I personally find meaning in it, which to me makes the experience so much better.
"Heh. That's the most graceful reply to an obvious baiting line I've read in a while." Baiting line? (looks all innocent)
"Yeah, I know. And I'm saying that neither does everyone want to wait until marriage. Whatever people want to do, then that's what they should do." This is where we start talking aobut free will. People have free will and they should by all means choose what to do. Nobody should be able to tell them what to do. Of course not everybody wants to wait untill marriage. What I would like to see is people actually trying to. Its one thing to want to have sex before marriage, its another thing to need to. Im not talking about sexual repression, Im talking about control, and responsibility. At this stage most people dont have a problem with sex before marriage. I cant do a lot about that, except tell you that this is what Im doing, and there is another way to go. Im not preaching, or telling you what to do.
"The point I'm driving at is why do you care what braggadocios say? They want to make themselves out to be a walking orgasmotron? Well...why shouldn't they? Why are you even giving them the steam from your urine?" Because I dont like bragging in the first place. I try not to, but dont always succeed. Also because bes coming up to me, and telling me about his sexual exploits, expecting me to respect him, and I dont at all. Firstly hes bragging which I have a problem and then he expects me to respect him for doing something I think is wrong.
"And the problem with casual sex is....? You don't want to indulge in it, well fine. Are you saying that anyone who does is not enjoying it really? Can't you appreciate that people have different opinions toward casual sex, and imposing any one opinion on others is control freakery of Catholic proportions?" Sure theyre enjoying it. I just find that with ME personally I'll enjoy it more with one person. (not at a time, althogether) I cant speak for other people. The problem with casual sex is ....Im really sick of saying the same stuff over and over again. If youve read my previous posts you'll know what my problem is. Im not imposing my opinion. Im stating it. You seen to have a huge problem with it. If anything is "control freakery of Catholic proportions" then that is. Its 1984 for pitys sake!
"Who's bragging? Heh; who posted a topic specifically about waiting until after marriage for sex?" Well, was the guy who posted about anal sex bragging? The fact you think its something I would brag about implies that you admire it, lol. You seem to think it is something to brag about, dont you? I really dont care.
"I'll ask again though; You do know some people don't want to wait until after marriage, and that just because they don't it doesn't make them less of a person, right?" You sound like a poor little boy who just got in trouble for throw rocks at monkeys. Why should it. I think its wrong, but thats just me. Maybe its fine? It doesnt matter all the same, if it is wrong, and people realise they've sinned they'll be sorry, so problem solved. I dont have a problem with inadvertantly sinning, (I mean accidental sinning) but thats what your local priest is for (NO NOT FOR A QUICKIE). The clergy are there to give guidance on matters that are grey to you.
"How do you know that people who wait generally find more meaning in sex? You've drawn things in black and white here; those like yourself, and those who shag their way round the accomodating folk of their village. It might be your experience that those who wait generally find more meaning in sex, but couldn't that just as easily be said to be because you talk about it so much cos you're not having it? I'm being completely serious when I say that I find it incredibly insulting that you dismiss those who have pre-marital sex as less likely to find meaning in it." If youve read previous posts in this forum then you'll see that most of the people whove posts in favour of casual sex find less/no meaning in it than I do. Im sorry if you find it insulting, but thats my experience. I would appreciate it if you stop attacking me and other people in the room immaturely.
"I think faith is entirely a personal matter. If people stick to the dictates of their conscience, then that's fine by me. When an organisation tries to tell someone that their faith is wrong, then it stops being about religion and starts being about control." Some religeons do strive for power, as can be seen from the history of the Catholic church. In this case its nothing aobut control. How can you call yourself a catholic if you go to mass and lie about your beliefs like that? Its up to the leaders of the faith to point out peoples mistakes. If people really want to devote themselves to a religeon, then they should believe in the ways of that religeon. If not I think they're in the wrong faith. This is more about guidance than control.
"Anyway, the point I was driving at is that using the Bible to justify a belief that one is somehow a better person for waiting until after marriage to have sex is not a good argument when one ignores other parts of the Bible." This isnt about being a better person, its about principles and morals, and what you personally see as right. Anyway, what other parts of the bible would that ignore? If its to become a better person whats wrong?
"firstly, my faith is founded on the belief that jesus is god, ie that he was a manifestation of God as a human. " I agree with that, my faith is based on that too. Thats how I call myself a christian, but I havent decided enough yet to know which religeon I think most suits me. I dont think there is any one true religeon, I think its all relateive. well, thats just inside Christianity, I dont know about other relgieons like Islam and Hindu.
"I'm also sorry to say that i don't agree with the relativist view that what each person does is good for him." I dont think so either, but I dont think it makes them a bad person. I think Im right, I just think people dont know the whole truth about it.
"lalalalala wrote:
> i must say, you guys certainly don't make a very good first impression
> lol. i'm new to this site.. and i think the way some of you treat
> each other is revolting.
SHUT UP!" What a great way to treat a newbie. I just hope youre that welcoming at your own house. If I stay with you, will you promise not to ace me during the night? By saying that you just proved lalalalala to be correct. What kind of debate is "shut up". Can you imagine it "Id like to propose to raise taxes to fund a new transport system which will reduce traffic congestion in london by 20%." (person at the back) "SHUT UP". "ok then maybe not...". Well Hedfix, you sure turned me to your side. I'll never argue against casual sex again! Please ignore him lalalalala. It may be a mental condition.
"Ah, so you're an Arian! Shame that particular heresy was stamped out in the 5th century AD. Still, over 1500 years late isn't too bad, eh?"
Whats wrong with you?? I see, we're resorting to insults then? Debating forums are for DEBATING, and you insulting people so much only points to the fact you cant argue against them.
"I'm also particularly impressed with the arrogance you display; not many will understand it?" Well Im sure its so easy for everyone to understand the nature of Souls blind faith and how it has enabled him to practise chastity when so many people are having casual sex. Dont you? I dont think its that understandable.
"Seeing as you don't even understand some of the basics of your own religion, that's a little presumptuous of you." Who are you to say what he does and doesnt understand? Why are you driven to leave a barrage of personal attacks in this forum? Why do you have to attack peoples faith and beliefs so much?
"But thanks for confirming that you're that worst of all religious types; the type who is only interested in their faith because of how special and superior it makes them feel." (this guy is nuts) Youre really too much light. I know that after this post youre going to attack me. I admire his faith. Surely the feeling of superiority is nothing in comparisson to having sex? If you really think thats all there is to it I pity you.
"Heh. And if you take offense to having your beliefs called into question, that's your problem my dear boy." You have absolutely no right to question his beliefs! You can question motives and opinions, but I draw the line there. Thats just insulting.
". Thus far, you're assuming that anyone disagreeing with you must be demanding your silence, because that's the way his mind works." Most people, including you are demanding silence (see Hedfix).
"Heh. So we don't have to use the Old Testament, but the New Testament is referenced from the Old. Which is now obsolete. Don't you find that at all contradictory?" Im the first to admit that the bible is contradictory, but it still has a lot of good lessons. I think its up to you to pick out what you think is relevant.
"Heh. I suggest you attempt to read that book you're placing so much stock in. Perhaps then you can replace that sarcasm with a little humility? I believe that Jesus chappy mentioned humility once or twice..." This doesnt even deserve a comment. I cant believe you light.
"First let us look at an example where a verse in the Old Testament contradicts that in the Old" typo I guess? "in the New"?
"Am I to understand that you're boasting of your own ignorance? Wow...
" I didnt understand that quote either. You obviously means you didnt explain your interpretation properly. Also in Romans is it actually God talking? or is it someone else talking FOR God? Maybe its just for peoples benefit. I dont know enough about it but I do know theres no reason to continiously attack people.
"Should a fundamentalist like you be more aware of the fundamentals of his own religion?" Youre ridiculous. So what IS his religeon? How can you argue about the fundementals of his religeon when you dont even know what it is??
"It explains why you're being so prissy, yeah;" I should actually count how many immature attacks youre launched at people.
"An extreme christian...is that like extreme sports? Anyhoo, your hollow apology aside, as has been mentioned earlier the fact that 2 christians disagree on such fundamental points kinda illustrates that there is no one true way; just varying interpretations." This only reveals you own ignorance, and the only thing hollow is your skull. So what fundemental points to we disagree on? MOST Christians disagree on one thing or another, sometimes more fundemental than this. Id hardly call chastity fundemental. As far as I know chastity isnt even mentioned in the bible so I dont see how its fundemental.
"Nah; what about porno stars who shave themselves? I'm not gonna condemn them to a life of chastity..." Wow, condemn, what a strong word. For pity sake, theres no reason to insult peoples choice of lifestyle.
ARRGH..I just wrote a huge post and there was a banned word in it so it wasnt allowed through. so now I have to write it allll again. ARGRHPOHF{GIBnpifnbpijfbpin bfrpbgpibkilljfpisbg elvesaresexykjbagbp bnf. I dont know why but it got erased.
Hedfix wrote:
> 'Starts to'?
>
> Nah you've ruined the euphemism there.
Well there's no need to be like that. I'm trying my best. So stop it, you, or I will get my mother to talk to your mother...again.
> 'Starts to'?
>
> Nah you've ruined the euphemism there.
Well there's no need to be like that. I'm trying my best. So stop it, you, or I will get my mother to talk to your mother...again.
pornO stars?
I laff. :D
I laff. :D
English_Bloke wrote:
> Wait until the grass starts to get mown before getting your balls out
> for a game.
'Starts to'?
Nah you've ruined the euphemism there.
> Wait until the grass starts to get mown before getting your balls out
> for a game.
'Starts to'?
Nah you've ruined the euphemism there.
Page: