The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> What about the arguement : "If there's grass on the pitch, let's
> play."
Nah; what about porno stars who shave themselves? I'm not gonna condemn them to a life of chastity...
> What about the arguement : "If there's grass on the pitch, let's
> play."
Nah; what about porno stars who shave themselves? I'm not gonna condemn them to a life of chastity...
soul101 wrote:
>
> firstly, my faith is founded on the belief that jesus is god, ie that
> he was a manifestation of God as a human. therefore to worship him is
> to worship God. not that many of you will understand that.
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?
I'm also particularly impressed with the arrogance you display; not many will understand it? Seeing as you don't even understand some of the basics of your own religion, that's a little presumptuous of you. 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.
>
> 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 believe i am right.
> therefore i believe that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. that
> doesnt mean i go around spitting on peoples graves because they didnt
> brush their teeth... nor do i get involved in posts like this for
> that reason. i am not correcting people. i am simply making sure they
> understand where i stand, and if you take offence to that then thats
> your problem.
Heh. And if you take offense to having your beliefs called into question, that's your problem my dear boy. Thus far, you're assuming that anyone disagreeing with you must be demanding your silence, because that's the way his mind works. You want to state your beliefs, that' A-Ok. Just don't whine quite so much when they're not unquestioningly accepted as the unvarnished truth.
>
> Marriage is talked about in 1 Corinthians and, i think 2
> corinthinians and colossians. The old testament is there as a
> guideline (as has been said) and as a documented history of the
> jewish nation. it also makes prophetic references to the coming of
> Jesus. A lot of what Jesus and his disciples say are taken with
> reference from the old testament.
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?
> 2 geneologies? well you learn
> something new every day (sarcasm).
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...
First let us look at an example where a verse in the Old Testament contradicts that in the Old. Luke, in his genealogical tree of Jesus mentioned that Shelah was the grandson of Arphaxad:
Luke 3:35-36 ...the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad,...
But this is explicitly contradicted by Genesis:[6]
Genesis 10:24 Arphaxad became the father of Shelah...
In other words, 2 contradictory genealogies. So in your case, you do indeed learn something. Or you would if you actually bothered to read the bible, eh? Wouldn't it be nice if the 'prophetic' statements actually agreed with the ones in the New Testament?
> i honestly have no idea what
> you're talking about. And i most certainly don't understand the James
> quote.
Am I to understand that you're boasting of your own ignorance? Wow...
Anyway, the James quote is stating that God is always right; there is no variation on what He says, cos when He speaks it is always 100% correct. Yet you're saying that, in Romans, God says that he wasn't quite correct with the Old Testament, and the New Testament should be referred to instead. In other words, God varies what he says. In direct contradiction to what we are told in James.
Should a fundamentalist like you be more aware of the fundamentals of his own religion?
>
> The reason i try and follow Gods laws is because i believe it was one
> of the reasons we were created; ie to glorify Him through the way we
> live our lives.
Yet you're happy to pick and choose which laws you follow, and you ignore the many and varied contradictions of the Bible by pretending they don't exist?
Incidentally, you never bothered to address the quote from Paul about only needing faith, not works, in order to praise God. Any thoughts?
>
> I think that explains some stuff?
It explains why you're being so prissy, yeah;
>
> i am sorry fozz. i started this to back you up, not realising that i
> am more of an extremist than you. i really don't mean to contradict
> you.
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.
>
> firstly, my faith is founded on the belief that jesus is god, ie that
> he was a manifestation of God as a human. therefore to worship him is
> to worship God. not that many of you will understand that.
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?
I'm also particularly impressed with the arrogance you display; not many will understand it? Seeing as you don't even understand some of the basics of your own religion, that's a little presumptuous of you. 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.
>
> 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 believe i am right.
> therefore i believe that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. that
> doesnt mean i go around spitting on peoples graves because they didnt
> brush their teeth... nor do i get involved in posts like this for
> that reason. i am not correcting people. i am simply making sure they
> understand where i stand, and if you take offence to that then thats
> your problem.
Heh. And if you take offense to having your beliefs called into question, that's your problem my dear boy. Thus far, you're assuming that anyone disagreeing with you must be demanding your silence, because that's the way his mind works. You want to state your beliefs, that' A-Ok. Just don't whine quite so much when they're not unquestioningly accepted as the unvarnished truth.
>
> Marriage is talked about in 1 Corinthians and, i think 2
> corinthinians and colossians. The old testament is there as a
> guideline (as has been said) and as a documented history of the
> jewish nation. it also makes prophetic references to the coming of
> Jesus. A lot of what Jesus and his disciples say are taken with
> reference from the old testament.
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?
> 2 geneologies? well you learn
> something new every day (sarcasm).
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...
First let us look at an example where a verse in the Old Testament contradicts that in the Old. Luke, in his genealogical tree of Jesus mentioned that Shelah was the grandson of Arphaxad:
Luke 3:35-36 ...the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad,...
But this is explicitly contradicted by Genesis:[6]
Genesis 10:24 Arphaxad became the father of Shelah...
In other words, 2 contradictory genealogies. So in your case, you do indeed learn something. Or you would if you actually bothered to read the bible, eh? Wouldn't it be nice if the 'prophetic' statements actually agreed with the ones in the New Testament?
> i honestly have no idea what
> you're talking about. And i most certainly don't understand the James
> quote.
Am I to understand that you're boasting of your own ignorance? Wow...
Anyway, the James quote is stating that God is always right; there is no variation on what He says, cos when He speaks it is always 100% correct. Yet you're saying that, in Romans, God says that he wasn't quite correct with the Old Testament, and the New Testament should be referred to instead. In other words, God varies what he says. In direct contradiction to what we are told in James.
Should a fundamentalist like you be more aware of the fundamentals of his own religion?
>
> The reason i try and follow Gods laws is because i believe it was one
> of the reasons we were created; ie to glorify Him through the way we
> live our lives.
Yet you're happy to pick and choose which laws you follow, and you ignore the many and varied contradictions of the Bible by pretending they don't exist?
Incidentally, you never bothered to address the quote from Paul about only needing faith, not works, in order to praise God. Any thoughts?
>
> I think that explains some stuff?
It explains why you're being so prissy, yeah;
>
> i am sorry fozz. i started this to back you up, not realising that i
> am more of an extremist than you. i really don't mean to contradict
> you.
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.
Wait until the grass starts to get mown before getting your balls out for a game.
What about the arguement : "If there's grass on the pitch, let's play."
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!
> 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!
damn!!! i sure missed out on a lot yesterday.
firstly, my faith is founded on the belief that jesus is god, ie that he was a manifestation of God as a human. therefore to worship him is to worship God. not that many of you will understand that.
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 believe i am right. therefore i believe that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. that doesnt mean i go around spitting on peoples graves because they didnt brush their teeth... nor do i get involved in posts like this for that reason. i am not correcting people. i am simply making sure they understand where i stand, and if you take offence to that then thats your problem.
Marriage is talked about in 1 Corinthians and, i think 2 corinthinians and colossians. The old testament is there as a guideline (as has been said) and as a documented history of the jewish nation. it also makes prophetic references to the coming of Jesus. A lot of what Jesus and his disciples say are taken with reference from the old testament. 2 geneologies? well you learn something new every day (sarcasm). i honestly have no idea what you're talking about. And i most certainly don't understand the James quote.
The reason i try and follow Gods laws is because i believe it was one of the reasons we were created; ie to glorify Him through the way we live our lives.
I think that explains some stuff?
i am sorry fozz. i started this to back you up, not realising that i am more of an extremist than you. i really don't mean to contradict you.
firstly, my faith is founded on the belief that jesus is god, ie that he was a manifestation of God as a human. therefore to worship him is to worship God. not that many of you will understand that.
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 believe i am right. therefore i believe that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. that doesnt mean i go around spitting on peoples graves because they didnt brush their teeth... nor do i get involved in posts like this for that reason. i am not correcting people. i am simply making sure they understand where i stand, and if you take offence to that then thats your problem.
Marriage is talked about in 1 Corinthians and, i think 2 corinthinians and colossians. The old testament is there as a guideline (as has been said) and as a documented history of the jewish nation. it also makes prophetic references to the coming of Jesus. A lot of what Jesus and his disciples say are taken with reference from the old testament. 2 geneologies? well you learn something new every day (sarcasm). i honestly have no idea what you're talking about. And i most certainly don't understand the James quote.
The reason i try and follow Gods laws is because i believe it was one of the reasons we were created; ie to glorify Him through the way we live our lives.
I think that explains some stuff?
i am sorry fozz. i started this to back you up, not realising that i am more of an extremist than you. i really don't mean to contradict you.
If you check my posts from the night before last you'll see I was going until about 4am. Then I had to get up yesterday at about 10 to see some relatives off and make breakfast for them. So last night I slept for about 12 hours and just woke up. I'll get round to posting sometime this afternoon. (yawn)
Good lord no.
.. are you tired after all that Light? :)
Fozz wrote:
>
> lol. ok not blame, attribute. My harsh choice of words was unfounded.
> I agree that equality was a good thing I just dont think it has
> anything to do woth sex.
>
Fair enough. However, bearing in mind how church influence in the western world declined at about the same time as female emancipation and women's lib arrived, I kinda do.
> Im afraid Im no expert on history, but as far as the amount of people
> having premarital sex and sleeping round, it hasnt changed much. As
> far as homosexuality, Ireland is sometimes seen as becoming a
> homosexual society, people have freedom to be gay in most countries
> now. The only thing that changed in that respect is the conduct of
> the church and state over the issue. (GO GAY BISHOP!) Isnt this
> somewhat off topic? Speaking of chuch approved relationships what
> about all these 'clerical abuse'rs. If thats not approved
> homosexuality I dont know what is. The church does NOTHING about it.
> Richard the Lionheart? thats news to me. Dont forget the good old
> Oscar Wilde.
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?
>
> "Ri-ight...so are you saying that the Church, with it's power
> to excommunicate and thus condemn a person (or an entire nation) to
> hell, didn't really figure in the lives of everyday people?
> So...what, people used to believe in sex only after marriage and the
> church happened to codify that? And then, one day, people decided to
> start rutting before marriage?" Again all Im saying is
> refering to the amount of people having sex before marriage. Its not
> like all of a sudden, and the newly baptised Romans stopped having
> sex outside of marriage. It was part of their culture, whether they
> liked it or not.
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?
>
> "Well, no not necessarily. You're assuming that sex was the
> only doctrinal reason for the many and varied splits in the church.
> The Orthodox church split because of an argument over the primacy of
> the pope. In fact, that's the main reason for most of the splits. The
> sex and prudishness tends to stay in any church because, like any
> good totalitarian group, they want to control their followers.
> " Actually no Im not assuming that, but as premarital sex is
> such a big issue, with pretty much everyone doing it, I think its
> about time the church split. Whats the point of going to mass every
> sunday (or whatever religeous rituals your religeon may perform if
> any) reaffirm your faith and state your beliefs as those of the
> church when in fact theyre not? Its lying to yourself and to God.
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?
>
> "As to the dismissal of sex as being about just fun (if you
> believe in sex before marriage) or being somehow better if you wait
> until after marriage...wow; how incredibly insulting to everyone who
> has had sex prior to getting married. Are you suggesting that their
> relationships aren't as good as someone who waited until after
> marriage?" OH...very sneaky. Im proud of you. I wasnt at ALL
> saying that (cough) All Im was saying is that I personally get much
> more enjoyment out of life this way. Every relationship is unique.
> You cant measure them on any scale. Id like to see more people
> consider it as an option, and I want people to know that not
> everyobdy wants to have sex before marriage.
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.
>
> "I'm not. I'm lecturing you about bragging that you've had no
> sexual partners, and how that seems to make you a better person.
> What, don't you like criticism? " I never accused you of
> anything, but it does happen. I never meant to point it at you, sorry
> if it seemed like I did. Sure, I like criticism, it gives me more to
> write about.
Okay, fair enough. My own apologies for putting you on the defensive.
> Again, you assumed I didnt like you replying. Youre a great debater,
> its fun.
Ah, sweet flattery how I live for thee...
>
> "Bwahahahahaahahaaaaaa! Yeah, I definitely wish I'd avoided
> having deep, meaningful, dirty, enjoyable sex. God, it would have
> been dreadful..." So you find sex meaningful and deep?
> Interesting. So youre not arguing that sex is just 'fun' like a lot
> of people who post here?
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.
>
> "think you're posting this topic for the exact reasons you
> mention; you want to identify yourself as someone who doesn't
> "follow the crowd". Most people your age just wear black T
> shirts to achieve that effect. But whatever makes you feel special,
> well you knock yourself out." lol. I used to wear pretty
> much nothing but black or dark blue. (sigh) those were the days.
Heh. That's the most graceful reply to an obvious baiting line I've read in a while.
>
> "If you were just inviting comments about sex before and
> after marriage, then I wouldn't be accusing you of being a preachy,
> self important teenager who wants the world to see just what an
> individual he is." I really dont care what the world thinks,
> you should see my hair.. All Im saying is consider it, not every
> single person in the world wants or does have casual sex.
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.
>
> "Well, bully for you. I'm detecting a huge amount of
> resentment toward people who do brag about their sexual conquests.
> Did it ever occur to you that they might be...well, lying in order to
> look impressive?" Yes, of course, thats part of the problem.
> Why would I want to know what they did, or thought they did with some
> person I dont know? And its not even impressive. Ive had people brag
> to me about getting a handjob. You dont even need another person to
> do that. lol.
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?
>
> "Also, you do know it's possible to have sex before marriage
> WITHOUT turning into 'Hormono - Scourge of Virgins and Taker of
> Hymens', right? You seem to view this as either one extreme or the
> other" If you read my earlier posts you'll see I dont have
> as much a problem with pre marital sex as I do with casual sex. Most
> of the time Im talking about casual sex. Keep that in mind.
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?
>
> "And again, good for you. I don't care if you wait, or if you
> shove your meaty wand into every magic hole that takes your fancy.
> Really; whatever gets you through the night is A-ok (although trying
> to brag about and prove your masculinity via the internet is somewhat
> counter-productive). I'm fully aware that you don't WANT to get some
> random sexual partner. Are you fully aware that some people don't
> WANT to wait until after marriage because a 1,500 year old book told
> them to?" Whos bragging? I actually dont know if I COULD
> wait indefinitely for 'the one', but having found them makes it a lot
> easier.
Who's bragging? Heh; who posted a topic specifically about waiting until after marriage for sex?
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?
>
>
> "Hmm...I do find myself agreeing with that to an extent. I'd
> go further; religions have no right to tell anyone what to do. And
> yet here you are, telling me that because I don't follow your
> approach, I must be some kind soulless and empty man for whom sex has
> no meaning. ("ever active chomp bar"? Wha...?). Also, when
> does "guiding (and) pointing out wrong doing" turn into
> "Telling someone what to do"?" Where was I telling
> you that? All I said was that those of us who decide to wait
> generally find more meaning in sex. People have posted in here saying
> that sex is just fun. The chomp bar, well..I was running out of
> phrases for PENIS. AS for guidance, if people believe that,
> say, premarital sex is wrong, but find themselves tempted, then they
> can get guidance, or if they arent sure whether something is a sin,
> like goat slaughtering, I dunno.
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.
>
> "But that said, do you follow the other religious tenets I
> outlined, or not? Cos if not, aren't you picking and choosing the
> points of your faith you choose to follow?" Not really, I
> havent joined any one faither yet, I know SOME things I
> agree/disagree with but not enough to focus on any one faith I think
> suits me best. Do you think there is one true faith, or its all just
> whatever suits you best?
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.
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 isn't a dig at you, but I've noticed that fundamentalists who claim to follow the literal word of the Bible generally don't know it in as much detail as they think, and are happy to follow their own interpretations of the Bible whilst simoultaneously pretending that they're still only following the exact literal word. And, speaking personally, I'd like to boil those people in white hot faecal pustules.
>
> lol. ok not blame, attribute. My harsh choice of words was unfounded.
> I agree that equality was a good thing I just dont think it has
> anything to do woth sex.
>
Fair enough. However, bearing in mind how church influence in the western world declined at about the same time as female emancipation and women's lib arrived, I kinda do.
> Im afraid Im no expert on history, but as far as the amount of people
> having premarital sex and sleeping round, it hasnt changed much. As
> far as homosexuality, Ireland is sometimes seen as becoming a
> homosexual society, people have freedom to be gay in most countries
> now. The only thing that changed in that respect is the conduct of
> the church and state over the issue. (GO GAY BISHOP!) Isnt this
> somewhat off topic? Speaking of chuch approved relationships what
> about all these 'clerical abuse'rs. If thats not approved
> homosexuality I dont know what is. The church does NOTHING about it.
> Richard the Lionheart? thats news to me. Dont forget the good old
> Oscar Wilde.
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?
>
> "Ri-ight...so are you saying that the Church, with it's power
> to excommunicate and thus condemn a person (or an entire nation) to
> hell, didn't really figure in the lives of everyday people?
> So...what, people used to believe in sex only after marriage and the
> church happened to codify that? And then, one day, people decided to
> start rutting before marriage?" Again all Im saying is
> refering to the amount of people having sex before marriage. Its not
> like all of a sudden, and the newly baptised Romans stopped having
> sex outside of marriage. It was part of their culture, whether they
> liked it or not.
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?
>
> "Well, no not necessarily. You're assuming that sex was the
> only doctrinal reason for the many and varied splits in the church.
> The Orthodox church split because of an argument over the primacy of
> the pope. In fact, that's the main reason for most of the splits. The
> sex and prudishness tends to stay in any church because, like any
> good totalitarian group, they want to control their followers.
> " Actually no Im not assuming that, but as premarital sex is
> such a big issue, with pretty much everyone doing it, I think its
> about time the church split. Whats the point of going to mass every
> sunday (or whatever religeous rituals your religeon may perform if
> any) reaffirm your faith and state your beliefs as those of the
> church when in fact theyre not? Its lying to yourself and to God.
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?
>
> "As to the dismissal of sex as being about just fun (if you
> believe in sex before marriage) or being somehow better if you wait
> until after marriage...wow; how incredibly insulting to everyone who
> has had sex prior to getting married. Are you suggesting that their
> relationships aren't as good as someone who waited until after
> marriage?" OH...very sneaky. Im proud of you. I wasnt at ALL
> saying that (cough) All Im was saying is that I personally get much
> more enjoyment out of life this way. Every relationship is unique.
> You cant measure them on any scale. Id like to see more people
> consider it as an option, and I want people to know that not
> everyobdy wants to have sex before marriage.
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.
>
> "I'm not. I'm lecturing you about bragging that you've had no
> sexual partners, and how that seems to make you a better person.
> What, don't you like criticism? " I never accused you of
> anything, but it does happen. I never meant to point it at you, sorry
> if it seemed like I did. Sure, I like criticism, it gives me more to
> write about.
Okay, fair enough. My own apologies for putting you on the defensive.
> Again, you assumed I didnt like you replying. Youre a great debater,
> its fun.
Ah, sweet flattery how I live for thee...
>
> "Bwahahahahaahahaaaaaa! Yeah, I definitely wish I'd avoided
> having deep, meaningful, dirty, enjoyable sex. God, it would have
> been dreadful..." So you find sex meaningful and deep?
> Interesting. So youre not arguing that sex is just 'fun' like a lot
> of people who post here?
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.
>
> "think you're posting this topic for the exact reasons you
> mention; you want to identify yourself as someone who doesn't
> "follow the crowd". Most people your age just wear black T
> shirts to achieve that effect. But whatever makes you feel special,
> well you knock yourself out." lol. I used to wear pretty
> much nothing but black or dark blue. (sigh) those were the days.
Heh. That's the most graceful reply to an obvious baiting line I've read in a while.
>
> "If you were just inviting comments about sex before and
> after marriage, then I wouldn't be accusing you of being a preachy,
> self important teenager who wants the world to see just what an
> individual he is." I really dont care what the world thinks,
> you should see my hair.. All Im saying is consider it, not every
> single person in the world wants or does have casual sex.
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.
>
> "Well, bully for you. I'm detecting a huge amount of
> resentment toward people who do brag about their sexual conquests.
> Did it ever occur to you that they might be...well, lying in order to
> look impressive?" Yes, of course, thats part of the problem.
> Why would I want to know what they did, or thought they did with some
> person I dont know? And its not even impressive. Ive had people brag
> to me about getting a handjob. You dont even need another person to
> do that. lol.
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?
>
> "Also, you do know it's possible to have sex before marriage
> WITHOUT turning into 'Hormono - Scourge of Virgins and Taker of
> Hymens', right? You seem to view this as either one extreme or the
> other" If you read my earlier posts you'll see I dont have
> as much a problem with pre marital sex as I do with casual sex. Most
> of the time Im talking about casual sex. Keep that in mind.
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?
>
> "And again, good for you. I don't care if you wait, or if you
> shove your meaty wand into every magic hole that takes your fancy.
> Really; whatever gets you through the night is A-ok (although trying
> to brag about and prove your masculinity via the internet is somewhat
> counter-productive). I'm fully aware that you don't WANT to get some
> random sexual partner. Are you fully aware that some people don't
> WANT to wait until after marriage because a 1,500 year old book told
> them to?" Whos bragging? I actually dont know if I COULD
> wait indefinitely for 'the one', but having found them makes it a lot
> easier.
Who's bragging? Heh; who posted a topic specifically about waiting until after marriage for sex?
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?
>
>
> "Hmm...I do find myself agreeing with that to an extent. I'd
> go further; religions have no right to tell anyone what to do. And
> yet here you are, telling me that because I don't follow your
> approach, I must be some kind soulless and empty man for whom sex has
> no meaning. ("ever active chomp bar"? Wha...?). Also, when
> does "guiding (and) pointing out wrong doing" turn into
> "Telling someone what to do"?" Where was I telling
> you that? All I said was that those of us who decide to wait
> generally find more meaning in sex. People have posted in here saying
> that sex is just fun. The chomp bar, well..I was running out of
> phrases for PENIS. AS for guidance, if people believe that,
> say, premarital sex is wrong, but find themselves tempted, then they
> can get guidance, or if they arent sure whether something is a sin,
> like goat slaughtering, I dunno.
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.
>
> "But that said, do you follow the other religious tenets I
> outlined, or not? Cos if not, aren't you picking and choosing the
> points of your faith you choose to follow?" Not really, I
> havent joined any one faither yet, I know SOME things I
> agree/disagree with but not enough to focus on any one faith I think
> suits me best. Do you think there is one true faith, or its all just
> whatever suits you best?
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.
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 isn't a dig at you, but I've noticed that fundamentalists who claim to follow the literal word of the Bible generally don't know it in as much detail as they think, and are happy to follow their own interpretations of the Bible whilst simoultaneously pretending that they're still only following the exact literal word. And, speaking personally, I'd like to boil those people in white hot faecal pustules.
Page: