The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So yeh, enlighten me...
"... By extending this concept of sinfulness to the human method of procreation, every person conceived through human sexual intercourse was to be considered born in sin and therefore spiritually condemned. What a frightful dilemma this created! Every time a man and woman conceived and gave birth to a child, they had condemned a spiritual being; yet the human drives which produce children are strong. The religious teaching of automatic spiritual condemnation because of human procreation generated a powerful conflict between the drive for spiritual freedom and the physical drive to reproduce.
The result was intense anxiety on the subject of sex and an increase in noneprocreative sexual activity, such as homosexuality, autoeroticism, noneprocreative forms of intercourse, pornography, voyeurism and abortion. The irony in this is clear. Those religions which have strongly condemned the 'inherent sin' in all human beings have also been those which have most vocally opposed noneprocreative sex.
These teachings had another important effect. They helped reduce human resistance to engaging in war. It is easier for a religious person to kill another person if he/she believes that person to be inherently sinful."
>
> Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with mankind, as with
> womankind: it is an abomination." Straight from God.
An old testament quote? Which is superceded by the New Testament? Yup, thought so.
Oh, and as damn near everyone on this board has questioned yours and Gump's opinion that the Bible is the direct word of God, and as you've not provided any rebuttal of those very many valid doubts (though kudos to you for admitting it's a matter of faith), d'you think you could stop relying solely on the Bible for your arguments and hoping they will stop the debate dead? Thank you so much!
> Muh.
> So he didn't pre-destine anything - that would imply he's already
> decided what's going to happen. He just knows what's going to happen,
> the events themselves are beyond his control.
>
> Which begs the question: why didn't he at least try to stop all this
> nasty stuff happening if he knew it was going to? He hasn't raised a
> finger. Well, the middle one.
If they're out of his control, he can't be omnipotent, either, can he?
> gaybys wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Yeah, FF, you wanna explain that 'God pre-destined all' comment,
> which
> basically negates everything you say you stand for and believe in.
>
> God knows what will happen in the future, because He is outside of
> time.
Muh.
So he didn't pre-destine anything - that would imply he's already decided what's going to happen. He just knows what's going to happen, the events themselves are beyond his control.
Which begs the question: why didn't he at least try to stop all this nasty stuff happening if he knew it was going to? He hasn't raised a finger. Well, the middle one.
> And if you're going to use 'Honour' in your nickname, at least spell
> it correctly. =P
And if you're going to criticize something, at least know to what it refers.
> gaybys wrote:
> But the fall of man was in Adam's time... It was him and Eve who ate
> the naughty fruit, no?
>
> Yes, it was, we don't have a specific date for when the children were
> born, though.
Still doesn't stop it from being inbreading after they were kicked out, as it were. In essance the bible says we all have a limited gene pool...
> how convenient.
Er... yes, well the Bible does fit together...
And don't be such a dunce about the comma thing, he was obviously just telling you to use them properly.
> But the fall of man was in Adam's time... It was him and Eve who ate
> the naughty fruit, no?
Yes, it was, we don't have a specific date for when the children were born, though.