Should Christians have sex?
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
No screw-up. Plan.
that's sadistic
Tell Him. And no, I think it was preparatory, not sadistic. Do parents make rules for their children? Do they enforce those rules by backing them up with punishments? Don't those who don't end up raising spolied brats who never learn the nature of the real world -- that it is cruel to those who act irresponsibly?
Fact: Children learn by correction.
Parents aren't omnipotent.
calandale wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
No screw-up. Plan.
that's sadistic
THAT'S what I've been saying.
What Christians would have one
believe leads ANY honorable person
to hate, not love, their God.
What do you think about the story of Job? The story begins with Job having many blessings in his life: good wife, good children, good servants, property, cattle, crops, etc. Then, Satan makes a bet with God that Satan can make Job curse God. God accepts the bet, with the condition that Satan not take Job's life. Calamity starts to befall everything Job holds dear: his crops and cattle are taken from him, and his children die, and his health deteriorates. Also, his friends nag him with various of their philosophies for why Job "deserves" this bad treatment from God. And last of all, his wife nags him sorely, and recommends that Job "curse God and die". (She's not related to calandale.) In Job 2:10, Job replies to his wife. "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
Through all this, Job does not curse God -- though, as we all most certainly would, he whines a great deal to God. I know I definitely would! But then, God restores all Job's former blessings -- and He DOUBLES THEM.
Now, I argue that Job's latter state was much better than his former, and that God blessed him in love with double what Job had before. Clearly, God didn't have to make it double -- or even restore it at all, frankly -- but He did. BECAUSE HE IS LOVE. Why else would He do it?
Ragtime wrote:
What do you think about the story of Job? The story begins with Job having many blessings in his life: good wife, good children, good servants, property, cattle, crops, etc. Then, Satan makes a bet with God that Satan can make Job curse God. God accepts the bet, with the condition that Satan not take Job's life. Calamity starts to befall everything Job holds dear: his crops and cattle are taken from him, and his children die, and his health deteriorates. Also, his friends nag him with various of their philosophies for why Job "deserves" this bad treatment from God. And last of all, his wife nags him sorely, and recommends that Job "curse God and die". (She's not related to calandale.) In Job 2:10, Job replies to his wife. "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
Through all this, Job does not curse God -- though, as we all most certainly would, he whines a great deal to God. I know I definitely would! But then, God restores all Job's former blessings -- and He DOUBLES THEM.
Now, I argue that Job's latter state was much better than his former, and that God blessed him in love with double what Job had before. Clearly, God didn't have to make it double -- or even restore it at all, frankly -- but He did. BECAUSE HE IS LOVE. Why else would He do it?
Why, oh why, would some beautiful being,
such as you suppose, make this kind of bet?
Doesn't it strike you as approximately the
same as a man betting his wife in a poker
game? Look, I don't care if he split some
of the winnings with Job (just as a man
might buy his wife a present), it's the bet
itself that was terrible.
What an awful story.
calandale wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
... God restores all Job's former blessings -- and He DOUBLES THEM....
... Doesn't it strike you as approximately the same as a man betting his wife in a poker game? Look, I don't care if he split some of the winnings with Job (just as a man might buy his wife a present), it's the bet itself that was terrible.
What an awful story.
but there are 2 sides to every story.
I won my wife in a poker game
_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!
BazzaMcKenzie wrote:
calandale wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
... God restores all Job's former blessings -- and He DOUBLES THEM....
... Doesn't it strike you as approximately the same as a man betting his wife in a poker game? Look, I don't care if he split some of the winnings with Job (just as a man might buy his wife a present), it's the bet itself that was terrible.
What an awful story.
but there are 2 sides to every story.
I won my wife in a poker game
No s**t?
Hmm...but that still doesn't make the guy
that bet her any better (or bettor). I mean,
just because Satan was in the right, with his
game (attacking that insufferable pride and all -
notice how the sins we are not allowed are simply
dripping off of the Christian God?), doesn't make
God's stance any stronger.
calandale wrote:
No sh**?
no - lol. Because some people (not saying you) take things too literally, no - I was joking.
But back when I was "desparate and dateless" whenever I was asked if I had a gf, I used to like saying I used to, but lost her in a poker game
_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!
BazzaMcKenzie wrote:
no - lol. Because some people (not saying you) take things too literally, no - I was joking.
Funny thing is, some of us have had odd
enough lives that something like that MIGHT
have a shred of truth in it. Like meeting someone
on a winning night, and seeing it that way.
Ragtime wrote:
cosmiccat wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Ragtime: I think you are a sincere guy. I think you truly want to "save" the world. My problem with you is your approach. I think your above statement is ridiculous. It's a lot like your poll in the "Contrarian" thread. Why is it so important, or necessary for people to "concede" to it? It's time for me to lay my cards on the table with you. I don't want to play the age card, because I do not believe that age necessarily equals wisdom. But I have been around for a long time, 65 years to be exact. Much of my childhood was spent surrounded by people very much like you. They were supposed to be my loving family, but they were my tormentors and my abusers. I'm not talking about sexual abuse, I'm talking about emotional abuse. They wanted other people to think just like them and live just like them and be just like them. They wanted people to "concede" to that same statement above. And if those people would not concede, in addition to being damned to hell upon their deaths, they would be subjected to hell on earth by those same people who were so determined to "save" them. I could never figure this out.
My mother's father was the ring-leader, the head tormentor; Ira, the Baptist, is how I refer to him. He was a Southern Baptist and believed that each soul he saved would be a "jewel in his crown" when he got to heaven. He went door to door, with the preacher, on their mission to make people concede to that statement. "Repent and Be Saved". There's nothing wrong with that. It could even be viewed as admirable, zealous, magnanimous. The problem is, he hurt far more people than he saved.
My father was Italian and Catholic. Two strikes against him right off the bat. My dad was a kind, intelligent, gentle man. I never witnessed him saying anything vicious about anyone. He brought all of my mother's family down out of the coal mines and poverty of the mountains in Pennsylvania, and helped them all to get jobs and a place to live. And yet, my grandfather hated him because he was Italian and Catholic. I wanted my grandfather to love me as he seemed to love my many cousins who were Baptist. So I snuck off to the Baptist church with him and my grandmother, I sang their hymns and studied the bible. Even though I was only eight years old at the time, I let them "save" me, and baptize me in the pool. I conceded, "Yes, I'm a sinner. Yes, I repent. Yes, I want to be saved." I'll do anything for your love, Grampa. Love me as my as you love my cousins.
Looking back on that now, I think it was a form of child abuse. I was only a jewel in his crown when he got to heaven. But I was always the outcast, because I was Italian and my father was Catholic.
My grandfather and some of my aunts and uncles like to tell me terrible stories of how my father would be going to hell. About the Knights of Columbus, of which my father was a member, and how they were led by the devil and going to try and take over the world and kill everyone who was not Catholic, and slice open the bellies of pregnant protestants and kill their babies.
I remember becoming hysterical upon hearing those words and sobbing to them that "My father would never do anything like that. My father is good." That's why I become so enraged by your bigoted remarks about Catholics and your refusal to see that a person's religion does not determine where he spends eternity, if you even believe in eternity. It's what's in his heart and his soul, it's how he treats the rest of humanity, especially those who are different than him.
Quote:
Getting saved and having all your sins forgiven is easy -- can we concede that?
Ragtime: I think you are a sincere guy. I think you truly want to "save" the world. My problem with you is your approach. I think your above statement is ridiculous. It's a lot like your poll in the "Contrarian" thread. Why is it so important, or necessary for people to "concede" to it? It's time for me to lay my cards on the table with you. I don't want to play the age card, because I do not believe that age necessarily equals wisdom. But I have been around for a long time, 65 years to be exact. Much of my childhood was spent surrounded by people very much like you. They were supposed to be my loving family, but they were my tormentors and my abusers. I'm not talking about sexual abuse, I'm talking about emotional abuse. They wanted other people to think just like them and live just like them and be just like them. They wanted people to "concede" to that same statement above. And if those people would not concede, in addition to being damned to hell upon their deaths, they would be subjected to hell on earth by those same people who were so determined to "save" them. I could never figure this out.
My mother's father was the ring-leader, the head tormentor; Ira, the Baptist, is how I refer to him. He was a Southern Baptist and believed that each soul he saved would be a "jewel in his crown" when he got to heaven. He went door to door, with the preacher, on their mission to make people concede to that statement. "Repent and Be Saved". There's nothing wrong with that. It could even be viewed as admirable, zealous, magnanimous. The problem is, he hurt far more people than he saved.
My father was Italian and Catholic. Two strikes against him right off the bat. My dad was a kind, intelligent, gentle man. I never witnessed him saying anything vicious about anyone. He brought all of my mother's family down out of the coal mines and poverty of the mountains in Pennsylvania, and helped them all to get jobs and a place to live. And yet, my grandfather hated him because he was Italian and Catholic. I wanted my grandfather to love me as he seemed to love my many cousins who were Baptist. So I snuck off to the Baptist church with him and my grandmother, I sang their hymns and studied the bible. Even though I was only eight years old at the time, I let them "save" me, and baptize me in the pool. I conceded, "Yes, I'm a sinner. Yes, I repent. Yes, I want to be saved." I'll do anything for your love, Grampa. Love me as my as you love my cousins.
Looking back on that now, I think it was a form of child abuse. I was only a jewel in his crown when he got to heaven. But I was always the outcast, because I was Italian and my father was Catholic.
My grandfather and some of my aunts and uncles like to tell me terrible stories of how my father would be going to hell. About the Knights of Columbus, of which my father was a member, and how they were led by the devil and going to try and take over the world and kill everyone who was not Catholic, and slice open the bellies of pregnant protestants and kill their babies.
I remember becoming hysterical upon hearing those words and sobbing to them that "My father would never do anything like that. My father is good." That's why I become so enraged by your bigoted remarks about Catholics and your refusal to see that a person's religion does not determine where he spends eternity, if you even believe in eternity. It's what's in his heart and his soul, it's how he treats the rest of humanity, especially those who are different than him.
Hopefully I can save you some time in the future by letting you know now that I know where my salvation comes from. And it's not from good works, as you claim. And I'm not "bigoted" against Catholics, as you so slander me. If you'd read my comments about their unbiblical beliefs more carefully, you'd see that quite clearly. I criticize their leaders, because they are decieving their flocks. Jesus criticized the Jewish religious leaders for the same reason, and did so through the same method: Scripture. Are you okay with the child molestation? I've made my position clear: It needs to stop NOW. And some people are going to get offended in the process. We can have a crying fest for those people AFTER we get these kids out of harm's way. Tell us now where you stand on the issue.
I liked how Ragtime totally avoided cosmiccat's question and basically said yes it is OK to abuse children and then made some illogical leap to in turn slander Jewish people. He dismissed cosmiccat's valid point about child abuse and then says you have to stop sexual abuse. In some cases, violent and emotional abuse can have a worse affect on a child then sexual abuse, which is not to say sexual abuse isn't equally serious. I just like how Ragtime is able to put someone down in one go and then behave as if he is out to save people in another: therein lays the story of Christian conquest.
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
No screw-up. Plan.
that's sadistic
Tell Him. And no, I think it was preparatory, not sadistic. Do parents make rules for their children? Do they enforce those rules by backing them up with punishments? Don't those who don't end up raising spolied brats who never learn the nature of the real world -- that it is cruel to those who act irresponsibly?
Fact: Children learn by correction.
No they learn by indoctrination... it is there natural skills to negoiate that really help them learn. They realise adults want certian things, adn for them to get certian things, they behave a certian way.... any similarities with the paternalistic overtones of Christianity here?
HelloHello wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Sex is for atheists.
So whacha waitin' for?
But seriously, I don't care if I never have it again.
You've obviously never had good sex.
Oh, you're soooooo, sooooooooo wrong. Good sex does this to you, but in a good way:
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
cosmiccat wrote:
Quoting Ragtime:
Thank you for bringing that misquote to my attention.
"Stupid is as Stupid does."
I stand corrected.
As for non sequitur - it depends on the size and shape of your ballpark.
Quote:
Slight misquote from Gump aside, your preaching is non-sequitur to my question.
Thank you for bringing that misquote to my attention.
"Stupid is as Stupid does."
I stand corrected.
As for non sequitur - it depends on the size and shape of your ballpark.
Well, I asked a question about doctrine, and you responded with a snooze-length ad hominem instead of the answer.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.