Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Should Christians have sex?

Page 4 of 7 [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

23 Jul 2007, 9:36 pm

cosmiccat wrote:
Ragtime. I now see that you play dirty. You go back and add comments to your posts after the fact, and change words to make the argument appear different than it was at the time of original posting.

I didn't change anything. What's with the false accusations? I'm rarely satisfied with my exact wordings, and change them up to two minutes after I post, but that's to satisfy my finicky neuroses, not to deceive. I would have no reason to do so, for I feel this argument is pretty cut and dried. You're new here, so let me explain that, when you make a post quoting me, my words are set in stone, as it were -- I cannot change them. So, my words which you quote in your responses never change, and the mods will confirm this principle.
cosmiccat wrote:
Matthew Chapter 11, verses 12-14 and 20 & 21

And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry.

And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

And Jesus answered and said unto it, "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever." And his disciples heard it.

And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.

And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.

Ragtime, my business with you is now finished. In my mind you have withered away. To your relief and delight I am sure.


Well, "relief" on my part now that you've stopped would have required some better arguments on your part, and I'm not so much "delighted" as simply less annoyed. In future, try not to hurl random slanders toward other WP members you hardly know. Focusing on the issues is more beneficial.



Last edited by Ragtime on 23 Jul 2007, 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MADDuck
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 823
Location: Mid-Mo

23 Jul 2007, 9:43 pm

personally, I say YES to the question!
My name IS Christian, and I enjoy having sex, early and often!
:D


_________________
Pain and pleasure are the twins who slowly out of focus spin around us until we finally realize, that everything that gives us pleasure also gives us pain to measure it by!


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

23 Jul 2007, 11:58 pm

MADDuck wrote:
personally, I say YES to the question!
My name IS Christian, and I enjoy having sex, early and often!
:D


:lol:


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

24 Jul 2007, 1:27 am

Gee, I've always found Ragtime's
willingness to engage a major point
in his favor. I don't tend to agree with
him at all (nor any mortals), but at
least he sees that his beliefs require
some defense.



HelloHello
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 83
Location: Sydney, Australia

24 Jul 2007, 4:43 am

Ragtime wrote:
O-kay...
Stake burnings were conducted by Catholics, as directly ordered by popes over a period of 600 years. That's one itty-bitty problem I have with their doctrines. I am not, nor have I ever been Catholic. And I would be most clearly violating my Bible if I ever took part in such practices: "Do violence to no man", said John the Baptist in Luke 3:14.


Wrong, absolutely wrong. You don't even know the history of your Church. The very origins of the Baptist faith was formed in the ashes of burning women.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

24 Jul 2007, 8:27 am

HelloHello wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
O-kay...
Stake burnings were conducted by Catholics, as directly ordered by popes over a period of 600 years. That's one itty-bitty problem I have with their doctrines. I am not, nor have I ever been Catholic. And I would be most clearly violating my Bible if I ever took part in such practices: "Do violence to no man", said John the Baptist in Luke 3:14.


Wrong, absolutely wrong. You don't even know the history of your Church. The very origins of the Baptist faith was formed in the ashes of burning women.


I'm not a Baptist. :wink: So, before you say I don't know the history of my Church, it might help you to know what my Church is. But, by all means, don't let the facts get in your way... :roll:


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


cosmiccat
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,504
Location: Philadelphia

24 Jul 2007, 9:29 am

As per Skafather's topic: Should Cristians have sex?

Absolutely, and lots of it. Be fruitful and multiply and have fun doing it. The fun of sex is built in via the libido. Show me a person with a repressed libido and I'll show you a person with a sick and suffering soul. A healthy libido is a gift from God.


BTW, We're having a bed-in over at the Ex-Dino Cafe in the Getting to know you section. Everyone's invited. Music, Poetry, Love, Peace, Fun.

NO FUN POLICE PERMITTED.



HelloHello
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 83
Location: Sydney, Australia

24 Jul 2007, 9:57 am

Ragtime wrote:
HelloHello wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
O-kay...
Stake burnings were conducted by Catholics, as directly ordered by popes over a period of 600 years. That's one itty-bitty problem I have with their doctrines. I am not, nor have I ever been Catholic. And I would be most clearly violating my Bible if I ever took part in such practices: "Do violence to no man", said John the Baptist in Luke 3:14.


Wrong, absolutely wrong. You don't even know the history of your Church. The very origins of the Baptist faith was formed in the ashes of burning women.


I'm not a Baptist. :wink: So, before you say I don't know the history of my Church, it might help you to know what my Church is. But, by all means, don't let the facts get in your way... :roll:


Which one then? Because every denomination that has been around for longer then 300 years has been involved in burnings.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

24 Jul 2007, 10:17 am

HelloHello wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
HelloHello wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
O-kay...
Stake burnings were conducted by Catholics, as directly ordered by popes over a period of 600 years. That's one itty-bitty problem I have with their doctrines. I am not, nor have I ever been Catholic. And I would be most clearly violating my Bible if I ever took part in such practices: "Do violence to no man", said John the Baptist in Luke 3:14.


Wrong, absolutely wrong. You don't even know the history of your Church. The very origins of the Baptist faith was formed in the ashes of burning women.


I'm not a Baptist. :wink: So, before you say I don't know the history of my Church, it might help you to know what my Church is. But, by all means, don't let the facts get in your way... :roll:


Which one then? Because every denomination that has been around for longer then 300 years has been involved in burnings.


What a useless statistic, when the Bible clearly tells us that murderers are not of God. And in all likelihood, you have murderers in your geneaology. And in all likelihood, so do I. What does that matter today, when we both reject murder and always have? People have been murdered throughout history in the name of everything imaginable, and that human legacy goes on. Clue into reality, please.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

24 Jul 2007, 12:07 pm

Ragtime wrote:

What a useless statistic, when the Bible clearly tells us that murderers are not of God. .


But it doesn't define what murder means.
Those burned at the stake, were NOT seen
as murdered, any more than proponents of
capital punishment see the state as a murderer.
Nor are soldiers in a war seen as murders; nor
people defending their family, during an attack.

Are you so extreme as to renounce violence
at all? THIS is what Christ's message would
seem to be, but so few of his followers adhere
to it, as to make them seem almost completely
hypocritical.

Certainly, the Jews never viewed the Old Testament
as being so extreme. Which is why Christ was such
a radical philosopher - one with a message so powerful,
that it was perverted by his later followers.



HelloHello
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 83
Location: Sydney, Australia

25 Jul 2007, 1:10 am

calandale wrote:
Ragtime wrote:

What a useless statistic, when the Bible clearly tells us that murderers are not of God. .


But it doesn't define what murder means.
Those burned at the stake, were NOT seen
as murdered, any more than proponents of
capital punishment see the state as a murderer.
Nor are soldiers in a war seen as murders; nor
people defending their family, during an attack.

Are you so extreme as to renounce violence
at all? THIS is what Christ's message would
seem to be, but so few of his followers adhere
to it, as to make them seem almost completely
hypocritical.

Certainly, the Jews never viewed the Old Testament
as being so extreme. Which is why Christ was such
a radical philosopher - one with a message so powerful,
that it was perverted by his later followers.


I notice in that you don't mention the Holocaust. Were the Jews murdered? Why is it ok for people to say Jewish people were murdered, but not ok for the same to be said about women murdered by the Church? I'm sure if you asked the women who were murdered, they'd say they were. But that's the thing, we can't so we just presume it was done in a time of craze. It was trails, craze or hunts. But it hardly is it ever called genocide or murder, even though it meets the definitions.



HelloHello
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 83
Location: Sydney, Australia

25 Jul 2007, 1:20 am

Ragtime wrote:

What a useless statistic, when the Bible clearly tells us that murderers are not of God. And in all likelihood, you have murderers in your geneaology. And in all likelihood, so do I. What does that matter today, when we both reject murder and always have? People have been murdered throughout history in the name of everything imaginable, and that human legacy goes on. Clue into reality, please.

The past is not a useless statistic. Doesn't the Bible advise people to consider the past so as to not make the same mistakes again?
The Bible also clearly says you shouldn't be condescneding, yet you are (cf. Clue into reality please.)

Having a blood relative from 7 generations ago is different from choosing a faith based on oppression and murder. You picked which faith you pursued and therefore are responsible for whether your core belief system has a murderous past. You can't say that to long dead relatives. For example, one might argue German Fascism is a adequete belief system but someone could very possible it has a murderous past, and that would be a legitmate concern for any thinking person. A thinking person doesn't want to be associated with murders, no? A sizable portion has been commited under the name of religion, more so then economics or other politics. You evaded my question about which domination you belong to and in your discussion you're not applying the main tenets of the Bible.



calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

25 Jul 2007, 5:49 am

HelloHello wrote:
Having a blood relative from 7 generations ago is different from choosing a faith based on oppression and murder..


I'm not quite sure how this got here
(ah, I've been following but my brain
doesn't hold too much lately), but
why is there a problem with oppression
and murder again? Is there some reason
people recoil from these things?



HelloHello
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 83
Location: Sydney, Australia

25 Jul 2007, 5:52 am

calandale wrote:
HelloHello wrote:
Having a blood relative from 7 generations ago is different from choosing a faith based on oppression and murder..


I'm not quite sure how this got here
(ah, I've been following but my brain
doesn't hold too much lately), but
why is there a problem with oppression
and murder again? Is there some reason
people recoil from these things?


How are they right?



UnrelentingHorror
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 225
Location: The county of oranges, California.

25 Jul 2007, 6:19 am

HelloHello wrote:
calandale wrote:
HelloHello wrote:
Having a blood relative from 7 generations ago is different from choosing a faith based on oppression and murder..


I'm not quite sure how this got here
(ah, I've been following but my brain
doesn't hold too much lately), but
why is there a problem with oppression
and murder again? Is there some reason
people recoil from these things?


How are they right?


I think it was a joke lol.


But if you want to take the new fangled moral relativety route....

Calandale could easily turn around and say "how are they wrong? the only reason you question me is because it is based on your societal values.
I posit this possibility, in a vacuum outside of cultural influence the opression and murder of other 'packs' or tribes of humans, especially for ones own benefit.
Is actually in keeping with the natural order of things, predator and prey. Certainly ur predations may take forms different than others in the animal kingdom but that doesn't mean its wrong or unnatural plus it weeds out the week."

Thats simply a devil's advocate view though I don't personally believe it and there are many many valid and logical arguments to it, not the least of which being "but it could be argued that the formation of cultural values, in particular the social compact theory applying, is in fact natural itself. You already ceded certain natural social structures such as pack or tribe being a natural formation so why not law, government, and the other varried minutiae of human society could not they be evolutionary traits? namely the compacts against murder being tied into the survival instinct in a way?"


I went waaay off topic didnt I? Sorry about that. :oops:



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

28 Jul 2007, 5:20 pm

calandale wrote:
I'd say no.
They are too likely
to spawn, an evil in
and of itself.

Then, if they do, they
are likely to raise their
children as such.

I think that the only rightful
choice would be to enter
a monastic life.


You should check out the birth rate among catholics, they must be screwing like rabbits. I'm sure a decent percentage of those births are outside wedlock, thereby making their stance against premarital sex a hypocracy. But then again near about everything they spout off is hypocracy. They (and other christian extremists) vigilantly deny rights to the mentally and physically disabled, the poor, gays, bi's, and anyone who believes in a different religion, they've historically persecuted blacks, native americans, they condemn, hide, or withhold any proven research that goes counter to their already-made beliefs (even if that means more hardship for others), and they parade around with their "superior morality" :roll: