Really?

That sounds exactly like being married.

This kind of thing should be done BEFORE making such a legally binding commitment as marriage. But I guess it often isn't? That must explain the high divorce rate.

Oh, so Marriage is a magical cure for sexually transmitted diseases? For the record, refusal to marry does not make one a careless, disease-ridden slattern.

If you've been married before, what then? And just to restate a previous point; having sex before marriage is no indication that you've had sex before.

Indeed, it's totally unheard of for married couples to be distant and cold to each other. (<This sentence is me trying sarcasm.)

Ever heard of Divorce?

Married couples shouldn't keep things from each other.

I'm glad you and your got lucky by finding that you were compatible. I'm not saying it's wrong to never have sex until you're married, just that for me, it's too much of a crapshoot to trust in luck to find someone compatible.

A friend of mine's mother-in-law was old-school and married her husband without ever having had sex. She always considered it a chore and didn't like it. After 30 years of marriage, she went to a counselor to discuss her issues because she couldn't believe he still wanted to have sex at the age of 50. She asked the counselor if she should just tell him she had always hated sex and ask him if it would be OK for them to never have sex again. The counselor told her, "Not if you love him and enjoy being married to him.". She told him anyway. Now these recen't divorcees are 50 year-olds, him trying to find the partner he had always thought he already had, she's content with being alone until she dies.

I know this isn't a typical situation (at least not as far as the severity), but I've known many people who had a BF/GF that either wanted sex too much or not enough. At least these people won't be stupid enough to get married and lock themselves into a battle of excuses versus seduction for however long they can hold on and stay together.

The fact that people cheat on their partners shows that they are committing themselves to the wrong people in the first place. Now, this doesn't mean it's a sexual incompatibility. Sex is obviously just one area where the partners need to be on the same page (or at least in the same chapter) to have a life-long relationship. My point is: Why not get to know your prospective partner as thoroughly as possible before making a committment?

Sure, if you take the old church position that forn-ni-cay-shun is a sin and that sex is a precious gift you women can choose to bestow on the filthy beasts (we call ourselves men), then you're losing something by having sex before marriage. To me, you're gaining experience.

Basically, I'm saying it's great if you happened to be someone who ran into the perfectly compatible partner for yourself the first try, then kudos. On the other hand, if you are either picky or just don't meet someone compatible, I don't really see looking down on someone for not living the life of a monk.

You feel that sex is often a "supernatural" experience that starts with 2 people in love with other. That's fine.
I feel like sex is a healthy, natural experience that starts with 2 people who turn each other on. I don't see the problem with this.

Well, the context of the topic is based of the Abrahamic religions. Of course, if one does not adhere to those religions, then this topic would be irrelavant to them.

I don't know. I don't find the Bible's advice to be nonsense. Like the Qur'an, Buddha's teachings, the Bhagavad-Gita, etc., I think there are good moral teachings there. Especially in Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

I don't see how refraining from pre-marital sex is attempting to control women.

While I do not adhere to any religion, I would be more attracted to a woman who kept herself pure, put a value on her body, and gave herself only to me, and no other person. A truly unique gift. A Muslim friend told me a story once. She said that she brought in a plate of candies to her students one day. Chocolates wrapped in foil. And she left 3 of them with the foil opened. The children ate all the candies, except the opened ones. She asked them why. And they said "We knew the other candies were new. But those ones were already been opened. We don't know what someone else did to them."

That's not true. Men should remain pure also. Just as much as women. As for checking the hymen, etc.? Well, that's too far to me. If you don't trust the person, then you shouldn't be with them in the first place. And as you mentioned, it's not a guarantee anyhow. Acidents in sports and such can tear it. It is true though, that some religions require proof of virginity. Personally, I think that's wierd.

Well, that's debatable. Is something bad because we make it bad? Or is it bad because it is bad? I disagree with Culteral Antropology that right and wrong are determined simply by the context of a society. Pretty much everyone in the world does not want you to kill them, steal their stuff, or have sex with their spouse. There seems to be a certain set of universal axioms to life. When Hitler reigned with his Nazi party, he and most of the citizens thought that what they were doing was great. Of course most people agree now that it was pretty evil.

As for premarital sex. Well, if one holds to a certain set of morals that are against it, then they shouldn't do it. If two consenting adults, who have no problem with premarital sex want to partake in it, I don't see anything wrong with that either. If I am correct in my understanding, this whole question only becomes a problem when one side tries to force the other to adhere to their own beliefs. Or when a religion tries to legislate laws.

I agree and hold much the same attitude on live-and-let-live. I personally took the OP to be a matter of why religions want to control people's sex lives by branding people sinners.

The topic has just evolved into: What are the possible social ramifications of a world where no one has premarital sex?

As far as the culture deciding right/wrong versus a universal truth kind of thing, I disagree with you. Sure people want to protect themselves and what they consider theirs, but mob rule has always been in effect and probably always will as far as morals are concerned.

You are making me very curious of your age, MadMachine. I don't think I said anything wrong here, yet you sound so angry.

I'm sorry I came off as angry. That tends to happen when I feel a little playful. I'm 18 as of Nov.29th of last year. I have no experience with relationships, but the stuff I said should have been common sense...

Anyone who follows that must also be put to death if you work on sunday. Also if your child doesent listen to you u must stone him to death infront of his father. Everybody says that the old testament doesent count since those were so barbaric times. The old testament also condones slavery, and has very strict rules as to how to treat your slaves. Is there picking a choosing going on?

I don't see where it mentions being put to death for working on Sunday. Also as Sunday is an irrelavant day in the the Bible, I don't see that likely to be stated at all.
I didn't see that in the passage either....
I think the Old Testament doesn't count, because it's not part of my religion. What about you?
The Bible never condones slavery, nor has any rules for it. Pardon?

I don't want to back up any wierd religions, but we gotta stick to the facts, if we are going to criticize people.

go read it

Genesis chapter 17, verse 12:

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.

here god understands people buy slaves and seems comfortable with it.

Exodus chapter 12 verse 43:

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.

same here, there is more about the slavery i could post i think this is enough

Exodus 35:2

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.


Deut 21:18-21

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid

maybe i have the wrong bible

1-You're right - saturday was the sabbath, the catholic church changed it to sunday.

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

2-If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

3- The old testament was Jesus's religion - shouldn't it be yours?

4- Some slavery rules:
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Ex.21:2-6

Heh - parallel thought processes...

haha yeah

I have. In 24 languages. I have copies from 2,300 years ago that I study. In Hebrew and Greek. No offense, but it sounds like you know very little about the Bible, and are just attacking it, because many Protstants are crazy. I would agree that many are. But their Scriptures are not as crazy as many of them.

Why do you think that? It doesn't say it. And reading into verses is what causes so many problems for Protestants.

You are miss quoting the passage. It never says "slave". The actual word used is "עבד", which in English would be "servant". A further explanation would be "contracted emplyee". Very different than "slave", being "forced labour". The status of an "עבד", while very low on the food chain, was nevertheless a positive thing, and a situation not only better than what little other options one had, but strictly voluntary. And for this, the rules were very extensive, and better than any known in the ancient wotld. I challenge you to show me even one passage that condones slavery. There may be one. I doubt it though.

The Sabbath was very significant. The holiest day on the Jewish calander. Sunday, however, is not relavant. And the Sabbath is not relavant to most Christians.


Nowhere in that passage does it say anything to the effect of "Also if your child doesent listen to you u must stone him to death infront of his father."

It sounds like you have the right Bible, but that you are simply sating falsehoods about it. I only hope it is unintentional...

You've got a 2300 year old copy of the bible? That's very impressive. I have little doubt biblical scholars have offered you a fortune for it...

what i said that it says, maybe wasnt exactly what the bible said because i wasnt actually reading it, but you get what i meant.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

and gods saying its ok to beat your servants if they get up after a day or two?

whether hes saying servant or slave, that sounds a lot to me like a slave.

Ah, but there is an absolutely certain way of knowing whether or not your wife is sleeping around.

Direct from the mouth of the Almighty God himself:

Numbers 5:

11 Then the LORD said to Moses,
12 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him
13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act),
14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure— or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—
15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt.
16 'The priest shall bring her and make her stand before the LORD.
17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water.
18 After the priest has made the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse.
19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.
20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband—
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath— may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell.
22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away.'Then the woman is to say, Amen. So be it.
23 'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water.
24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering.
25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar.
26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to make the woman drink the water.
27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people.
28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 'This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband,
30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to make her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her.
31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.'

That sounds nearly as reasonable as throwing her in a lake and if she drowns she is innocent and it she floats she is guilty.

Most of the "sins"
and 'commandments' are the same in many other sets of beliefs,most out date Christianity by eons,but few seem to acknowledge them,and they where not so much control methods (at first) but more like good ideas to live by,like "don't poop in your own bed" ...unless your in to that kind of thing,then...its..um..im sure thats a sin.

anyways,im not shooting down the idea of getting some,trust me,sex is good! but anything to indulgent leads to a lot of issues.
stds,unplanned kids,massive adultery based drama,ruined families and many other elements of the jerry springer show are all the result of unchecked primal urges.

sin aside,sex has ALWAYS been a control method,this is apparent in our daily life as consumers and in the animal kingdom as well,alpha males compete for mates,commercials have sexy people pose by there products,boobs are used to sell cars,the desire to get some is one of the strongest driving forces biological life has and a huge part of the self preservation instinct.

sins and such often work on the principle that indulgence often leads to destruction,moderation is key.

It is litteraly amazing the willfull ignorance regarding old test Jewish law, that #1 was never meant for the gentiles (anyone who isnt a Jew) and #2 How the new covenet from Jesus free's us from the law so we belong to him, instead of the law.

Romans 7
4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

No, atheist's completely get that. We are, however, slightly confused that there seem to be some Christians that are okay with eating Shrimp, but still think Homosexuality is an abomination, but other than that we get the whole "Get out of Old Testament Law Free" card.

What we don't get is how some Christians use Romans 7 as an excuse to ignore anything that they don't want to read within the Old Testament - such as the most obviously ridiculous test for fidelity ever, or the wonderous Leviticus 14 - a cure for Leprosy, involving cedar wood, scarlet yarn, hyssop, two birds, and a lot of shaving and sprinkling.

There's a good reason that Christians avoid the Old Testament like the Plague - in the cold, bare light of the twenty first century, most of it is barking mad.

Premarital sex is only a sin, if its done right.

Oh oh! I'm a bigamist!!!



I disagree with this. No one can out in out say, that we wont have thoughts or not thoughts no matter what we do. People will have fantasies, thoughts, and what have you. I think a lot of people wonder if their lover, if they were the only one, is better than others. If there were previous lovers, then you know. I know I know, and there you go. I think our fantasies and our thoughts are not going to be aleigned to what our actions are.

Hey, you're forgetting the alien abductions and experiments!! What about those space half-breeds?? They need love too!!
[kidding aside there, ghost it notes]


Personally, I think that is just individual personal conjecture there. No one can say how each person reacts, because we are all different.

Do you think this happens to everyone??

I really do not understand how you equate Jerry Springer and Maury Povich into this, when I don't see various marriages and non-marriage practices as not so, well, in that thought process.





Bingo.

No. I have copies of Bibles that are 2,300 years old.


Well, if there is a god, I'm not sure if he said that. But that still doesn't mean it's a slave. When I was in the millitary, my commanding officer was permitted to use corporal punishment on me, yet I wasn't a slave. I was also forbidden by law to leave. But I still wasn't a slave. And this is 20th century America. I think it is wrong on both accounts. But still not constituting "slavery".

Also, I said, this occupation was strictly voluntary. So why would it matter if there was an edict saying you can beat them? The person is aware of this when they sign up for the job. Voluntary job hazards are not immoral or evil. They are just hazards people agree to subject themselves to for the payment. Like police for instance.

I don't get it. Explanation please?

It's important to note that people here are primarily speaking of Jewish Torah laws, not exactly Christian ones. Of course, there is a confusion in many Christian sects, as to which, if any, of the Jewish laws should be followed. As preacherman76 points out, that from a Christian perspective, the Jewish laws are rather irrelavant, as the Jewish laws, were for Jews. I agree. It is also important to realize that from a Jewish perspective, the TaNakh is not the only source of their religion. They also follow the Tanya, Mishna, Talmud, Rashi, and Halacha. To name a few. Picking apart verses from the Old Testament of an English Bible is a bit moot.

I like your understanding of ancient moral laws though, Jesse. Amusing, yet insightful.

These are very good reasons why we should limit our sexual activities. To battle these negative aspects of our culture.

Also people do not need to concern themselves much with instinct, as this is almost non-existant in human beings. For instance, your own mention of breasts being attractive. That's a good example of the effects of opperant conditioning and enculteration. Breasts really are not attractive by any means. And by the same method, we can make breasts unatractive.

I would agree. Good advice. Regardless of one's moral positions.

So expressing sexuality is considered negative? I don't think so. It's a natural aspect of EVERY animal, including humans. That's our most basic instinct and the most important part of existence. Pass on your genes to the next generation. It's that simple. Animals seem to get this but people don't.

Sexuality is definitely NOT non-existent in humans. Have you ever SEEN a teenage boy these days? Sexuality has been "taught" as being negative when it's just a natural instinct that is present in EVERYONE no matter how hard they try to repress it. Breasts being attractive is a COMPLETELY natural instinct. It's a symbol of fertility and the ability to produce children. Back when humans were hunter/gatherers and even at the beginning of just learning agriculture, fertile females were characterized by wide hips and large breasts. If a woman had narrow hips and small breasts, then she would die in childbirth and not be able to feed her child if she had several of them. THAT is the reason large breasts and large hips/rears are considered "beautiful" and "attractive" not only on our society today, but even as far back as a few hundred years B.C.E. Indians thought this trait was EXTREMELY beautiful on women and it was VERY desirable to have these traits to ensure smooth reproduction. We have not been "indoctrinated" into believing breasts and sexual organs are attractive, it's instinct that's been hammered into our psyche from the time we learned to stand upright.

What do you have against eating shrimp?

That's not enough to invalidate all of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. They are still mostly good, positive things. If you ever study other religious texts and mythologies, there are far stranger things than that. Shoot, studying the science from a century ago will give you sillier stories. That doesn't mean we should throw all science down the drain.

Well, I don't know about barking mad. I'd say that most of the moral lessons and wisdom teachings would be in agreement with the average person. I'd grant that the histories are rather irrelavant, other than for entertainment. And many of the laws also are not relavant, as they were intended for a specific group of people at a certain time. Time frame is very important. Such as when your pregnant wife's baby gets hurt by two men fighting, you can pay back eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. Sounds harsh today. But back then it seemed fair. As the alternative was to murder and /or torture the person. So equal repayment was a big leap 3,500 years ago. But then again, I know people now who think it's okay to kill a man that hurts their pregnant wife's baby. So the "eye for an eye" law may still be good for some people.

I do agree that there are some wierd things in the 'Old Testament'. But it's mostly not used by any religion by itself. Like I said before. The Jews use it with the Talmud, Mishnah, etc. And, it is not relavant to a Christian. What one should do is find the positive things in the OT, and use them. If anyone needs a suggestion, the books called: Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and Psalms are among easy to find OT books, that have lots of good in them, and are friendly for all people.

From the Christian side, Jesus' teaching are really cool. In case anyone does not know, Jesus who gave Ghandi his inspiration. And Dr. King. the other books in the NT, written by Paul, I really do not enjoy a whole lot. Some good things. But some confounding things also. Like the OT. But Jesus' teachings found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are pretty cool. With very minimal "wierd" or conflicting things in them.

I don't think it is...
I think a lot of people prefer to test drive before they buy.

Humans are not the same as animals. Advanced cerebral cortex, etc. Instinct is an irrelavant topic for human discussion, as it acounts for only 4% of our behaviour.

I never said it was nonexistent.

I have seen teenage boys. But moreso, teenage girls. And it does not by any means seem that they are being taught sex is negative. It is quite evident to the contrary.

That is a really rediculous statement. On several levels.

Now you are contradicting yourself. Which is it? Instinct? Or opperant conditioning?

And how do we know this? There was not a lot of history in pre-history.

Again, I think you have your facts wrong. My wife is petite, and has like no breasts. And has never suffered these calamities.

You really should not make factual statements out of ignorance. It may misinform others, and makes yourself look bad. It is apparent that you have no Cultural Anthropological education at all. You are obviously living in a Western, European based country, no? These physical characteristics you mention, are not considered attractive by all societies. Very few infact. Just because Hollywood shows you something, doesn't mean it's true. You should really consider a practical education.

Again contradiction. How can instinct "be hammered into our psyche"? Instinct is strictly a genetic inheritance. Something, when refering to human behaviour, is nearly irrelavant. Have you any experiance at all in Psychology? You should consider it.

hey Will ,in a lot of areas i agree with you, and disagree with lady otterwind, but i was disappointed in your last post. First there's no need to get personal (to a lady or anyone else); second when you make personal attacks on ignorance, and you are wrong , it only makes you look doubly ignorant (and from a lot of your posts i would say you have quite a bit of knowledge on the bible and other areas.)

Lady otterwind is quite correct in the human historical propensity towards large breasted, and large hipped women, (your personal preferences were interesting, but not really relevant)

There have been small figurines carved from rock, and made from clay, discovered from most human societies long before writing was invented . These have been found all over the world, and dating by historical methods (and I dont know if you are one who accepts such methods) from back at least 30,000 years and possibly older, up to greco roman times).

These are now accepted as fertility symbols ,and just as lady otterwind suggested, came from early mans observation that wide hipped women were more successful in child birth. Given that until modern medicine of the last 150 years, most children died in childbirth or the few years followingWith only 2 or 3 /10 surviving to reproductive age of 14/15, and close to 50% of women women died in childbirth, that is a very significant belief

The large breasts may be a little more speculative, but most likely, appearing on the figurines, also meant they were associated with successful child rearing , probably as the lady indicated.

On the other hand, i think your observation about instinct is on the mark, although i would love to know the source of that particular figure. And yes, as a teacher of young children adolescents, i dont see anyone trying to make them feel guilty about sex. Quite the opposite. But that observation may be limited to the culture and specific location i live in.

As to the hebrew laws, they were designed to keep the peole safe and healthy. They generally did so, and were quite kind laws by comparison with the people around them, particularly in looking after the more dependent members of their society.

I think the reference to shrimp comes from the proscribed foods of the tribes of israel. Actually while not biblical law anymore, these make excellent dietary guidelines. Basically they forbid the eating of scavenging animals, of which shrimp are one.

Even now, with modern health and dietary knowledge, it is a good idea to avoid the proscribed foods as much as possible, just as it is a good idea to eat as much of the original biblical diet of fruit and nuts.

Thank you for your positive remarks. I apologize if I have come off as personally attacking someone. However, the person in question has made many statements as facts, which are quite the contrary. Perhaps they should not speak with such conviction. Such as "I think that...." or "I believe that...."

As for their being an historical propensity towards large breasted or large hipped women? I am not challenging that. That is without a doubt. However, it has never been universal from culture to culture. Nor is it biological, or a genetically inherited instinct. For instance. Even in present times, most of Latin American culture finds women with large butts sexually attractive, with little or no concern for breast size. Also, if we were to go off of that, it would make no sense that China's population is 1/3 or the planet. Most of their women do not have large breasts, hips, or butts. Yet somehow they seem to be mating rather prolifically. and on top of that, the medical presumptions made about petite women dying in child birth or not being able to feed their kids, is simply preposterous. Breast milk is not what makes up the mass of a woman's breast. It is simply fat. When a woman begins to breastfeed, milk is produced. Regardless of the pre-existing breast size, the milk production is just the same.

I do question historical dating methods. But only because I am a critic of everything, and at the same time open-minded. However, I'll grant the statues. Though I'm still not sure how conclusive that would be in this situation. Nevertheless, thank you for mentioning it.

The death in child birth is not simply remedied by large hips. And it may have been possible that early man realized larger hips were a sign of child-bearing age. However, even if that was the case, that's an attraction based on observed phenomena. Backing up my point of opperant contitioning and enculturation. Not instinct or genetics.

Then we can deduce that pre-historic man was ignorant of basic human anatomy, and/or they were bad artists.

I learned it is Psychology. When I first learned it I was shocked. With the new advances in Genetics, people are starting to get confused again over 'narure-versus-nurture'. Genetics, thus far has never proven that we are born with any behaviour. Be it homosexuality, anger, crime, artistic, etc. Only that they can now isolate certain 'inclinations' in people's DNA. Though the effect these have on one's behaviour, is largely irrelavant. I was caught up in the whole "nature-verses-nurture" argument like everyone else. But now it makes sense. Not to mention the fact that with opperant conditioning and the coin-economy, I have overcome many negative behaviours of my own. And have pursued many spiritual disciplines, which have concured that behaviour is almost entirely psychological. From a practical application, this fact is very important. If we think that our behaviours, good or bad, are dependant of biological instinct, then we have no choices in life. We are doomed to do what our genes tell us to. But if we realize that we can un-learn a behaviour, and replace it with another, we have great power over ourselves and our lives.

PS-Again, I apologize if I ever come off offense. I am a completely peaceful person. However, I do often speak very matter-of-factly. Often blunt. It's one of my deficiencies. So if something does come off offensive, I assure you, it is out of my ignorance, misunderstanding in typing, or mistake.
Thank you for your cordiality.

Indeed. To be fair, that's true. I am not trying to back up any religion. And have no problem attacking a religion, or part of it. But there is too much misinformation about certain religions that just isnt fair. Some of from it's own congregants. There are indeed many 'laws' in the Hebrew Bible to take care of orphans, widows, and strangers that live with you. I don't wan't to open another can of worms here, but acording to the Torah, the Jews in Israel should be a lot nicer to the Palestinians (and I don't care who started it )



There is indeed a pretty accurate science to most of the dietary laws. Pigs also, until rather recently had several deadly critters in them. Such as the trichina worm. Now, with better cooking methods and animal care, we can do away with alot of these.



I agree. Did you also know that acording to the Bible, mankind was originally vegetarian? God tells Adam to eat of the fruit of the trees, and the herbs of the ground. And the animals too. It wasnt until after the flood, as the story goes, that since the plants were gone, the had to start barbecuing.

Well;

The basic thing for Christians who think that pre-martial sex is a sinful crime to commit because they believe that the body is like a "temple", something sacred, something special, something not to be trampled on. It's a really hard thing for me to explain due to the fact that I'm not that into my religion that much, even if I abide by their rules...

But that's aside the fact. Having sex before marriage is looked down upon because the person didn't "save" themselves, they actually had sex with someone that they weren't (or were, depending on the relationship case) intending to be with for the rest of their lives. The religious folk are very old-fashioned and want ways the way it was back then.

Seeing how many people buy condoms and have sex nowadays really puts me in a neutral state on this topic, 'cause hey, I was always surrounded by people who lost their virgins as young as twelve.

Ah, I see. But, religions such as mine think the body is a temple and you worship the body by engaging in rituals such as intercourse. It's considered a sacred act not to be done lightly or with someone you don't truly love, at least in that point in your life. I think it's possible to love anyone, but most people are so prejudiced and enveloped in stereotypes that this is nearly impossible. This is probably why I don't see this rule as being very accurate or easy to follow. Maybe it is just people being old fashioned. And you were surrounded by people who gave it up that early? Now, that is where I draw the line because most 12 year olds aren't mentally mature enough to understand the implications and consequences of what they're doing. Heck, I have certain views on this subject, but I haven't given it up to anyone yet... And I won't until I find that special someone, even if I'm not married to them.

I hold some rather puritanical, yet non-religious views on sex. While you and I have very different views, I wanted to point out your mentioning not yet being with someone, and wanting it to mean something is nevertheless admirable and shows that you do have a sense of morals and self-worth. And that you are opposed to 12 year-olds getting it on. I commend you.

Oh, thank you Will. I'd also like you to know I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, or that you should believe something else, I just like to argue the extreme opposite position to get people to think. Your views are perfectly fine, I just thought I'd point out some areas of debate in them, but that doesn't mean you should follow or agree with what I say. Just thought you should know in case I came off as a bit harsh or anything. I do believe pre-marital sex is okay, but only if you're mature enough to handle it. Which, I'll have to add, most people aren't. I know that I certainly don't like anyone strongly enough to do anything that intimate with them at this point, and I never have really. I'll know when it's time I suppose. I definitely think that 12 year olds doing things like that is very wrong. My friend told me about her aunt that had her cousin when she was 13. I think that's just sad because you have a very limited life as a teenager having to care for your child. School will be difficult, going out with friends will be difficult, and getting a date will be difficult. It's just not fair to compromise someone's life when they're that young. Again, thanks.

Personally, nothing. Eating them, however, is an abomination to the LORD.

Leviticus 11:

9: These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:


I think you'll find that the difference is that Scientist's don't generally claim that they were given the knowledge via the direct word of God.

War, Sexism, Racism, Slavery, Discrimination against the Disabled - these are all good, positive things?


Actually - in the case of killing the unborn child - it's just a fine - Exodus 21:

22 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

Ah, so you are on Jewish Dietary Laws? Halacha would probably be a better source.


And how do all the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures do that? There are a relatively few amount of books in the TaNaKh that claim this. Primarily only the prophetic books. But the Histories, Wisdom books, and even most of the Law does not claim that God gave them the knowledge directly. Infact, most of them are anonymous. Could you cite where you are getting this from? Because I think you're mistaken.

No, why?


You make little sense. How does "no serious injury" mean "killing" to you?

Reference to the Salem witch trials and discerning guilt or innocence through inane means.

No - just quoting the word of God.


I think you'll find it's the words "And the Lord said to Moses" that gives it away.


Because they're all within the Old Testament, as I'm sure you're already very much aware.


"no serious injury" refers to the pregnant women - not the child.

Mostly cause the New Test calls homosexuality unnatural, and lustfull.




I dont avoid the old test at all, especialy regarding prophecy. I just have a understanding of the bible in full, not just the old test. I have a full understanding of what Christ has done at the cross, and how we are free from the law.

QUOTE (will_1835 @ Apr 13 2008, 04:27 PM)
What do you have against eating shrimp?



What do you do with the shrimp before you eat it? YOU SCALE IT! YOU PULL OFF THE PROTECTIVE SCALE!
You can take that verse to mean mollusks in a shell, oysters, clams, conches, crabs, etc.
People eat pork which is an abomination to the Lord, but the way that people have gotten around that is the way they cook it.
Plus, the fin of the shrimp is the tail.

Means the child is alive.

Not meaning to be a quibbler, but in the literal translation those already engaged in heterosexual sex would be married in their time and so to change and indulge in homosexual acts would mean they were adulterous bisexuals.

One does not really have to go farther than old Phil Donahue show episodes to see the trauma and grief that kind of behavior can still bring today to the loving faithful spouse and children.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

I hear ya sister, as I have seen first hand how homosexuality can destroy a family. It doesnt change the fact that the acts are call unnatural, and lustful. Jesus laid out the definnition of what marrage is, through his understanding of the old test. One man, one women.

Well, however, in this, it was more likely that nothing would happen to the woman. Unless there really was a God, and 'He' was punishing the woman. Or one of the men poisoned her. But in the situaltion stated, it sounds good to me. Like a 100% innocent method. Something to just help clear the mind of a jealous husband.

You shouldnt hold the Hebrew Scriptures so literal. If you're going to follow them so strict, you should study the books that go with it. Not just the Torah or TaNakh.


No it does not. Just because someone wrote that God talked to Moses doesnt mean that the text contained it the passage is the exact word of God. The question was about the writers of the Scriptures claiming that they are actually writing the word of God. That's very different then a narration saying "the LORD said to Moses."


I belive you are mistaken on this one.


Why would you think that? That's not what it says. Nor is it even logical. Chop the hand off the man if the baby's hand is hurt, but only fine him if the baby dies? Come on. Besides, it says the baby is born early, but with no harm. Not "If the baby dies, but the mother is okay". You can't just twist and lie about other religions to try to put them down. I have no problem criticizing somehing bad. But it needs to be correct and fair.

I think the options are simple.

1. Have a normal family.
2. Don't, leave Christianity, and be homosexual.

I mean, we have free will. People should make their choice.

Self-control is an important thing. Regardless of your beliefs. We can't just act on any urge we get. I mean, I am a very peaceful, non-violent, anti-war person. But do you know how many times in a day I want to kill people? But see. I struggle with urges of murder. But I know it's wrong, so I fight it. I don't just say "well, this is how I feel, so I'm going to kill you."

Yes and I'm sure the number of suicides of people who were expelled from the church for being gay, or the teens who killed themselves because whether they were gay or not but were teased until they killed themselves, or the people who wanted to christian but were told that jesus won't stand gays in his church and killed themselves all but make up for all the pain caused by homosexuality to straight marriages...

Hate all sins equally and then get back to me, until then saying that homosexuality is wrong and it should be one man and one woman, is basically because you don't like it. It's easy to say you don't like something when you have a religious text saying its okay to. Just like a lot of things, times change, and despite your views, I hope that in the future that like a lot of things in the bible that people have now realized are barbaric and cruel but had biblical sanction like slavery, will die away, along with the hatred and discrimination caused by it, will die away too.

Why hate all sins equally? Surely a smoker is not as bad as a 10 time child rapist?

Homosexuality is not wrong, just because someone does not like it. If you look at human anatomy charts you will see that men have different things than girls. And they work together to make babies. Arguing that homosexuality is okay or normal would be like saying sex with a kitten is cool. Or with a hole in the fense.....

Personally, I really don't care if two adults want to be gay together. But certainly not if they adhere to religions that forbid it. Then they'd be hippocrates.