<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lord Shield:
pointless. I don't let a 2000-year old novel with poor scripting dictate my sex life either ;) <hr></blockquote>

Lord Shield, I'd be more careful saying shit like that. Some people base their whole lives on that "2000 year-old novel" so what you're implying is you know better and they're all sad idiots.

Hmmmmm..... This Jesus fellow which you Christians like so much, did he not preach tolerance? Gee, I'm certainly seeing a LOT of that in these recent few posts.

First of all LS probably meant it as a joke, second, lighten up everyone, jeez, you're all so dark and gloomy, take life lightly.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Neb:
Hmmmmm..... This Jesus fellow which you Christians like so much, did he not preach tolerance? Gee, I'm certainly seeing a LOT of that in these recent few posts.

First of all LS probably meant it as a joke, second, lighten up everyone, jeez, you're all so dark and gloomy, take life lightly.<hr></blockquote>


Heh, you won't be saying that once you're out in the big wide world Nebby-boy ;)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Neb:

...lighten up everyone, jeez, you're all so dark and gloomy, take life lightly.<hr></blockquote>
<font color=skyblue>
This thread is a debate on whether or not to take life lightly.

Some of us are saying that life is not to be taken lightly, and so no screwing around, as pro-creation is a sacred right, and not a fleeting act of pleasure.</font>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Larry_OHF:
<font color=skyblue>
Whether religious, not religious, or anti-religious...think about how special it would be to a woman to know that her husband had never been with another woman. She would then not have the question in her mind..."I wonder if his previous girlfriend was better in bed than I..., or other things. I am sure I got a chuckle out of you on that remark...but think on it. To know that my wife Karen has never had intimate relations with any other man makes me feel ...better when I am with her. If she had been with another before me...well, I could not love her the same way. I mean...to know that another had held her passionately before I did would feel kinda ...icky...or something</font><hr></blockquote>

Not disagreeing with you larry but I have had several women friends who were actually glad that their spouses had had some experience and "Knew What they were doing" I really think it is not a bad thing that at least one person knows what they are doing [img]smile.gif[/img] I personally prefer someone who I do not need to train from the gound up....but then again Im not re-married yet....but in my first marriage I was never put out that my spouse had far more partners uhhh under her belt so to speak..and in fact I was very grateful on several occasions [img]smile.gif[/img] Just my 2 cents....I am totaly pro-fidelity after marriage.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Neb:
Hmmmmm..... This Jesus fellow which you Christians like so much, did he not preach tolerance? Gee, I'm certainly seeing a LOT of that in these recent few posts.

First of all LS probably meant it as a joke, second, lighten up everyone, jeez, you're all so dark and gloomy, take life lightly.<hr></blockquote>

Tolerance is one thing but allowing others to denigrate your beliefs and imply that their most sacred writings are a bad fiction is not one of the things he was tlaking about...in saying Jesus taught tolerance shows a certain level of ignorance of what he was talking about..His teaching of tolerance did not imply that you sit back and tolerate an injustice, or an evil or even a blasphemer...actually there were certain specific and ....painful punishments for that one particular "sin". You are supposed to show the sinner tolerance if he is showing signs of repentance...but if he is going to smite you on the head with a cudjel you are in no way taught to tolerate his poor manners.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


Not disagreeing with you larry but I have had several women friends who were actually glad that their spouses had had some experience and "Knew What they were doing" I really think it is not a bad thing that at least one person knows what they are doing [img]smile.gif[/img] I personally prefer someone who I do not need to train from the gound up....but then again Im not re-married yet....but in my first marriage I was never put out that my spouse had far more partners uhhh under her belt so to speak..and in fact I was very grateful on several occasions [img]smile.gif[/img] Just my 2 cents....I am totaly pro-fidelity after marriage.<hr></blockquote>

Oh! I can understand that point of view with no trouble.
I am speaking my own thoughts on the matter, as well as voicing my wife's as she is standing here now...and we both agree that we are glad that we saved ourselves for one another.
Yet, that is my life, and I am only voiving an opinion based on my feelings and faith. Nothing else... ;)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Larry_OHF:


Oh! I can understand that point of view with no trouble.
I am speaking my own thoughts on the matter, as well as voicing my wife's as she is standing here now...and we both agree that we are glad that we saved ourselves for one another.
Yet, that is my life, and I am only voiving an opinion based on my feelings and faith. Nothing else... ;) <hr></blockquote>

:D :::wavies Hihi to Mrs. Larry::: :D

When the bible was written sex and procreation were one and the same, you couldnt seperate the two, that is not really the case anymore (yeah I know nothing but abstinance is 100% effective)

I also do NOT encourage anyone to take sex lightly or frivolously, it really should be something special.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


Tolerance is one thing but allowing others to denigrate your beliefs and imply that their most sacred writings are a bad fiction is not one of the things he was tlaking about...in saying Jesus taught tolerance shows a certain level of ignorance of what he was talking about..His teaching of tolerance did not imply that you sit back and tolerate an injustice, or an evil or even a blasphemer...actually there were certain specific and ....painful punishments for that one particular "sin". You are supposed to show the sinner tolerance if he is showing signs of repentance...but if he is going to smite you on the head with a cudjel you are in no way taught to tolerate his poor manners.<hr></blockquote>

I really don't see why you would even bother to notice what LS said, you know that it's not true, does it matter what he believes?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Neb:


I really don't see why you would even bother to notice what LS said, you know that it's not true, does it matter what he believes?<hr></blockquote>

Well lets see, there are a number of reasons why I should respond to him..first off I did it in a civil way...sooooo just maybe by answering him, I could maybe have a positive impact on the way he presented his ideas in the future.....secondly I thought that being soft in the response it might also cause others not to get fired up too badly and thus preserve the peace a bit......those were just a couple of things I thought. If I never responded to anything I knew to be untrue, Id be kind of bored [img]smile.gif[/img] I know I have been guilty of being pretty harsh in my posts on occasion and when someone calmly points out flaws in the demeanor of my post..I am able to dial it back a bit.

:D