<font color="cyan">I'm in a heated argument:

Does the bible say either

i) if you have sex you are married in the eyes of god? (my friends opinion, who IS religious)

or

ii)you shouldnt have sex until your married (my opinion, not really religious)

and what are your opinions!!??

I think it's up to each individual..
The rest of the wrold really doesn't have anything to do with my sexual life..

pointless. I don't let a 2000-year old novel with poor scripting dictate my sex life either ;)

<font color="cyan">But what does the bible say?</font>

<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>

<font color="cyan">Nor do i, as i am Not religious and have never read the bible. But what does it say??</font>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lavindathar:
<font color="cyan">But what does the bible say?</font><hr></blockquote>

I don't know, probarbly gonna be difficult to say, because the bible contradicts itself in every statement ;)

I think that most current Western liberal Christian faiths have softened their stances to reflect current social attitudes.

Whereas, say fifty years ago there would have been an absolute condemnation of sex before marriage, nowadays, the clergy only tend to get upset if it delays the ceremony [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

i'm not entirely sure the bible entirely condemns it anyway - isn't that coveting thy neighbour's wife?

Not having sex before marriage would be rather difficult for one who didn't believe in marriage! *laughs* Everyone has their own opinions, as well as beliefs, and who's to say who,s right and who's wrong?

<font color="cyan">Ok, but could someone who knows the text give me their best statement that they can?

Soz for being a nag, but I don't want to go into this religious stuff myself. Just an answer!! ;) </font>

How about the only rule is: Do what you will but take whateever consequences there may be and know them. I dont mean some kind of religous moral by the way Im referring to how you and other people will feel about it later.

As far as i know it says you shouldnt have sex before marriage

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe:
As far as i know it says you shouldnt have sex before marriage<hr></blockquote>

<font color="cyan">At last, a half-decent answer to the question I asked!!!

Thank you good sir,,</font>

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


<font color="cyan">At last, a half-decent answer to the question I asked!!!

Thank you good sir,,</font><hr></blockquote>

I'd say contact our resident Bible expert; Fljotsdale...does anyone have her email address? [img]smile.gif[/img]

well the bible says that marriage is sacred and therefore you should save your virginity for that person. im sure it says more than that, but thats all i can remember from church camp.

it doesnt really matter, im not gonna let a book tell me how to live my life.

To be truthfull, and I hope no one thinks I'm the devil or something, but I don't believe in god, so therefore, I'm an Atheist and I try not to let any books dictate my life...Only women that are cute [img]smile.gif[/img]

Ask Flojtdale, then ask Yorick. Then duck. And duck fast.

<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>

LS is it nesecary to blatantly disrespect an item that is absolutely KEY to so many peoples faith? Lord knows I am not the most religious person but I try not to be completely blasphemous for no very good reason.

As for the sex question, now that people live to be 70+ years (vs 30-40 when the bible was written) I think it is more important than ever for both people to know each other completely as possible so as to determine their compatiblity in every area, otherwise the marriage is doomed. The Bible prohibits Adultry..but that requires marriage, I do not recall any out and out prohibition to extra-marital sex in there but there are lots of references to imoral behaviour so now you have to define MORALITY good luck!

<font color=skyblue>
That book is more than words. Alot of people feel that those words written there were inspired by people who spoke with a higher being. If any mistakes are contained within, it is due to the retranslation from many languages and our own errors in writing.
Even the ones that do not beleive in Divinity admit that good things are taught therein. One of the things taught from taht book is that a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife, that they may be one flesh. That one flesh part is to be united in marriage. Thus the way of speaking, Mr. and Mrs. Larry Woodruff is common to be heard.

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. I cannot explain the feeling, but some of you will understand, and some of you will shake your head at reading this and say that I am wrong. Well fine. I am wrong, only in our opinion. to others, I have voiced their own fears. Some men and women out in the world would never marry a man that had not saved himself, and I would not knowingly marry a woman that had been touched before.
Yet, if you are not the marrying sort...meaning if you do not want to be with the same, wonderful woman for ever...then this post means little to nothing to you.
Now, are you doing wrong by running around, sampling the girls, but never committing to marriage?
Religious answer=Yes, because man and woman were meant to be together, unified as one family for God's plan. The law of the land believes this, as you have to get a blasted marriage liscense just to be legally bound to one another.
Un-religious, social answer:How many men go around screwing whatever girl, spreading disease and getting women pregnant so that they have to pay child support for the next 18 years? How many examples of this can you count? I can name 3 people close to me right now that are dealing with one or both of those afore mentioned troubles. I could name many more if given half a minute to think on it. I bet everyone in the U.S. right now reading this can name one man that you know of that has to pay child support.
Wouldn't our lives be better (just a little) without this, as well as everything else we deal with? Abortion clinics were fashined for idiots like this...that screwed before thinking. </font>

<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

I personally think that sex before marrige is a natural part of life...a lot of people dont even get married! If someone wants to do it then go ahead its not the end of the world. It CAN cause problems if not done in a sensible manner ie no protection.
No offence Larry but I dont know ANYONE in r/l who has not had sex before marrige. If they want to its their choice.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:
I personally think that sex before marrige is a natural part of life...a lot of people dont even get married! If someone wants to do it then go ahead its not the end of the world. It CAN cause problems if not done in a sensible manner ie no protection.
No offence Larry but I dont know ANYONE in r/l who has not had sex before marrige. If they want to its their choice.<hr></blockquote>
<font color=skyblue>
You know one now ;)
...and I can name many more of my friends that share the same pride. It all depends on your circle of friends....</font>

Larry,

Cerek's here to give you a little Barbarian Back-up (not that you need it).
The Bible does indeed say that a man should cleave to one woman and should not "put her out except for fornication" (if she cheats on you). It also says that "if a man look upon another woman with lust in his heart, then he has committed adultery" (paraphrased).
I can't find exact text, but the Bible and Christian faith both believe that a man and woman should save themselves for marriage. I'll be honost and admit that I didn't, but that's the beauty of being a Christainl......we aren't peerfect, just Forgiven.

And AFA Christians not being tolerant, I suggest you read the Religion thread. I held a very civil discussion with Garnet (a Wiccan) and fable (a pagan). Their beliefs come nowhere close to mine, but we were still able to discuss our ideological differences in a civilized manner.

Calling the Bible a "2000 year old novel" that "contradicts itself in every statement" is NOT being civil nor respectful - whether it is said in jest or not.

Neb (and others), what would you say if I called the Wiccan's Book of Worship (sorry, but I don't know the proper name for it) a manual for demon worship? Would you tell fable or Garnet to lighten up if they took offense?
There seems to be a real double standard when it comes to Christianity. It's perfectly OK for anybody to criticize our religion or the Bible (there just expressing an opinion), but it's NOT OK for us to say "hey, I don't appreciate you making such disparaging remarks about my religion".
Like Magik(?) said, a LOT of people DO base their life and actions on the teachings found in the Bible. If you don't, that's your choice and I respect it...all I ask is that you and everyone else show us the same respect.

Good post there Cerek.

As always the threads at this forum involving Religion tunr into a heated argument

Many of the worlds problems are because of this thing called Religion
Also lots of wars and battles and people have died over the history of man because of Religion

Religion is perhaps the real evil in the world because it divides people so much....everyone has their imaginary god of deity or whatever they think is real and for some reason this often leads to fighting with non believers....from arguments and sarcastic remarks all the way upto full scale war.


I for one don't know the answer to the original post, I seem to recall being taught that it was said both man and woman must remain pure untill they are married......

Tarox, old boy,

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with you. I don't feel this thread has degenerated into a "heated argument" at all.
Some of the earlier posts said some things I considered pretty disrespectful of my religion, but neither I nor Larry responded in an argumentative manner (IMHO).

My Response may have been a bit more blunt than Larry's, but I'm just pointing out that my POV is as valid as the next persons - and I expect other members to show me the same courtesy and respect I extend to them.

Also, other than a brief "contest of wills" between fable and Yorick, the actual "Religion" thread remained very civil. And even that disagreement didn't get too far out of hand.

And there is a third "religon-based" thread that I participated in (the name of which escapes me, but look on Page 2-3 and you should find it easily enough)that remained very civil throughout.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tarox:
As always the threads at this forum involving Religion turn into a heated argument<hr></blockquote>
<font color=skyblue>This is no where near a heated argument. ;) </font>
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Many of the worlds problems are because of this thing called Religion
Also lots of wars and battles and people have died over the history of man because of Religion

Religion is perhaps the real evil in the world because it divides people so much....everyone has their imaginary god of deity or whatever they think is real and for some reason this often leads to fighting with non believers....from arguments and sarcastic remarks all the way upto full scale war.
<hr></blockquote>

<font color=skyblue>
That assumption is incorrect. Religion in of itself is not evil. How it is used is. Just like the internet. I can use it for good intent or bad intent. I can use a gun for protection or aggression. I can use my knowledge to help or to hurt. What I do with religion is what I am. Good or evil. If I corrupt religion's name by using it to promote hatred and wars...my actions condemn my own name and my social status, but not the religion that I carried with me. It is not the fault of religion that men want to conquer. It is man's inconquerable spirit that wants to conquer.

The KKK was an evil bunch of white boys running around killing the blacks, and were using the Bible to prove thier point. I read those same verses...and did not see it that way. They were merely using the Bible to hide behind, while they themsleves may or may not have understood the very words that they were using against the black race.

Religion defines a person. Religion is what a person is.
If I told you that I was of one particular sect or another...you would know what values I hold dear, what activities I perform or do not perform, and you would know whether or not you and I could share similar interests.

Example: I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known by many as the Mormons. From that, you know that I do not smoke and I do not drink, as doing so would have me shunned by even my own wife. I can tell you that I hold the position of Executive Secretary for my bishop, and now you know that I keep my covenants that I have made to live a certain lifestyle, as a person that does not do what they are taught to do would not be in positions of authority. You would then, of course, not ask me over for Sunday-night football and would I bring the drinks, as you know that I would not condone to such.
If I knew that you were a Jehova's Witness, I would not try to sell you a flag of your country, as you would not believe in putting faith and attention to a supposed "vain image". Yet, you and I need not kill one another over this...because you are who you are and I am who I am, and both of us can live happy lives, as next door neighbors.

</font>

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Neb (and others), what would you say if I called the Wiccan's Book of Worship (sorry, but I don't know the proper name for it) a manual for demon worship? Would you tell fable or Garnet to lighten up if they took offense?
There seems to be a real double standard when it comes to Christianity. It's perfectly OK for anybody to criticize our religion or the Bible (there just expressing an opinion), but it's NOT OK for us to say "hey, I don't appreciate you making such disparaging remarks about my religion".
Like Magik(?) said, a LOT of people DO base their life and actions on the teachings found in the Bible. If you don't, that's your choice and I respect it...all I ask is that you and everyone else show us the same respect.<hr></blockquote>

Well, I'd know that it wasn't true, perhaps tell them shortly that wiccans do not worship satan and then just leave it at that, I can usually ignore such things.

I might attempt to tell people the truth if they're misinformed like that, but I doubt I'd ever get angry at them.

And yes, if Garnet or Fable started taking it far too seriously and getting much too offended I might tell them to lighten up.

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: Neb ]</p>

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


Well, I'd know that it wasn't true, perhaps tell them shortly that wiccans do not worship satan and then just leave it at that, I can usually ignore such things.

I might attempt to tell people the truth if they're misinformed like that, but I doubt I'd ever get angry at them.

And yes, if Garnet or Fable started taking it far too seriously and getting much too offended I might tell them to lighten up.

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: Neb ]<hr></blockquote>

Good grief Neb, you know perfectly well what he meant.
Frankly I am saddened that so many people seem to have lost all respect for each other here. I can understand where Saz's thread about rudeness is coming from. Is it really that difficult to swallow your self-righteousness just once and accept that while you have every right to express an opinion, it's polite and respectful to stop pushing a point if you notice people are hurt by it??
This goes for people on BOTH sides, I'm not ranting at you personally, Neb.
But I really fail to see why some people feel such an urge to spout and KEEP spouting opinions that are hurtful to other people.

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

The KKK was an evil bunch of white boys running around killing the blacks, and were using the Bible to prove thier point. I read those same verses...and did not see it that way. They were merely using the Bible to hide behind, while they themsleves may or may not have understood the very words that they were using against the black race.
]<hr></blockquote>

Not argueing again Larry because you are most correct...except I think it only right to explain that the KKK also had a beef with Jews and catholics [img]smile.gif[/img] I being a catholic by birth found that they had an equal opportunity for hate message..they hated/hate everyone not like them! Just thought Id expand/expound on that bit...