U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-08-2019, 10:01 AM
Status: "be angry and sin not!" (set 2 hours ago)
 
4,697 posts, read 1,218,477 times
Reputation: 244

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
Passion and sex vs. saintly and pure


YOUR RIGHT IT IS NOT "VS".. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER...." Holy men and women make marriage holy. “Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled,” because holy men and women engage and abide in it, as designed by God, physically. This, then, makes marriage holy, hence, the exclusivity of Christian marriage." WIKI I THINK..

"All things are lawful to the lawful..." why ? BECAUSE THE LAWFUL WILL FIND THE LAWFUL WAY TO DO IT - RIGHT-LY- RIGHTEOUSLY- HOLY AND THUS PURELY AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE DONE.

so is examples in this age... because "ceremonially clean" and washed .. is a very real thing.. thus they can eat shellfish.. but maybe just not on a high holy day.. and someplace in the world they can have Pork just not when they are to be ceremonially clean during passover and maybe not in Jerusalem/ or during a feast ..

so there is sex as he created it to be that will be holy to God.. even then it doesn't mean it is without passions or fun or in only one position. He only made 1000's of kinds of flowers, why .. maybe because he likes a variety of flowers also. men didn't fall far from that tree folks..


as for what some would call and accuse our creator of with words like " prudish" ... as some might like to accuse God / Son of God / creator / ps a Man of creating sex to be prudish or such terms . ps OH -please what man would do that on purpose Gee wizz.. !! ?
THEY FORGET OR DO NOT KNOW WHAT HIS " the PROMISED LAND" looks just like .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2019, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
26,519 posts, read 62,912,197 times
Reputation: 30532
Rutting? No. No corporeal bodies.

The ecstasy of an expression of pure love? Yeah, probably all the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2019, 07:40 PM
Status: "be angry and sin not!" (set 2 hours ago)
 
4,697 posts, read 1,218,477 times
Reputation: 244
new corporeal bodies and

maybe even more oneness= spiritual unity also .. than experienced now in a ...half live body / unglorified ..
now we can only become one in the flesh..

I suggest that it also becomes more spiritually ( as we understand that word)as fully one and fleshly one also.


and more of a "completed marriage", exactly as the earth and heaven become more "one" in ever increasing levels until the 8thday and all is made completely one body and flesh and of one/ the same spirit throughout . When even the Father lives/ dwells among men.. and yet there is talk of children ..

here is just one of the promises about the seed of the righteous when even the animals have been re-created.. to eat grass..

Isa 65:22

They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

Isa 65:23

They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.

Isa 65:24

And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
Isa 65:25

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.


this is for a future day not seen before and" seed" or "offspring" ....seems to indicate everyone after them..

Last edited by n..Xuipa; 04-08-2019 at 07:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2019, 08:04 PM
Status: "be angry and sin not!" (set 2 hours ago)
 
4,697 posts, read 1,218,477 times
Reputation: 244
might I also suggest that with the all new intensity might also bring whole new responsibilities... thus maybe bring a all new level
of meaning to "breaking up " also?

so getting unified / having sex/unified for eternity ... they might want to ask/ Petition/ sacrifice / offering to the Father first about his permission on your union.. ... before taking that plunge for eternity? only he knows what your eternity looks like and with whom you are best suited to be truly one with.
I suggest it might be wise to do it that way....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2019, 09:08 AM
 
302 posts, read 81,238 times
Reputation: 635
imo heaven might be like going back to the garden of Eden when men and women loved each other completely, including sexually, purely, without shame of being naked, or lust in the heart or mind. They would live forever and can chose to have children, who would also live forever. And keep doing this, forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2019, 10:05 PM
 
Location: The backwoods of Pennsylvania ... unfortunately.
5,846 posts, read 3,353,622 times
Reputation: 4055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
Passion and sex vs. saintly and pure
This sort of dichotomy stems from one of the reasons why I think Christianity is nonsense: Religion has turned sex into a sin, something to be avoided unless procreating. People enveloped within this mindset have been absolutely brainwashed by religious propaganda.

One of the reasons why I think religion - at least the Abrahamic religions - are nonsense. It's preoccupation with sex is simply beyond the pale. In today's religious times, nearly every single issue Christianity deems important has to do with sex and gender: gay marriage, contraception, abstinance-only teaching, ensuring the right gender uses the correct bathroom, abortion - or - ensuring the fetus is birthed so that religion can abandon them the moment they draw their first breath, dismissing the idea of people being transgendered, and on and on.

The only non-sexual issues certain Christians even seem to care about are evolution and cosmology - and they only care about those things because they stand in direct conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The idea that "saintly and pure" is considered diametrically opposed to "passion and sex" is rather sad considering sex or, more accurately, love-making, is the ultimate in physical and emotional expression towards another person. Unfortunately, religion - ruled by the God of Love - managed to turn the greatest expression of love into a sin. That's what happens when you allow a prude like St. Augustine to decide what is and isn't acceptable behavior.

Perhaps if religion can ever get over its obsession with sex and gender, it might be worth looking at in terms of certain moral principles (note, I said "certain" but definitely not "all").

Intead of concerning itself primarily with important issues like poverty, homelessness, wealth inequality, the environment and climate change, helping battered women (and men), and things like that, religion tends to occupy itself with sexual matters - as if sex alone is the single most troubling issue of our age. In fact, of all ages.

Heh, when the Black Death began ravaging Europe, it goes without saying that religion ended up scapegoating some minority group within the greater population - but the first thing they blamed it on was low necklines and lascivious dancing. I mean ... seriously? With all the horrific socioeconomic disparities going on the Medieval period, the only things they could think of that God would get so angry over as to send a plague was ... low necklines and lascivious dancing.

Religion really could have used the Black Death as a springboard to change society for the better. But ... because religion always has its nose embedded in sexual issues, one would think that the ONLY thing that truly angers God is whether or not humans are using their genitalia the right way. Sure, I know some churches are involved in more humanitarian efforts - but let's face it - those efforts are small in comparison to how they deal with sex issues.

Thus, seven centuries later, religion has made absolutely no progress. As previously stated in past posts of mine - if the religious community mobilized even half as much to solve REAL issues as it did when it mobilized against same-sex marriage, there may have been some serious progress toward righting some of these wrongs. Instead, for instance, the governor of North Carolina thought bankrupting his state was less important to the calamitous issue of transgenders using the "wrong" bathroom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
You will note that the Church (yes Catholic Church) is all frowny face on lust, and women who after all are the objects of desire. and has bedeviled teenagers for generations in the confessional for having impure thoughts.
Yes, that has been duly noted. Which is why I have said (and many others, as well) that religion is an extremely patriarchal system that was written down during a time when women were nothing but property, nothing but chattel, nothing but barely human creatures that were useful only in baby-making and for use as a political game piece to eke out a good alliance.

Again, it is unfortunate that such a primitive, Bronze Age mentality managed to survive for thousands of years thanks largely due to the misogynistic way religion treated women. Just about all of the Bible stories has some good, forthright, godly man being brought down by an impure, decadent, wicked woman - or bringing down humanity entire simply for eating a fruit she didn't know not to eat. You even have the story of Lilith - if Eve isn't wicked enough for you.

No offense, guys, but you love to muck things up and then blame it on the nearest woman - as if we ever had the power to muck things up in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
I hesitate to go here being a lapsed catholic any all, sure to have invective [LEFT][/LEFT] poured on my head for voicing these opinions but there's so much wrong with my church, which has actively covered up what surely are sins with a capital "S." Wrong thinking is one of these.
I don't have many nice things to say about the Catholic Church. This, of course, isn't a disparagement against individual Catholics - but the institution itself is corrupt and criminal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
So lust is neither good or bad, its thinking that makes it so, someone said.
The commandment against lust has to be one of the stupidest laws ever to be enacted by any nation or god in the history of lawmaking.

If simply feeling lust for someone is considered adultery - and since the penalty for adultery is death - God would have to kill every single person on the planet. Over and over. The moment they enter puberty. It's patently absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2019, 05:55 AM
 
4,410 posts, read 1,639,451 times
Reputation: 1528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
This sort of dichotomy stems from one of the reasons why I think Christianity is nonsense: Religion has turned sex into a sin, something to be avoided unless procreating. People enveloped within this mindset have been absolutely brainwashed by religious propaganda.

One of the reasons why I think religion - at least the Abrahamic religions - are nonsense. It's preoccupation with sex is simply beyond the pale. In today's religious times, nearly every single issue Christianity deems important has to do with sex and gender: gay marriage, contraception, abstinance-only teaching, ensuring the right gender uses the correct bathroom, abortion - or - ensuring the fetus is birthed so that religion can abandon them the moment they draw their first breath, dismissing the idea of people being transgendered, and on and on.

The only non-sexual issues certain Christians even seem to care about are evolution and cosmology - and they only care about those things because they stand in direct conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The idea that "saintly and pure" is considered diametrically opposed to "passion and sex" is rather sad considering sex or, more accurately, love-making, is the ultimate in physical and emotional expression towards another person. Unfortunately, religion - ruled by the God of Love - managed to turn the greatest expression of love into a sin. That's what happens when you allow a prude like St. Augustine to decide what is and isn't acceptable behavior.

Perhaps if religion can ever get over its obsession with sex and gender, it might be worth looking at in terms of certain moral principles (note, I said "certain" but definitely not "all").

Intead of concerning itself primarily with important issues like poverty, homelessness, wealth inequality, the environment and climate change, helping battered women (and men), and things like that, religion tends to occupy itself with sexual matters - as if sex alone is the single most troubling issue of our age. In fact, of all ages.

Heh, when the Black Death began ravaging Europe, it goes without saying that religion ended up scapegoating some minority group within the greater population - but the first thing they blamed it on was low necklines and lascivious dancing. I mean ... seriously? With all the horrific socioeconomic disparities going on the Medieval period, the only things they could think of that God would get so angry over as to send a plague was ... low necklines and lascivious dancing.

Religion really could have used the Black Death as a springboard to change society for the better. But ... because religion always has its nose embedded in sexual issues, one would think that the ONLY thing that truly angers God is whether or not humans are using their genitalia the right way. Sure, I know some churches are involved in more humanitarian efforts - but let's face it - those efforts are small in comparison to how they deal with sex issues.

Thus, seven centuries later, religion has made absolutely no progress. As previously stated in past posts of mine - if the religious community mobilized even half as much to solve REAL issues as it did when it mobilized against same-sex marriage, there may have been some serious progress toward righting some of these wrongs. Instead, for instance, the governor of North Carolina thought bankrupting his state was less important to the calamitous issue of transgenders using the "wrong" bathroom.



Yes, that has been duly noted. Which is why I have said (and many others, as well) that religion is an extremely patriarchal system that was written down during a time when women were nothing but property, nothing but chattel, nothing but barely human creatures that were useful only in baby-making and for use as a political game piece to eke out a good alliance.

Again, it is unfortunate that such a primitive, Bronze Age mentality managed to survive for thousands of years thanks largely due to the misogynistic way religion treated women. Just about all of the Bible stories has some good, forthright, godly man being brought down by an impure, decadent, wicked woman - or bringing down humanity entire simply for eating a fruit she didn't know not to eat. You even have the story of Lilith - if Eve isn't wicked enough for you.

No offense, guys, but you love to muck things up and then blame it on the nearest woman - as if we ever had the power to muck things up in the first place.



I don't have many nice things to say about the Catholic Church. This, of course, isn't a disparagement against individual Catholics - but the institution itself is corrupt and criminal.



The commandment against lust has to be one of the stupidest laws ever to be enacted by any nation or god in the history of lawmaking.

If simply feeling lust for someone is considered adultery - and since the penalty for adultery is death - God would have to kill every single person on the planet. Over and over. The moment they enter puberty. It's patently absurd.

So then where do you draw the line, it at all, if we take religious guidelines out of sex?

Is pedophelia OK?
Is beasiality OK?
Is polygamy OK?
Must be.
And in your opinion, there must not be anything wrong in incest either.

A man should be allowed to treat women like napkins as per your rant above.
He should sleep with as many he wants and then discard them like trash. Why do we even need the institution of marriage at all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2019, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Florida
19,784 posts, read 19,880,941 times
Reputation: 23202
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
So then where do you draw the line, it at all, if we take religious guidelines out of sex?

Is pedophelia OK?
Is beasiality OK?
Is polygamy OK?
Must be.
And in your opinion, there must not be anything wrong in incest either.

A man should be allowed to treat women like napkins as per your rant above.
He should sleep with as many he wants and then discard them like trash. Why do we even need the institution of marriage at all?
Another person that doesn't seem to understand the concept of mutual consent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2019, 09:54 AM
 
Location: The backwoods of Pennsylvania ... unfortunately.
5,846 posts, read 3,353,622 times
Reputation: 4055
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
So then where do you draw the line, it at all, if we take religious guidelines out of sex?

Is pedophelia OK?
Is beasiality OK?
Is polygamy OK?
Must be.
And in your opinion, there must not be anything wrong in incest either.

A man should be allowed to treat women like napkins as per your rant above.
He should sleep with as many he wants and then discard them like trash. Why do we even need the institution of marriage at all?
Oh don't be ridiculous.

Whenever someone calls what I say a "rant" then I know I'm already dealing with someone completely unreasonable.

Because what you're essentially saying is that if I don't tolerate misogyny, then I must accept incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and all the rest of it.

It's the same STUPID slippery slope argument I had to hear for years regarding same-sex marriage.

Oh no ... if we accept gay marriage, then we must - MUST - accept incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and ... all the rest of it. Gee willickers ... someone might want to marry their dog or their sister or their car!

And guess what. Yeah, no one has done that and we've had same sex marriage now for ... how many years?

What did you do, exactly? Roll out of bed in a foul mood and decided to vent with some good old fashioned hyperbole? Nothing you said makes a lick of sense nor does anything you said have anything to do with the points I raised.

The Bible is filled to bursting with misogyny and the ill-treatment of women. Are you actually going to sit there and defend it with your paper-thin arguments? Are you actually going to sit there and defend the indefensible? Not that religious people don't do that all the time anyway so it's pretty much what I've come to expect. They'll defend slavery, genocide, killing babies, wars of aggression, blood sacrifices - they'll literally say anything to defend that book.

And here you are, dismissing what I say as a rant only to come back with the same silly fallacy that has been debunked a million times during the gay marriage debate - as if no one learned a thing. What, did you think you were dealing with an amateur here?

I'll just give you one little example - and then you can try to defend it with your post hoc rationalizations. Ready?

Take the tenth commandment, for instance. You know, the one about coveting? It reads something like this:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Notice anything rather misogynistic about this commandment? No, you probably don't - because if you did, you might be tempted into other forms of sexual indescretion, right? Therefore, I'll point it out for you:

Isn't it strange how your neighbor's wife is included in a list of your neighbor's possessions? I mean, there she is, right along with your neighbor's ox, donkey, and ass. Not to mention your neighbor's man- and maidservant which is just a polite way of saying your neighbor's "slaves."

Perhaps in your love life, that is all your wife is to you - another possession to be counted along with your big screen television, your Italian leather sofa, your home theater, your car, and your stock portfolio. But I tend to see a spouse - husband or wife - as infinitely more valuable than a donkey. Ya know?

And please note, as well, that the commandment does NOT say "do not covet thy neighbor's husband." Don't you find that a little odd? I mean, the Bible *did* make a distinction between manservant and maidservant - so why not write the commandment for both husband AND wife to obey? I think you already know the answer to that question ... don't you. So I won't waste time answering it.

These rules were written by men for men. As such, the wife was simply another commodity to be added up with slaves and livestock. As I said in my ... uh ... rant, women were regarded as mere chattel in Bronze Age Palistine. It didn't matter at all if the wife coveted because she had absolutely no means to obtain that which she wanted anyway.

Oh, by the way - thank you for again displaying why I find so much of Christianity to be morally bankrupt. Yes, I know there are good Christians who would agree with me wholeheartedly - but not you. Instead, you would rather do all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid the naked fact that ancient Judaism and hence Christianity was intrinsically misogynistic.

What's worse is that you didn't even refute a single point I made - not a one. Instead, you just let loose with the same nonsensical fallacies that your type of Christian always uses when their religion is exposed for being bigoted, sexist, racist, and xenophobic. You can't bring yourself to criticize your book no matter how heinous - and how obvious - the accusation is. So you'd rather take a stab at defending the Bible against the very people the Bible victimizes.

And don't think for a nanosecond that there still does not exist a lot of misogyny and sexism in the modern world - a lot of it thanks to ancient religions. There are quite a few men who would love nothing more than to "put women in their place" ... I can't even watch a YouTube video involving girls/women without the comments section being filled with posts like, "Get back in the kitchen, wench!" or "Notice anything wrong with this video? Yep, she's not in the kitchen." And the list goes on.

Plus, I don't think I have to tell you that our current government with the help of the fundevangelists are doing their best to reverse time - not by a few decades - but by 20 centuries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2019, 10:22 AM
 
4,323 posts, read 879,824 times
Reputation: 2400
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
So then where do you draw the line, it at all, if we take religious guidelines out of sex?

Is pedophelia OK?
Is beasiality OK?
Is polygamy OK?
Must be.
And in your opinion, there must not be anything wrong in incest either.

A man should be allowed to treat women like napkins as per your rant above.
He should sleep with as many he wants and then discard them like trash. Why do we even need the institution of marriage at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
Another person that doesn't seem to understand the concept of mutual consent.
This needs a caveat.

Minors CAN't give consent.
Critters CAN't give consent.

Polygamy? Maybe, but most is coerced non-consensual and the woman has little choice. I have no problem with it if it is outside a cult like setting. No of my business then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top