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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 09:54 AM
Status: "Gone" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: The backwoods of Pennsylvania ... unfortunately.
5,830 posts, read 3,287,064 times
Reputation: 4018

Advertisements

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 Yesterday, 10:22 AM
 
3,648 posts, read 722,786 times
Reputation: 2062
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
 
Old Yesterday, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
5,618 posts, read 2,780,781 times
Reputation: 2854
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.
I was married to a born again Christian. She never could reconcile her horniness for me with her 'love for Jesus'. On the one hand she loved sex but on the other hand she rebelled against her passions. It didn't stop her from having an affair with a married man though (before I came along).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:58 AM
 
3,301 posts, read 1,031,379 times
Reputation: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy View Post
I was married to a born again Christian. She never could reconcile her horniness for me with her 'love for Jesus'. On the one hand she loved sex but on the other hand she rebelled against her passions. It didn't stop her from having an affair with a married man though (before I came along).
Didnít she brag about being a lousy sinning xian?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
5,618 posts, read 2,780,781 times
Reputation: 2854
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Last Amalekite 1Sam15 View Post
Didnít she brag about being a lousy sinning xian?
Actually no, now that you mention it, she was rather self-righteous.
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

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