Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66
  1.    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Natural in this context means "occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature" (Webster). The ordinary course of nature is not easy to determine in humans because all humans live in a cultural context. But it is not a far-fetched assumption that the normal course of action means having sex and getting kids after adolescence.

    In the old days, most cultures had a problem with the population growing (resources in short supply), so there was a cultural pressure to postpone sex and kids. Religious rules are an expression of that pressure.
    I would appreciate if you elaborate on this point.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Of course also contraceptives are a cultural thing, no doubt. That does not make them bad per se. It allows having sex (which is a very strong natural drive) without getting kids
    Given your definition of natural course being "having sex and getting kids" it would seem that contraceptives (good or bad, right or wrong) would be considered "against" the course of nature. The word itself begins with the prefix "contra-"
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    before e.g. education is finished. Is having sex without having kids bad? I don't think so, why should it?
    No. In fact sometimes it's frustratingly unavoidable.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    What do you mean by promiscuity? It normally means having more than one sex partner, but it does not specify in what period of time. Most teens are not promiscous in the sense that they sleep with 3 different people per week, most teens live in serial monogamy, meaning they have sex with their partner only, but they have more than one partner in their life (one after the other).

    Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.
    Of course, we have the proverbial option to agree to disagree.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I would not necessarily want my kids to marry the fist person they ever had sex with, just as I would not like them to have sex with anybody/without feelings involved.
    But, for this exact reason I don't like to agree to disagree. Because, though we come at the topic from different angles, somehow we reach some shared conclusions.

    I must confess, though, that your desire that your children's sexual activity be tied to feelings seems incongruent. The notion that sex be tied to feelings suggests that sex has meaning beyond mutual pleasure. But, when I suggest that sex should be cherished and reserved for marriage, I'm encouraged to get get a reality check and to face facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Sex is an important factor in a relationship
    Aboslutely
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    , and I think it is a good idea to include that factor when making a choice for a relationship which is supposed to last (e.g. when one wants to have kids).
    I can see the need for health checks to help ensure fertility. But what does having sex together indicate? It is not a difficult act in which to engage. Much of the physical functions in healthy individuals occur automatically. And, if a man and woman have reached the point of being ready to enter a covenant, til-death-do-us-part, relationship, they surely have the willingness to learn together how to meet each other's sexual needs and desires. And, the beauty is, they have their whole lifetime together to perfect the craft. OK, so maybe he ejaculates prematurely on the first night. He can learn to prevent that. OK, so maybe she is so concerned if he will be satisfied that she can not really let herself just enjoy the experience. She can learn to relax. And if he REALLY loves her, he will assure her of his pleasure, even if it is limited at first. OK, so maybe it is painful for the first time. He can learn effectively cultivate a more receptive enviornment before just trying to ram it in there

    Practise before marriage is not required.

    Further developing satisfying sexual relations can create a notion of love that is not backed up on the emotional or intellectual levels. And, it won't be long in the marriage before you realize that as great as the sex is, the partner is a nightmare to live with.

    And, if you compound all that with experience with multiple partners (even serial monogamy), you introduce the concept of comparison, which is not conducive to a healthy sexual relationship.
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Do I get an special TC award for posting the ONLY post in the whole thread related to the topic of this thread?
    Yes

  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    benificial yes, essential...not necessarally.

    Love and marriage are seperate items.
    But Frankie told me that "Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage."

    This he told me, my brother.

    "You can't have one, without the other..."
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I would appreciate if you elaborate on this point.
    As mentioned before, most ancient societies are faced with the problem of population growth (in past times/before birth control). In case a given society is not burdened with that problem at a given point, the population grows until the carrying capacity of the ecosystem (the agricultural environment in the case of most humans during the past millenia) is reached, then they, too reach a state where a growing population means problems (e.g. not enough food).

    In the old days, the easiest way to keep the number of pregnancies down was increasing the age at which a woman gets pregnant. Therefore, most cultures try to delay pregnancy by cultural - meaning religious - rules which declare sex below a certain age or without being married (which comes down to the same thing) as sin. It is an attempt to control the natural drive by religious/social pressure. People not following those rules are threatened with expulsion from society and eternal punishment in hell, mostly both.

    The details of those rules vary of course. E.g. the Massai in East Africa separate the young men from the rest of the group during adolescence. They have to live on their own for some years, after which they are declared men and allowed to marry and have children.

    In our modern society, thanks to birth control, sex does not necessarily mean getting children any more. Therefore the old rules have become obsolete, unless of course one sticks to very old rules for some reason.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5.    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    As mentioned before, most ancient societies are faced with the problem of population growth (in past times/before birth control). In case a given society is not burdened with that problem at a given point, the population grows until the carrying capacity of the ecosystem (the agricultural environment in the case of most humans during the past millenia) is reached, then they, too reach a state where a growing population means problems (e.g. not enough food).

    In the old days, the easiest way to keep the number of pregnancies down was increasing the age at which a woman gets pregnant. Therefore, most cultures try to delay pregnancy by cultural - meaning religious - rules which declare sex below a certain age or without being married (which comes down to the same thing) as sin. It is an attempt to control the natural drive by religious/social pressure. People not following those rules are threatened with expulsion from society and eternal punishment in hell, mostly both.

    The details of those rules vary of course. E.g. the Massai in East Africa separate the young men from the rest of the group during adolescence. They have to live on their own for some years, after which they are declared men and allowed to marry and have children.

    In our modern society, thanks to birth control, sex does not necessarily mean getting children any more. Therefore the old rules have become obsolete, unless of course one sticks to very old rules for some reason.
    I'm not one to call for citations all the time. However, I would be interested to know your sources for this concept.

    When I worked in public education many moons ago, I was involved in an effort to bring Afro-centric programs to the public schools of Cleveland, OH. I could go on for a while about the pros and cons of the curriculum, but regardless of those value judgments, as a result of that work, I interacted with, and learned from several scholars (Molefi Kete Asante, Asa Hilliard, Ron Karenga, and others whose names are escaping me right now) on African history. The example of the Massai you cited reminds me of what they referred to as "rites of passage." And, nowhere in their presentations (perhaps in their writings, but not to my recollection) did they relate such ritual with population control efforts.

    Further, again, as I came to understand many of the African civilizations, large families were desirable, even amidst scarce resources. Children were considered a "blessing."

    That is not to say that you are incorrect. Perhaps, the experts with whom I interacted never felt the need to highlight the aspects of the culture that you have pointed out. So, it would be good to see the writings of additional scholars that corroborate your description.
  6.    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    ...In the old days, the easiest way to keep the number of pregnancies down was increasing the age at which a woman gets pregnant. Therefore, most cultures try to delay pregnancy by cultural - meaning religious - rules which declare sex below a certain age or without being married (which comes down to the same thing) as sin. It is an attempt to control the natural drive by religious/social pressure. People not following those rules are threatened with expulsion from society and eternal punishment in hell, mostly both.
    Which religions have you encountered that promote reduced or delayed pregnancies?

    Wan't the Catholic church recently ridiculed in this forum for the stance of rejecting contraception as well as sexual practices that did not promote conception and childbirth?
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I'm not one to call for citations all the time. However, I would be interested to know your sources for this concept.
    I can't give you a direct source, this is from a series of history lectures back at university. However, I guess e.g. the delay of marriage/sex/having children is quite a standard explanation for "ancient" birth control and hence population growth. I did a quick google and found e.g. this: "Western-trained demographers understood that in Europe, population control worked as people delayed marriage in hard times." here (see box on the right)

    Isn't it obvious that marriage and banning sex outside of marriage is a form of social control over adolescents and their reproduction? Before more modern means of birth contol, this was almost the only way.

    Most religious rules have or had some "real life" background, meaning they serve or served a purpose at the time they were declared. You once mentioned the rules in the bible which detail which animals are healthy to eat and which aren't. Some of those rules may be useful, e.g. not eating "birds" such as bats or certain insects, some may not have been even at the time. However, as time advances, many of those rules become obsolete in principle.

    Take the rule of not eating pigs. I don't know why the bible says eating pigs is prohibited, but it certainly does. Even Christians who think the bible is literally true eat pork. So the rules can change.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I can't give you a direct source, this is from a series of history lectures back at university. However, I guess e.g. the delay of marriage/sex/having children is quite a standard explanation for "ancient" birth control and hence population growth.
    My reason for addressing that assertion is because the African civilizations did not display a concern with "controlling" the population. A large population was a sign of prosperity. The only times a large population was a concern was during famine. But, in reality, during famine the absence of resources was not a function of increased demand as much as a function of decreased supply. Granted, during times of decreased supply, increased demand would be a complicating factor. But, again, I have not seen where decreasing population was a general goal.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I did a quick google and found e.g. this: "Western-trained demographers understood that in Europe, population control worked as people delayed marriage in hard times." here (see box on the right)
    per this reference, and perhaps others, we might be seeing a distinction between the African civilizations and the European ones.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Isn't it obvious that marriage and banning sex outside of marriage is a form of social control over adolescents and their reproduction?
    That is the obvious conclusion, only if you reject the notion of a Creator who is interested and active in the lives of the creatures. The Biblical model for marriage promotes the healthiest and most beneficial lifestyle for a family and for a society.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Before more modern means of birth contol, this was almost the only way.
    Again, there is an assumption that civilizations were desiring to limit population growth. That is an assumption that is not borne out in all societies
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup

    Most religious rules have or had some "real life" background, meaning they serve or served a purpose at the time they were declared. You once mentioned the rules in the bible which detail which animals are healthy to eat and which aren't. Some of those rules may be useful, e.g. not eating "birds" such as bats or certain insects, some may not have been even at the time. However, as time advances, many of those rules become obsolete in principle.
    This is a great point on which to point out the difference between religion and relationship with God. Religion consists of a set of man-made regulations and practices. These may have their basis or their aim in adhering to the revealed will of God. But, they also may have more humanistic motives, even ungodly motives (greed, power, control...). Such regulations and practices may infact become obsolete. However, the will of God does not become obsolete. The pork example you provide below is a prime example of the distinction.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup

    Take the rule of not eating pigs. I don't know why the bible says eating pigs is prohibited, but it certainly does. Even Christians who think the bible is literally true eat pork. So the rules can change.
    In retrospect, we can see the value of the prohibition against eating pork. Pigs are garbage disposals. Other prohibited animals are as well (on land and in sea). The prohibition of their consumption by humans helps to:
    1) keep them in population and thus performing their cleansing function, and
    2) helps keep the diseases that are inherant to their dietary habit from entering our population.

    NOTE: I have just begun an earnest study of dietary laws in the Bible. I, along with many other christians, had been taught that such laws were obsolete in light of the appearance of the long-awaited Messiah. The teaching is that such concerns were done away with in His coming. However, them ore I have studied, rather than just allowed myself to be taught, the more that I find the evidence to be compelling in a way opposite of what is commonly taught. I have recently cut back on my pork consumption, and will likely eliminate it altogether. The more I study, the more compelling and beneficial the "prohibition" seems to be.

    Also, the more I study, I find that the "prohibitions" of the Bible are not prohibitive at all. But are very life-affirming. The instructions of God to man as found in the Bible, directions as well as prohibitions, are all for man's benefit. And, if we would just make objective observations, we would see this. However, when man takes to "enforcing" thoses instructions on one another (which can be a result of religious efforts), there is going to be chaos (namely because we weren't created to dominate each other, but to dominate the earth; but in our failure to properly oversee the earth, we have diverted our attention to bossing each other). That is not to say they should not be heeded. Quite the contrary. However, we would do better to enforce them our own llives individually, and allow others to see their benefits, and join us in the practices.

    Hopefully you have noticed, that I am not advocating "religion." In fact, some of the things I'm addressing here would get me booted from many christian circles. But it is not my desire to please christians. Christians, have done some most vile things in the name of religion. Christians have advocated practices and behaviors that violate the very scripture they seek to promote (not necessarily intentionally, but violations still).

    It is my desire to please God. Why? Because I see that He finds the most pleasure in my well-being.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    My reason for addressing that assertion is because the African civilizations did not display a concern with "controlling" the population. A large population was a sign of prosperity.
    The idea of a population simply growing without concern is not realistic. It is not a question of being happy with few children or wanting more, it is a question of being able to keeping people alive. Hunter gatherer societies are extremely limited regarding the carrying capacity of their environment. Agricultural societies can feed more people per area, but nevertheless, a limit is reached quite fast. There is no reason to assume that this was different in Africa at any time. Soils in tropical Africa are not particularly well suited for agriculture, so the carrying capacity is reached quite fast. You can find more about population dynamics here: http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/popnecol.htm. BTW, they also mention marriage as a main control for population growth...
    3. Fertility limitation primarily via restriction on marriage:

    a. Linked to inheritance of agricultural estate (common pattern in Europe)
    b. Land scarcity -> delay in age at marriage, even lifelong celibacy (notes on p 135 that when density increases, celibacy is as high as 33%!).
    Overpopulation is not fun: famine, diseases, war is the result, leading to lower population densities. No wonder people try to prevent it.
    In retrospect, we can see the value of the prohibition against eating pork. Pigs are garbage disposals. Other prohibited animals are as well (on land and in sea). The prohibition of their consumption by humans helps to:
    1) keep them in population and thus performing their cleansing function, and
    2) helps keep the diseases that are inherant to their dietary habit from entering our population.
    That's not correct. Pigs are no better nor worse than other animals regarding spreading diseases.
    The more I study, the more compelling and beneficial the "prohibition" seems to be.

    Also, the more I study, I find that the "prohibitions" of the Bible are not prohibitive at all. But are very life-affirming.
    Yeah, sure. This reminds me of Numbers 15:32, where your god specifically orders a man to be stoned to death because he gathered wood on Sabbath. Will you pick up that stoning habit as well? It was your god who ordered it, literally, and as far as I know, this order was not taken back later, or was it? Where exactly?
    Last edited by clulup; 08/22/2005 at 09:27 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The idea of a population simply growing without concern is not realistic. It is not a question of being happy with few children or wanting more, it is a question of being able to keeping people alive. Hunter gatherer societies are extremely limited regarding the carrying capacity of their environment. Agricultural societies can feed more people per area, but nevertheless, a limit is reached quite fast. There is no reason to assume that this was different in Africa at any time. Soils in tropical Africa are not particularly well suited for agriculture, so the carrying capacity is reached quite fast. You can find more about population dynamics here: http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/popnecol.htm. BTW, they also mention marriage as a main control for population growth...
    The question is not whether the same pressures existed in Africa as in Europe, but in what was the response to the pressures. You have suggested that religion was used as a population control mechanism. I have suggested that thehistorical record does not bare out such practices.

    One reason to want high population is to increase the risk that the society survives famine, pestilience and the likes, even though several individuals do not.

    Further, just as fertility was seen as a "blessing" the natural disasters were seen as "curses." This is borne out by observing rituals aimed at "appeasing" the god(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup

    Overpopulation is not fun: famine, diseases, war is the result, leading to lower population densities. No wonder people try to prevent it.
    I would offer that these malidies are potential results. Famine is not an inherent result of overpopulation. Disease is not inherent. War is not inherent. They often do result, but as functions of human behavior in times of high population, not as functions of the population growth itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's not correct. Pigs are no better nor worse than other animals regarding spreading diseases.
    I'm in the beginning of my reading on this topic. Footnotes and endnotes in my reading point to claims of evidence on this topic.i'll reserve further comment at this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Yeah, sure. This reminds me of Numbers 15:32, where your god specifically orders a man to be stoned to death because he gathered wood on Sabbath. Will you pick up that stoning habit as well? It was your god who ordered it, literally, and as far as I know, this order was not taken back later, or was it? Where exactly?
    Stoning may seem barbaric to you. Public flogging is not viewed too well anymore. Future societies may even question the practice of incarceration.

    Interesting to note though that the more "humane" our responses to crime has become, it seems the more crime we are experiencing (maybe that is only in the religious USA) In the US, incarceration is a cash cow. It is not serving the function of deterrent, only punishment.

    But back to Numbers: Without regard for our opinion of the punishment, had the stick-gatherer observed the law, he would not have been at risk. And amazingly, the law he violated was the one designed to give him life-affirming rest. And, while the account does not provide follow-up information, my guess is that for a period of time, stick-gathering on the sabbath was at an all-time low.

    In fact, is it possible that the God-ordained penalties associated with non-compliance were set up as deterrents? However, for the deterrents to have any effect, they needed to be backed up.

    If you study the progressions from Eden to the Wilderness, you will notice a pattern: legislation (and punishment) increased as wickedness increased. The further mankind drifted from the life-affirming path (righteousness), the more corrective measures were implemented....not for punishment sake, but to guide man back to the life-affirming path.
  11.    #51  
    Interesting aside, accomplishing fertility limitation via restriction on marriage is only possible if sex outside of marriage was not the norm.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    One reason to want high population is to increase the risk that the society survives famine, pestilience and the likes, even though several individuals do not. ... Famine is not an inherent result of overpopulation.
    Overpopulation is the result of not enough resources for a given number or people. Most of the time, not enough food is the cause. It can also mean not enough space: The spread of diseases is the result of people living too close together, with a weakend immune system, mostly also due to not enough food. Increasing the number of people to increase the chance of surviving famine sounds like a baaaad strategy.
    Interesting to note though that the more "humane" our responses to crime has become, it seems the more crime we are experiencing (maybe that is only in the religious USA)
    Interestingly enough, the US are the only "civilised" society with widespread use of death penalty. Still, the crime rate is much higher than in most other developed countries. Death penalty does not work as a deterrent against murder. So you suggest what? Torture?
    But back to Numbers: Without regard for our opinion of the punishment, had the stick-gatherer observed the law, he would not have been at risk.
    That's not the point. Your god calls for people to be stoned to death if they gather wood on a Sabbath/Sunday. Why don't you follow his orders, if indeed the rules in the bible are to be followed? Where in New Testament does it say you don't have to follow those god-given rules? You stick to them in the case of sex (though there is no sentence in the Bible against use of the pill), so why not in other cases?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13.    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Interestingly enough, the US are the only "civilised" society with widespread use of death penalty. Still, the crime rate is much higher than in most other developed countries. Death penalty does not work as a deterrent against murder. So you suggest what? Torture?
    Actually, the US does not have widespread use of the death penalty. It has widespread authorization to use the death penalty. My guess is, if it were in fact used consistently , it would be more of a deterrent. I have no statistical measures to cite. But, when a person is sentenced to death, they are just as, if not more, likely to die from natural causes than from execution.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's not the point. Your god calls for people to be stoned to death if they gather wood on a Sabbath/Sunday. Why don't you follow his orders, if indeed the rules in the bible are to be followed? Where in New Testament does it say you don't have to follow those god-given rules?
    No where that I've seen
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You stick to them in the case of sex (though there is no sentence in the Bible against use of the pill), so why not in other cases?
    Hey, I'm supposed to be the one calling for righteous living. But I welcome your assistance.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    No where that I've seen.
    So it comes down to you asking people to act according to what the bible says (according to your interpretation), but only where it suits your ideas (e.g. regarding sex for people who are not married), but not when it does not suit your ideas (e.g. regarding stoning people to death if they gather wood on a Sabbath/Sunday (among other things)? Do you find that convincing? I think you should at least be consistent. Why not stone people who gather wood on Sundays? Your god's instructions are more than clear, MUCH more clear than e.g. about not using the pill.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15.    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So it comes down to you asking people to act according to what the bible says (according to your interpretation), but only where it suits your ideas (e.g. regarding sex for people who are not married), but not when it does not suit your ideas (e.g. regarding stoning people to death if they gather wood on a Sabbath/Sunday (among other things)? Do you find that convincing? I think you should at least be consistent. Why not stone people who gather wood on Sundays? Your god's instructions are more than clear, MUCH more clear than e.g. about not using the pill.
    So, are we talking about the right- or wrong-ness of these topics, or are we talking about the hypocrisy of religious people in picking a choosing what to believe?

    And, sense you are an advocate for letter of the law, did you pick up any sticks this weekend? If so, please provide your home address.

    OK. I'm being silly. However, the silliness is really in the fact that since you are not a member of the believing community, we would not be in authroity to bring such response to your behaviour. The laws in the Bible were set to apply to God's people. So, for example, you don't see the Israelites going to stone the Ishmaelites on the first day of the week. Why? because the Ishmaelites were not in on the covenant. But, those who desired to sojourn with the Israelites were subject to these laws.

    Similarly, there are christians who don't perceive that they are subject to these laws. They do see however where there is new Testament support of certain prohibitions. I would be happy to discuss such variations in interpretation. However, whether or not religious people are consistent in applying scripture is a separate discussion from the right-ness or wrong-ness, or more importantly the benefits or detriments, of practicing given lifestyles.
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So it comes down to you asking people to act according to what the bible says (according to your interpretation), but only where it suits your ideas (e.g. regarding sex for people who are not married), but not when it does not suit your ideas (e.g. regarding stoning people to death if they gather wood on a Sabbath/Sunday (among other things)? Do you find that convincing? I think you should at least be consistent. Why not stone people who gather wood on Sundays? Your god's instructions are more than clear, MUCH more clear than e.g. about not using the pill.
    But, for the record, I did not approach the topic in terms of "thus saith the Lord." I pointed out inherent dangers in the sexual practices.

    It "just so happens" that those inherent risks are well mitigated in the biblically inspired lifestyle.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    But, for the record, I did not approach the topic in terms of "thus saith the Lord." I pointed out inherent dangers in the sexual practices.

    It "just so happens" that those inherent risks are well mitigated in the biblically inspired lifestyle.
    That's an interesting point. You admit that someting is not necessarily a wise guideline just because it is found in the bible (e.g. stoning to death people who pick up sticks on Sabbath). Other guidelines in the bible MAY be useful, but we have to check them in reality... so what matters is assessing the consequences of an action and determining whether we want them or not, and not blindly following instructions in a book.

    Apart from that, it is a fact that the bible does not say anything against the use of the pill or other means of modern birth control. And does it say anything about sex outside of marriage? The bible does, however, advocate polygamy, a practice that was changed relatively late in history, and mostly due to Roman practices, not because of what the bible says. So regarding these questions it is not the bible which guides you, but religious practices and social rules.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18.    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's an interesting point. You admit that someting is not necessarily a wise guideline just because it is found in the bible (e.g. stoning to death people who pick up sticks on Sabbath).
    When did I make such an admission?
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Other guidelines in the bible MAY be useful, but we have to check them in reality... so what matters is assessing the consequences of an action and determining whether we want them or not, and not blindly following instructions in a book.
    We agree. I don't think I have invited anyone to blindly follow anything. I do encourage people to follow the precepts of the Bible witheyes wide open. It is only in such manner that you will see the benefits of the Biblical lifestyle. As I pointed out before, God's invitation is for us to consider the options before us then choose. He, just advocates that we choose life.

    To all readers of this forum, please do not blindly follow anything. Consider the consequences of your actions and choose accordingly.

    For example, consider the consequences of sex outside of marriage. Determine if the reward outweighs the risks. Consider the consequences of abortion. Determine if the outcome is worth the cost (financially, physically, emotionally, spiritually). Determine if the risk of an STD is worth the brief encounter. Consider if their is a case for a creator. Consider if there is life after deeath. Consider if there is any chance that the way you live now, will determine the way you will live in the future.

    By all means, consider the consequences of actions. I have. And, I have observed that the Biblical lifestyle is far superior to others that I have encountered. Is it so because it's in an old book? No. Of course not. It just sohappens that the old book has some good information.

    Even if the whole thing is a hoax, you still live healthy, wealthy and wise.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup

    Apart from that, it is a fact that the bible does not say anything against the use of the pill or other means of modern birth control.
    Agreed
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    And does it say anything about sex outside of marriage?
    Yes. Doesn't speak well of it
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The bible does, however, advocate polygamy
    FALSE. The fact that the practice is present in its content does not mean that it is advocated.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    , a practice that was changed relatively late in history, and mostly due to Roman practices, not because of what the bible says
    again, we see an example of a secualr decision baring out the benefits of the lifestyle that the Bible advocates
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    . So regarding these questions it is not the bible which guides you, but religious practices and social rules.
    You have a fascinating approach of taking what you think I will say, and applying it to me so that you can make your argument. Your view of the Bible is well documented across the various threads. And, yet in all of your pokes and prods, I don't recall seeing a single place where you refute the benefits of the Biblical lifestyle.

    In fact, if anything you gave a ringing endorsement, when after all the smoke and mirrors, you freely offer that you hope your own children link feeling with sex.

    I think the biggest difference between us is not the scientific versus religious orientation. It is that for me, there is more than a joy of debate. Rather, I seek to live the life that I speak of. But, for all your touting of safe sex, as an example, you ultimately hope that your children will see it for more than a mere recreational activity. But what you fail to realize is that when you treat sex as merely a drive that needs satisfaction, and when you come up with all sorts of artificial means to prevent the natural outcome of sexual relations, you cheapen it. And our children see that. And, they consider within themselves that obviously it is just about the physical act.

    I hope you children have emotions involved with their sex lives as well. In fact, I hope they see that it functions best in the context of covenant relationship. Why? Because I can see the dangers that they face if they do not.
    Last edited by shopharim; 08/23/2005 at 08:07 AM.
  19.    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I think the biggest difference between us is not the scientific versus religious orientation. It is that for me, there is more than a joy of debate. Rather, I seek to live the life that I speak of.
    OK. That was not a good characterization. It does appear that you seek to live out what you speak of. Rather, I find some incongruencies between what you state in debate versus what you state as your life choices.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    You have a fascinating approach of taking what you think I will say, and applying it to me so that you can make your argument. Your view of the Bible is well documented across the various threads. And, yet in all of your pokes and prods, I don't recall seeing a single place where you refute the benefits of the Biblical lifestyle.
    I refute stoning people to death because they pick up wood on a Sabbath (you don't?), or the ban of pork (because it doesn't make sense), or the punishment of children and their children for things their parents did, and many, many other things which the bible calls for. Most Christians refute those things as well, though I don't understand how, in case they claim at the same time that the bible is literally true.

    Where/how in the bible does it say nobody should have sex before marriage? You claim things are written in the bible which in fact are simply religious rules imposed much later, e.g. monogamy vs. polygamy, with polygamy obviously being the standard at the time.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions