Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 66 of 66
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I find some incongruencies between what you state in debate versus what you state as your life choices.
    Such as?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2.    #62  
    [/QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I refute stoning people to death because they pick up wood on a Sabbath (you don't?)
    Actually, I don't refute the value of capital punishment. Stoning for stick-collecting does seem harsh to my 21st century sensibilities. Then I recall that there was no need for him to be stoned. He could have avoided the entire situation.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    , or the ban of pork (because it doesn't make sense)
    still in learning mode as stated earlier
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    , or the punishment of children and their children for things their parents did
    That there are implicatons of my behavior tha t fall to my children, should help me to make wiser decisions. However, the visitation upon the children is not necessarily punishment of the children. But we've addressed that already
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    , 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.
    That does prove inconsistent doesn't it?
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Where/how in the bible does it say nobody should have sex before marriage?
    I decided to a quick search for specific prohibitions whether than show logical implicatons. Check Acts 15:20
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    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.
    First case of polygamy that comes to mind is Jacob (Israel). However, Jesus' teaching points to a different model (Matthew 19:1-12).

    I'm open to your interpretation.
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Such as?
    I found this submission intriguing:
    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. Sex is an important factor in a relationship, 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).
    What is need to have feelings involved with sex, as long as they are properly protected?
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I found this submission intriguing:

    What is need to have feelings involved with sex, as long as they are properly protected?
    There's no need, but it's better (quality wise). Lot's of things are better with feelings involved, that's obvious, isn't it?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Check Acts 15:20
    That is the line which prevents some Christians from accepting blood donations... Another reason why a literal interpretation does not seem wise in my view. A few weeks ago, in Germany a member of Jehova's Witnesses died with her new-born baby in her arms because she refused a simple transfusion. A very literal interpretation, apparently...
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    First case of polygamy that comes to mind is Jacob (Israel). However, Jesus' teaching points to a different model (Matthew 19:1-12).

    I'm open to your interpretation.
    You don't sound convinced... neither am I. Just reasons for/against divorce, nothing about monogamy/polygamy.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6.    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That is the line which prevents some Christians from accepting blood donations... Another reason why a literal interpretation does not seem wise in my view. A few weeks ago, in Germany a member of Jehova's Witnesses died with her new-born baby in her arms because she refused a simple transfusion. A very literal interpretation, apparently...
    I thought we were discussing sex before/outside of marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You don't sound convinced... neither am I. Just reasons for/against divorce, nothing about monogamy/polygamy.
    The reference to Jacob points out that polygamy was not necessarily the order of the day as you suggested.

    The reference to Jesus' teaching on marriage indicates a both a singular (as opposed to plural) reference to man and woman in marriage. He speaks of divorcing before marrying again (not an advocacy for, but a policy of how), as well as an indication that fornication was just cause for divorce (though just cause does not mean that divorce is necessary).
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions