[Dr. Howard]

(02-23-2015 01:51 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

The whole point of this thread is that a lot of christians want a gay church but the problem with that is that it isnt biblical. Neither is the lifestyle of a player. How do you reconcile that?

I was going to post a conditional to this, but then my computer froze mid post...I took that as a sign that I should keep it short and sweet and agree that the lifestyle of a player isn't biblical.


[/list]

[Suits]

(02-23-2015 12:45 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

Well at least you guys admit that youre not following god's plan by having premarital sex

Who says that God and the Bible have anything to do with each other?

There are some major contradictions in how the Bible describes God and what type of creator I'd be willing to worship.

My best guess? People wrote the Bible. Not God.

[The Beast1]

(02-23-2015 02:58 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 12:45 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

Well at least you guys admit that youre not following god's plan by having premarital sex

Who says that God and the Bible have anything to do with each other?

There are some major contradictions in how the Bible describes God and what type of creator I'd be willing to worship.

My best guess? People wrote the Bible. Not God.

You want a more complete picture of God? Try reading the non-canonical books off the bible. It was like adding parts of a picture that were cut out.

I've wanted to do some more research into the Ethiopean christian church. Their traditions can be traced all the way back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. They're about as close as one can get to how early Christian churches operated.

http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english...books.html

[Suits]

(02-23-2015 03:44 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 02:58 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 12:45 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

Well at least you guys admit that youre not following god's plan by having premarital sex

Who says that God and the Bible have anything to do with each other?

There are some major contradictions in how the Bible describes God and what type of creator I'd be willing to worship.

My best guess? People wrote the Bible. Not God.

You want a more complete picture of God? Try reading the non-canonical books off the bible. It was like adding parts of a picture that were cut out.

I've wanted to do some more research into the Ethiopean christian church. Their traditions can be traced all the way back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. They're about as close as one can get to how early Christian churches operated.

http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english...books.html

That's the thing. There are multiple canons of the Bible. (Translation: there isn't one Bible. Different groups of dedicated Christians have come up with somewhat different versions of the Bible).

The bigger problem is that although a lot of the stuff that did not end up in the various canons got cut out for good reason, even what is in the Bible and probably should be in the Bible, was written 1600 years ago minimum. Some of it was written thousands and thousands of years ago.

Even for people who can read the original Greek/Latin/Whatever, there is cultural context that plays a huge role in the understanding of any writing.

As well, just about anything written in the New Testament, was written to respond to the concerns of the day. Some people like to believe that Bible has an answer to every question, but there are very good questions about homosexuality that the Bible doesn't come anywhere near answering, so that leaves critical thinkers in the lurch, forced to come up with their own answers.

When it comes to social blights as complicated as homosexuality, I'm not even sure if there are any good answers.

I'm a huge fan of the Bible, however. I just think it's a confusing starting point. People the world over read that thing and end up with remarkably different beliefs as a result.

I favour philosophy. Through the study of ethics and morality systems, you can get a pretty good picture of why the Bible labels certain things sins.

My personal view is that everything condemned by God is condemned for our own good and that God doesn't create rules just for the hell of it. That being said, there may be rules in the Bible that were written down by people, because in a certain time and place, they made perfect sense, but fast forward 2000 years and they have no utility.

Christians everywhere have already rejected a massive portion of Old Testament law.

Jesus didn't write the New Testament. People who were close to him or were close to people who knew Jesus did. They did the best that they could. However, I'm willing to entertain the theory that if Jesus had come 100 years ago, the NT would look remarkably different today.

Anyway, the Bible doesn't condemn me having multiple wives. As soon as Christians can get on board with that, I think we'll be getting somewhere.

[enderilluminatus]

Suits you are one of the least dangerous types of christians

Mad respect dawg

[Samseau]

(02-23-2015 01:11 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

my dad is the son of a missionary/pastor. He went to seminary and can read greek and hebrew

Anyone here able to do that? I think i know a bit more about the bible than any of you

I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about, or haven't thought through the matter.

"He who lusts with his eyes has committed adultery in his heart." This is from the sermon on the mount.

Question: How does one commit adultery if you're not married?

Again, the "premarital sex" as a sin is completely unmentioned. The idea that men shouldn't have sex before marriage with women who are unmarried is only inferred, but never directly said.

Really now, you must understand that getting sex without paying for it is a very minor sin by nearly any Biblical standard. But people love to croan on and on about the evilness of male sexuality yet fail to consider that it is also written effeminate men shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. God hates weaklings. A man who refuses to chase women he desires is inherently weak. The entire idea of men abstaining from sex makes no sense past the age of 25 for 99% of men. Again, virtually all Biblical evidence shows God prefers strong, manly men who don't use prostitutes but very much desired and enjoyed sex. The difference was that back in the day, to get sex you needed to be a provider - today to get sex, you need to a stud.

It's not the men who are doing the major sinning here. It's the women. Men are behaving in their natural roles. Women are not. They are the ones who lose out hard on this game, men end up satisfying their urges and being able to repent off some minor sins in middle age before getting married or going celibate. Women on the other hand take old age harshly by themselves and become helpless quickly without a husband or family to take care of her. Women can repent too of course, but by this point their lives are wasted.

The only reason this state of affairs can exist, of course, is because of the welfare state, but God knows this state of affairs won't last, as "the poor you will always have with you."

[Suits]

(02-24-2015 01:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 01:11 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

my dad is the son of a missionary/pastor. He went to seminary and can read greek and hebrew

Anyone here able to do that? I think i know a bit more about the bible than any of you

I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about, or haven't thought through the matter.

"He who lusts with his eyes has committed adultery in his heart." This is from the sermon on the mount.

Question: How does one commit adultery if you're not married?

Again, the "premarital sex" as a sin is completely unmentioned. The idea that men shouldn't have sex before marriage with women who are unmarried is only inferred, but never directly said.

Really now, you must understand that getting sex without paying for it is a very minor sin by nearly any Biblical standard. But people love to croan on and on about the evilness of male sexuality yet fail to consider that it is also written effeminate men shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. God hates weaklings. A man who refuses to chase women he desires is inherently weak. The entire idea of men abstaining from sex makes no sense past the age of 25 for 99% of men. Again, virtually all Biblical evidence shows God prefers strong, manly men who don't use prostitutes but very much desired and enjoyed sex. The difference was that back in the day, to get sex you needed to be a provider - today to get sex, you need to a stud.

It's not the men who are doing the major sinning here. It's the women. Men are behaving in their natural roles. Women are not. They are the ones who lose out hard on this game, men end up satisfying their urges and being able to repent off some minor sins in middle age before getting married or going celibate. Women on the other hand take old age harshly by themselves and become helpless quickly without a husband or family to take care of her. Women can repent too of course, but by this point their lives are wasted.

The only reason this state of affairs can exist, of course, is because of the welfare state, but God knows this state of affairs won't last, as "the poor you will always have with you."

I think it was no accident that it was "the woman at the well," not "the man at the well."



I'll add one point. I think that "Christian style dating" (long relationships, not going past first base, frequent breakups) is a lot more damaging than hooks ups between two (or three!) parties who know it isn't going anywhere.

I did some real harm to some girls by seriously dating them. I was looking for a spouse, so I took several (two in particular, but four in total) relationships with church going girls very serious.

This seriousness (because marriage!) led to intense emotional entanglements, even though we never took our clothes off or even got handsy with the boobies. (Seriously, I have the self-control of a Buddhist monk).

The many girls I've banged after my decision to go in a new direction, haven't been hurt by me nearly as much.

Sure, two regulars ignored my repeated warnings that what we were doing was not serious, and got their feelings hurt (because they figured I owed them commitment), but they both got over it fairly quickly and I've ended up being able to transition into having health friendships with both of them. One is back on the bangroll.

Compare that to the girl who suffered through nine months of depression after I broke up with her. We barely ever talk now, which is too bad, because she was a really cool girl.

For men, I honestly think that it's healthier to just get a bang out of your system and move on quickly (if it's a girl that you'll never commit to). Turning that desire into a drawn out, but ultimately unfulfilling dating relation (because marriage!) is almost always a bad move.

The ideal would be to get married quickly and not deal with this garbage, but we all know that that is not a smart move these days either.

[Geomann180]

(02-23-2015 01:11 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

my dad is the son of a missionary/pastor. He went to seminary and can read greek and hebrew

Anyone here able to do that? I think i know a bit more about the bible than any of you

I just want to point out, your holier than thou way of presenting your points wins you no friends, whether you are right or wrong.

Might come off different when you speak what you write, but this is not the first time the way someone's writing came across got them in hot water, regardless of intentions.

G

[Dr. Howard]

(02-24-2015 02:12 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 01:11 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

my dad is the son of a missionary/pastor. He went to seminary and can read greek and hebrew

Anyone here able to do that? I think i know a bit more about the bible than any of you

I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about, or haven't thought through the matter.

"He who lusts with his eyes has committed adultery in his heart." This is from the sermon on the mount.

Question: How does one commit adultery if you're not married?

Again, the "premarital sex" as a sin is completely unmentioned. The idea that men shouldn't have sex before marriage with women who are unmarried is only inferred, but never directly said.

Really now, you must understand that getting sex without paying for it is a very minor sin by nearly any Biblical standard. But people love to croan on and on about the evilness of male sexuality yet fail to consider that it is also written effeminate men shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. God hates weaklings. A man who refuses to chase women he desires is inherently weak. The entire idea of men abstaining from sex makes no sense past the age of 25 for 99% of men. Again, virtually all Biblical evidence shows God prefers strong, manly men who don't use prostitutes but very much desired and enjoyed sex. The difference was that back in the day, to get sex you needed to be a provider - today to get sex, you need to a stud.

It's not the men who are doing the major sinning here. It's the women. Men are behaving in their natural roles. Women are not. They are the ones who lose out hard on this game, men end up satisfying their urges and being able to repent off some minor sins in middle age before getting married or going celibate. Women on the other hand take old age harshly by themselves and become helpless quickly without a husband or family to take care of her. Women can repent too of course, but by this point their lives are wasted.

The only reason this state of affairs can exist, of course, is because of the welfare state, but God knows this state of affairs won't last, as "the poor you will always have with you."

I think it was no accident that it was "the woman at the well," not "the man at the well."



I'll add one point. I think that "Christian style dating" (long relationships, not going past first base, frequent breakups) is a lot more damaging than hooks ups between two (or three!) parties who know it isn't going anywhere.

I did some real harm to some girls by seriously dating them. I was looking for a spouse, so I took several (two in particular, but four in total) relationships with church going girls very serious.

This seriousness (because marriage!) led to intense emotional entanglements, even though we never took our clothes off or even got handsy with the boobies. (Seriously, I have the self-control of a Buddhist monk).

The many girls I've banged after my decision to go in a new direction, haven't been hurt by me nearly as much.

Sure, two regulars ignored my repeated warnings that what we were doing was not serious, and got their feelings hurt (because they figured I owed them commitment), but they both got over it fairly quickly and I've ended up being able to transition into having health friendships with both of them. One is back on the bangroll.

Compare that to the girl who suffered through nine months of depression after I broke up with her. We barely ever talk now, which is too bad, because she was a really cool girl.

For men, I honestly think that it's healthier to just get a bang out of your system and move on quickly (if it's a girl that you'll never commit to). Turning that desire into a drawn out, but ultimately unfulfilling dating relation (because marriage!) is almost always a bad move.

The ideal would be to get married quickly and not deal with this garbage, but we all know that that is not a smart move these days either.

I've never thought about it that way. The only legit "no banging" girl I've dated was a short but very very intense relationship. I mean, in an average relationship 80% of my focus is when am i going to bang, and then how and I going to get this girl out of here after I bang. So, the non-sex part of the relationship in this case progressed 80% faster because the banging wasn't in the equation. That relationship blew up HARD when it did too.

I am undecided if that intensity is a positive or a negative though.