Your sources are bunk. Some fool put a heading up in relation to promiscuity and then gives Bible quotes on Adultery. Surely you understand the difference do you not.
What was your standard? The need to support what you said with citation? And when you get it? When you are ONCE AGAIN on the wrong side of Christian doctrine? Well, you are right because of a slective non-quotation? You explain to us why, once again, we should take some kids interpretation of selective scripture while you ignore and twist a meaning that is clear to everyone else? Clear to those who have been through peer review and Seminary training - but not you? Go right ahead and show me how the only thing in the Bible that is talked about sexually - inlcuding the OT BTW - which is apparently not there - except it is in the sources I provided for you ... As are covenants. Right back to the Jesus Myth with you, seeing only what you wish and ignoring everything else because the great and mighty Prophet of God who has not even read the Bible is all knowing and everyone else is too stupid to keep up. Why, that's why the Trinity is wrong. That's why there are no first century texts. That's why Christians can bang any chic they want as long as they are not married - and, well, even if they ar, because adultry ONLY applies to women. And of course, even though the COVENANT is a major part of our faith, there are not cavenants and, of course, marriage is not a covenant - even those major denominations treat it exactly as such. Why should anyone treat your opinions with respect when you just do the same thing over and over. "Show me evidence!" and then, when shown it, pull as ostrich? Its a debate forum, so try debate rather than an ever changing thesis statement where the goal is never to have to admit that you are wrong while making one looney claim after another.
Yep, sources that cull the scriptural referrences out for you and are in line with Christian doctrine are bunk - because you say so. Just more of this - the usual from athtards. You do understand that there is a reason that no Christian ever agrees with your wild interpretations? Does the process of peer review shock you? It should. Does it strike you in the least bit odd that only atheists and BB, an agnostic, ever agree with you?
So are you claiming that there is not a promise to God in most Christian marriage cerimonies? What is the purpose of talking about Jesus myths and the Trinity other than to avoid answering simple questions in relation to the Bible. The question you seem to want to desperately avoid is whether or not Jesus preached against promiscuity. If you do not want to talk about Jesus .. "Fine" .. just say so. We can talk about Pauls version of sexuality.
Nonsense. The vast majority of Christians understand the difference between adultery and promiscuity.
No, you are wrong. I pressed the little link arrows next to each post and there is no mention of anyone asking about or talking about promiscuity, the OP and this particular line in the thread is entirely about: Is sex indeed solely for the purpose of married people for procreation? You brought promiscuity into it, and we are not discussing this.
Yes there is a promise to God. No the promise is not ours to make for God. Its called a covenant, swearing an oath - and yes, we give our word to God. Its not depserately avoided - it was spelled out in plain English and went strawman on it - as you usually do - and are now trying to come up with a cogent thesis to again avoid having to admit that you were wrong - again. The word I used, the phrase I used, is covenant - marriage is a covenant. You then went ape (*)(*)(*)(*) and stupid about something that is most definitely supported by the Bible that you have apparently read MANY times but were unfamiliar with ... and now I am dodging. Not you though, never you How about you start showing me your rediculous proof about Christians supposedly supporting promiscuity slick. Pride cometh before the fall.
Because promiscuity would be the alternative to sex in marriage. And no one, save those that are chainging the thesis, has said that sex is ONLY for procreation. We have said it is part of a healthy MONOGAMOUS relationship in a MARRIAGE. You guys are disagreeing and, as usual, changing goal posts. But mentioning promiscuity, which several people on this post have admitted to desiring, is off limits - because atheists cannot defend the position - so the goal post changes. Would any of you actually like to add an insightful comment about sexuality and morality? Or are we just going to play three year old and watch you guys desperately try not to be wrong? Up to you.
I did not go "ape" and into a rant like you always do, but I am glad you finally realize that what I was telling you was true. If you knew that there is promise to God in the marriage cerimony and that this is against the teachings of the Bible then why did you argue against it for so long ? Glad that we can finish with that argument. Now to the Promiscuity issue. You do not seem to want to talk about Jesus, which I understand because he did not really adress the issue. Did you wish to talk about Paul views then ?
I am not the one claiming that sex before marriage is even promiscuity, never mind being a bad thing. It is you that claims that sex is only for a "monogamous" relationship. Obviously you have no OT support for this claim. The OT in fact seems to argue for the opposite as most of the Patriarchs and others of Gods chosen in the OT had multiple wives with no condemnation from God in the law or in any commentary. I was hoping you would come up with something from Jesus but you seem not to want to do this. Shall we discuss Paul then ?
And how do you know its telling the truth in those parts? If theirs contradictions it might be obviously false at least in part but even if the bible is self-consistent that doesnt mean it not false So how do you know its from a god? What parts in the bible do you take then look at the real world to know the bible must be truly from a god.
Religion is saturated with sex. You only have to see at the way the RC Church looked the 'other way' when its horde of deviant, paedophile priests were left to abuse and molest young boys. And the 'glorious' founder of the Muslim religion had sex with an underage girl!
Does this picture mean that Muslims always have 'their heads stuck in the sand' at the expense of all other forms of worship!
Well, once again, this is the intellectual insight of the Prophet himself. Unable to acknowledge - once again mind you - the evidence before him, unable to make a case, he's still right and is left with petty dodges. And his athtard pal is there, as the athtards always are, to add nothing of substance to any discussion. So lets review. #1 - Jesus is a Myth - wrong. #2 - There are no First Century Christian documents - wrong. #3 - The Trinity is NOT Biblical - wrong. #4 - The Old Testament ONLY commands us not to commit adutry - wrong. #5 - Christianity somehow supports promiscuity - wrong. #6 - Marriage is NOT a covenant, its in fact sacriledge to say as much - wrong. I mean, we cannot get much clearer than this: "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman TO lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28 But really, the intent there has nothing to do with promiscuity and is all about the old testament version of adultry. And teh sources that IN THE BIBLE that further reinforce this meaning, well, they are just the ramblings of ... an apostle who knew less about Jesus than our modern day Prophet here - because he could not have actually existed in the first century. Maybe you should read the Bible if you are going to consider yourself the appointed expert and run around lecturing everyone gifted. As you see, once again, you are simply and utterly wrong. Just as predicted, who defends you? An atheist. One who, like you, pretended to be Christian and even went so far as to demand that the mods make people stop questioning his 'Christianity' - only to then admit that he was agnostic And now he defends Muslims from dishonest attacks, even as he continues to attack Christians with dishonesty. But heh, he's on YOUR side - is defending the accuracy of YOUR Christianity. At what point will you stop and look around and realize that your antics have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with pride? At what point do we look at the petty accussations and constant vaccuous claims of expertise, inability to offer substantive argumentation, and conclude that we should just dismiss your arguementation entirely? Why should your opinion, which is not supported in the slightest, is directly contradicted with evidence, be treated with respect? Considered valid? Well, on a debate forum, as in reality, it isn't. When you are lying about someone's faith, people will correct the lies. An honest man will acknowledge his mistakes, a proud man? Pride goeth before destruction, And an haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18 The simple fact of the matter is that the Bible is clear about marriage, ,and its very clear about sexual immorality. You however, disagree with the Christians who advocate the ideal of monogamous marriage ... and claim that your opinion is the expert and true opinion in defiance of evidence and logic?
It is a fact though that throughout Judeo-Christian-Islamo civilization, prostitution was not only permitted but often encouraged to provide an economic avenue for woman to sustain themselves, particularly if they were single mothers or poor - you know, increasingly socially prejudiced. Of course prostitution was never really 'evil' - it was just always desired to be kept in the shadows. It seems to me that only in the Victorian Era did it become a profession that obtained obsessive notoriety.
I reckon Neutral has a thing for me, because he always has the urge to relate to me as a person rather than my arguments - and even when he isn't talking to me! Well, hopefully he'll read this because then he'll know that I was in fact a Christian when I came to PF, but it because of the aggressive and intellectually stifling character of people like Neutral that I slowly became an apatheist and lost my faith in God. So in that sense I owe Neutral a thank you for pushing me to the logical conclusion of my my inquiries. I thought I should mention this just to defend myself as being someone who was, at least in my opinion, incredibly sincere about his beliefs for his duration of holding and expressing his thoughts with people like on PF, and I like to think I still am. As for the immorality of sex outside of marriage, it is not simply enough for the religious to say a religious text condemns it. They need to show objectively and with logical foundation, that it is wrong. Even if God says it is wrong they need to show why he is right to the point that can easily show non-theists that this position is correct. This goes for religion generally of course. Its fine to say God's morality, as he instructs, is the best, but you need to show why and simply saiyng 'because it came from God' or 'because God said so' is no basis for logical observation and explanation - it is just a simple appeal to authority, ie a logical fallacy.
I stand corrected. http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/232293-islamophobes-pathetic.html Apparently, if it allows him to get a dig in at Christians, he'll even throw Muslims under the bus And this is what supports you gifted.
I don't necessarily think that is true about the prostitution thingy. Temple prostitutes were an abomination...there were male and female. Then there was that tradition where the widow could and did require the brother of her dead husband to marry her and have children especially if the dead brother had none. There were concubines in King David and Solomon's household though.
Well, then why not try actually making that case. Try ACTUALLY supporting a thesis that promiscuity in humans is a good thing? Because the science is quite clear as well. http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/255/27/ I do appreciate the emotional pretext about how you, jumping into a debate, are of course the victim - and it is I who is fixated on you. Never you though, picking up right where you left off after months? Nah, its always someone else's fault in atheism. Amazing how that works. If anyone doubts that Christianity and Atheism are different, look no further. One side acknoweldges the down side of promiscuity, one ignores it to justify ... their own emotional desire for something. Which is of course scientific no doubt
LOL! You are that sensitive and angry Neutral you cant even discuss history without attacking what I believe? btw what I believe externally to this topic is totally irrelevant to the accuracy of my comment. Even if I had an anti-religion agenda, which I dont, how would that actually change what I said? You can be a nazi, but that doesn't mean you cant ever speak truth or give fact to certain issues. I feel sorry for you Neutral you are consumed by hate instead of concern, and arrogance instead of a desire for sincere inquiry. All the kinds of qualities that drove me away from the Catholic Church. Syas the guy surrounded by people asking what the hell he is even doing here. Clearly its not for serious discussion.
