Yes, yes, anyone who successfully disagrees with the forums malcontents and miseducated is automatically a troll. Your arguements aren't weak - everyone who disagrees with you and points out the weaknesses in your arguementation and quick resort to insults is .... a troll. Well, go ahead a report me - as all your athtarded peers have done, and we'll see what an objective analysis of the actual facts gets you? I triple dog dare you. In the mean time, I will treat you EXACTLY as Tram does me - and others - and will happily follow you around the forum, twist your words into insults, condemn you loudly and publically with an obvious emotional twist, and generally stalk you .... no worries it all good, all I have to do is call you a troll and anything I do is kosher. That is what you just signed up for slick. Its amazing how quickly some people will abandon standards in order to avoid having to admit that they were wrong. But no worries, next time you complain that you are being ill treated - remember you have no problem with internet stalking, clearly the victim deserves it and the abuser bears no responsibility whatsoever for his actions. Your standard kiddo. Remember that.
Neutral never learns, and I suppose he can't help himself. he must be a troll. You aren't fooling anyone either Neutral. Yet you persist with your unChristian junk trolling. You are certainly no Christian. And it is indeed you who does not know the message of Christ. The big one: Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.
You titled the topic incorrectly. You want to argue about NO sex in religious lives. Not Sex in religion. According to the Song of Solomon and some psalms, sex is a delight and a joy. I guess you guys want to argue that taking advantage of a load of women doesn't harm the woman, society in general and you in the long run. Too much sex and no thinking makes you a very shallow fellow.
No, first of all, No sex is celibacy, not immoral sex nor adultery. Secondly, I guess you want to believe that no women take advantage of men and harms men. That's another topic entirely. Stop twisting things, it doesn't become you.
So this provides an opportunity to make a point that someone just sent me anonymously. The use of the term athtarded. Not all atheists are athtarded, but there are, unfortunately, way too many atheists who disaply behavior that is downright athtarded. Here is an example: Tram Law is on your ignore list. Not only does this poster have clearly personal infantuation, he dared me to place him on ignore, for which I obliged and allowed him to drive on with his athtarded self. After making it clear that I have no desire to engage with a clearly irrational and angery person who has no intention of discussing anything, after following his own advice to ignore him - he continues to follow me around the forum like some lost, angry little puppy dog - even AFTER the mods have warned him of such behavior. I mean the forum rules are pretty clear are they not? (4) Personal Attacks: ATTACK THE MESSAGE, NOT THE MESSENGER - Any statement directed at or about another member of Political Forum that is derogatory in nature will be considered a 'Personal Attack'. Seems pretty clear ( no doubt the Greek translation will make it only pertinent to adultry over the internet however?) Nevertheless, for three days now Tram has been following me around launching into one irrational diatribe after another. That behavior, which violates the forum rules - is athtarded. Those who cheer him on, violating the forum rules - are also athtarded. Its nothing more than resorting to emotional attacks because people don;t have the goods to actually debate. As long as you can knock others down though? Like I said - athtarded. There is another example here as well, provided by GT. We have Islamophobes running aorund calling people, based solely on their religion, terrorists. That is wrong - for a number of reasons that have been spelled out. GT, however, thinks its OK to call Christians a bunch of slave owners, even though we are no slave owners. Its teh same silliness as the Islamophobes, uses the EXACT same technique as the Islamophobes. Why? Because its in our history and we didn't hide it. SO what happens when you take a sampling of atheist history and apply it in the same generalizing format to atheists who appear to be JUST FINE applying that standards to others? Are all atheists like Stalin? Of course not, that kind of generalization is wrong. Now, rather than admit to that chain of reasoning and hold oneself accountable, we are subjected to the routine abuse of "Bigot!", "You are full of hate!" Wait, calling others terrorists - who are not terrorists - or slave owners - who are not slave owners - is neither hateful nor bigoted in the slighthest? Such behavior is athtarded. the reason it is athtarded is because MANY, MANY atheists on this forum behave like this - far too many. And, its not a generalization if its true. So, when someone is trapped by their own standards and lashing out - their behavior is, IMO, athtarded. Its not general, its specific to behavior. No worries though, as internet stalking is fine for some - I'll make sure I note the new standard of acceptability - as I noted the stanard for acceptability on generalization with GT. Enjoy. BTW - if you feel slighted by this term, well, please take note of the numerous insults that are flug out at Christians every day on this forum. My favorites, in addition to slave owner, are rapist, genocidal maniac, murderer, etc. And yes, those who walk around accusing people of criminal behavir based solely on their faith? They are athtarded.
well there was a lot of sex in the false religions in Judah and Israel. Temple prostitutes both female and male depending on which heathen god. So. I really don't quite grasp your response. I'm still of the opinion that the topic is not titled correctly. I'm sure there are some women that do that but still it plays into your game plan. You just have to watch your wallet. lastly. I'm sure you care about what becomes me. LoL
Follow your own advice Neutral. you are the one who is belittling people to no end, showing your true Christian nature. The mods have never warned me of anything, nor have I received any infraction. I am not the troll here. It's typical troll nonsense to paint themselves as the victim when they are the instigator. You are the one who is infatuated with me and you bring it on yourself. Stop trolling, stop the crap. Be thankful I'm not a mod here or I would've banned you early on. But you don't know what you're doing, so I forgive you. All you have to do is ****.
Im not sure why you posted all this because it is ground we have already covered. Fornication does not exist as a word in the OT. The two words used are Aslegeia and Porneia. As discussed these are the most mistranslaged words in the Bible. The word porneia for example is broad terms which must be used in context. The Porneia means "illicit sex" against the law "unlawfull sexual intercourse" .. and was reserved for sexual activities that were perceived as "extreme". You can't take a word like "porneia" out of a list of sins .. Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, porneia, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness and say .. oh .. the speaker meant any sex outside of marriage. If the speaker meant this they would not have used the world "porneia" which is a general term used for what was thought to be "really bad/nasty/extreme" stuff such as incest, donkeys and sex as ritual religious worship. It is just bizarre that you would use that quote from Deuteronomy to try and make your case. 1) it is talking about some King that will rule over Israel when they go into the promised land .. and says that he should not take too many wives. What on earth does this have to do with anything we are discussing ? Last: Just because I do not think much of the writings of Paul .. a fellow who never met Jesus and whose teachings were not well regarded by "actual deciples" James and Peter, does not have any bearing on my beliefs in Jesus or his message.
Dude .. I think you are losing it. Scroll back through my posts and you will quickly find that I am generally very polite to you and others Scroll through your posts and you will rarely find one where you are not ad hom - attacking the person rather than making an argument that supports your case. If you are not attacking people that disagree with your version of the truth your tend to engage in other logical fallacies such as "appeal to the masses". The fact that one or two posters agree with you (or Christianity) is not evidence for your case. If there is weakness in my arguments then by all means .. point it out. If indeed I am in error I will take that correction as something beneficial. What I seek is the truth of the message of Jesus. So far, in relation to the question of "sex outside of marriage", there has been nothing valid that has been brought forth showing that Jesus ever said all sex outside of marriage is a sin. Personally I do not think that Jesus was all that concerned about it, otherwise he would have said something. The primary focus of Jesus's message was "do unto others". Consentual sex between two adults hardly seems a violation of that principle. It 100% does not violate the OT laws which Jesus said he did not come to change. It does not violate the command to "love God", nor does it violate the principle of "love thy neighbor". Folks putting words in the mouth of Jesus of their own creation is something that Jesus did preach against. This is why I think it important to seach for the truth.
Why don't you look into the history a little closer. Check out the California eugenics laws and the Birth Control League as they relate to the Nazi ideals... Okay--there is NOTHING that my church teaches that I do not whole-heartedly agree with intellectually and via objective reasoning. I was born a Protestant. I CHOSE Catholicism! Yup...I TOTALLY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION stand by those perspectives in EXACTLY the same way I stand by my perspective on birth control--via my own intellectual rationale as informed by a moral code of ethics..
In case you need some help, junobet... Even Wiki can identify the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics Check out in Margaret Sanger's own words: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fj-E-Yk78M"]Margaret Sanger's Account Of Her Lecture To The Ku Klux Klan / Educational Video Film - YouTube[/ame]
What are teh Deuteronomic Laws? Why does your opinion of one of thr original Apostels mean his words and opinions are less valid than yours? Like I said, anything presented that conflicts with opinion is simply reected based on .... your personal opinion. THat is by definition rationalization. BTW - the reason Archer posted the whole thing is because your arguementation, and sudden mastery of Greek, is flat out wrong.
Really? When you repeatedly call someone a troll and side with an internet stalker .... that is polite. When you repeatedly tell other people that they don't know anything about their own religion - you are being very polite. When you suddenly manifest expertise in Greek - in order avoid having to acknowledge something in plain English ... that is not polite. When you simply fail to acknowledge what is plain English and ONLY address one word in a sentence, adultry, and basically call people stupid for thinging that lusting after a woman is adultry is actually referring to orgies ... duh! That is not polite. Its utter intransigence. Its pride. So maybe you should take a good hard look at your own writing and behavior Gifted, because you are very good at finding fault with everything and anything but yourself. Feel free to adress the four points that were poiltely pointed out to you - again - and then ignored - again. Which the highlight of politeness to pull a three monkey's. BTW - do onto others, treat your neighbor as you would yourself, sortta leads directly to ... yeah, don't use a human being for your own sexual gratification devoid of affection or commitment. It's just another dodge - but, of course, that criticism is rude rather than accurate? You continue to fail to make your case, to spell out your thesis, and have done nothing to support promiscuity being acceptable or beneficial. But heh, now you focus on being polite ratherthan actually coming up with an arguement.
There are many .. some I have listed previously in relation to the question at hand in refutation to your claim that "all sex outside of marriage is a sin". You had no comment then so why are you bringing it up now ? It is not my opinion you should be worried about. I did not know Jesus or Paul personally. What you might want to consider however is the opinion of James (brother of Jesus) and Peter (the rock which is the foundation of the Church) who did know Jesus and Paul. James and Peter did not think much of Paul nor his message. I accept the opinion of James and Peter, why don't you ? I am not interested in your unsupported opinion. I posted support for my opinion which you have not even commented on nor refuted and neither has Archer. I have zero mastery of Greek .. but the sources I quoted and linked to do. You have presented neither sources nor links for your opinion but you have presented plenty of logical fallacy and ad hom.
You have me confused with someone else I do no such thing. I support my opinions with evidence. If you feel confronted by my opinions because they challenge your beliefs then post some support for your beliefs rather than, as you have done on many occasions, state that the person you feel confronted by does not know anything about Christianity. You are confused. What I posted is links to folks who do have expertise in Greek. If you think that translation is that simple then why, as I pointed out by posting the actual Bible translation with references, ....do different Bible translations have the same word translated differently. . More ad hom .. It is actually the reverse for me .. they are using me for their own personal gratification (Hence my username) .. but I do not mind. Jesus says it is better to give than to receive Did you consider that you have may have been wrong all these years thinking sex is just for your own personal gratification ?
You do understand the point? The only person a moral relativist has to fool is himself. That you reject Peter - because he disagrees with you - and the fact that his wroting form part of teh New Testament Canon, and considered teh inspired words of a Prophet is irrelevant to what Christian doctrine actually teaches about promiscuity. Again, you make no case, the entirety of your arguementation is ... IMO ... Blah. That is called an appeal to authority - and it is a KNOWN and definable quality - like scriptural references. So when you offer YOUR OPINION that people providing you with scriptural referrences are using logical fallacy, while you - offering nothing more than opinion - are not ... Well, perhaps the concept of evidenced based arguementation and persuation is lot on you? Appeals to emotion and ridicule - you are a troll, you are using logical fallacies ... er, because I say so - are not? As I keep telling you - just apply your standards to YOUR position. YOUR demand for evidence to YOUR position. YOUR demand for evidenced based conclusions to YOUR position. And it falls flat by YOUR standards. Pretty simple.
Brother, you get someone you trust to review your writing. You get someone you KNOW is a good an honorable Christian to review your writing here and then you tell me that my criticism of your pride is JUST an ad hominem. Pride and sheer obstinace infuse your decidedly unevidenced presentation of your thesis. What IS your thesis? And it is backed by? Mine? Sex outside of marriage is harmful, we know this because it in the scripture and science backs it up. What do you have other than a google search whose results you clearly did not read? You are no expert on Greek, and your conclusion that the Greek meaning of the word, for which you have no intellectual basis to make ANY claims, is ... silliness definied. Why do you insist on telling Christians they are screwed up with a fictitious mastery of Greek as your basis? Its simply dishonest.
What point ? I do not reject Peter .. what are you talking about ? The rest of your blubbering on was not worth reposting. You did not in any way shape or form respond to my post .. Quit this delerious rant and come to your senses.
You accuse me of a bunch of untrue nonsense and then you do not even have the stones to back up what you say. How would you like me to respond ? I do not care what "you know" because you can not back up what you say. What do you mean "we know" are there 5 or 6 people in your head ? What do you mean by "we" Where did I claim to be an expert in Greek ? Where did I say this? Quit making stuff up . . it is really annoying Better yet Do me a favor and put me on your ignore list .. that way you can be at peace and not be conflicted by ideas that contradict your beliefs.
Let me see if you can get a few concepts straight. #1 - Peer review. When EVERY single Christian on the forum disagrees with you, even Tramikins - who bears no love for me - what does that tell you? #2 - How hard it is to get a Ph.D? Well, suffice to say it doesn't just involve peer review, it involves review from a panel of experts for a dissertation. And this is the level of attatinment that one has to achieve before they can be considered an expert. #3 - What do you think you are doing when you thrust 'Greek;, which you do not have any current knoweldge of, much less period specific contextual langauage EXPERTISE, in order to argue that a single word has a specific sexual meaning? You don't. And indeed, you avoid providing ANY definition of the word that indicates that it means what YOU claim it means. But you keep thrusting it out there. Are you serious kiddo? #4 - Lets try fill in the blank: My thesis on this subject is .... It is supported by .... What do we have instead? You are psychitzophrenic (because apparently using the pronoun we to refer to several Christian posters ALL making the same point is a HUGE leap in logic - espcially when they already have an expertise in Greek). I am now delusional - just making stuff up. And clearly, but rebutting you, somehow as you arguementation falls flat the excuses and apparent emotion demonstrated by you ... is actually in me. Why does anyone have to tolerate you abuse of their faith? Not that anyone expects you to admit your are wrong, but to repeatedly say the same things over and over again in defiance of evidence and arguementation is wrong. Like I said, the moral relativist only has to fool himself.
None of your rant changes the fact that no one has come up with a passage from Jesus where he states that "any sex outside of marriage" is wrong. You do not have to tolerate and being made to feel sad because you cannot defend your beliefs. (what you term as abuse) Just change your beliefs to fit the facts and you will then be able to defend them.
If you read this with an open heart you will understand but if you allow pride to overcome you there is no answer for you. You (those like you) are what is wrong with religion today. Let me put it this way: We have more evidence that backs us but you can present nothing. Can you please show me the text where Christ said go have sex when you want and where you want as long as you are committing no other sin. Mar 7:14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: Mar 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. Mar 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. Mar 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? Mar 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. Mar 7:14 AndG2532 when he had calledG4341 allG3956 theG3588 peopleG3793 unto him, he saidG3004 unto them,G846 HearkenG191 unto meG3450 every oneG3956 of you, andG2532 understand:G4920 Mar 7:15 There isG2076 nothingG3762 from withoutG1855 a man,G444 thatG3739 enteringG1531 intoG1519 himG846 canG1410 defileG2840 him:G846 butG235 the things which comeG1607 out ofG575 him,G846 thoseG1565 areG2076 they that defileG2840 theG3588 man.G444 Mar 7:16 If any manG1536 haveG2192 earsG3775 to hear,G191 let him hear.G191 Mar 7:17 AndG2532 whenG3753 he was enteredG1525 intoG1519 the houseG3624 fromG575 theG3588 people,G3793 hisG846 disciplesG3101 askedG1905 himG846 concerningG4012 theG3588 parable.G3850 Mar 7:18 AndG2532 he saithG3004 unto them,G846 AreG2075 yeG5210 soG3779 without understandingG801 also?G2532 Do ye notG3756 perceive,G3539 thatG3754 whatsoever thingG3956 from withoutG1855 enterethG1531 intoG1519 theG3588 man,G444 it cannotG1410 G3756 defileG2840 him;G846 Mar 7:19 BecauseG3754 it enterethG1531 notG3756 intoG1519 hisG846 heart,G2588 butG235 intoG1519 theG3588 belly,G2836 andG2532 goeth outG1607 intoG1519 theG3588 draught,G856 purgingG2511 allG3956 meats?G1033 Mar 7:20 AndG1161 he said,G3004(G3754) That which comethG1607 out ofG1537 theG3588 man,G444 thatG1565 defilethG2840 theG3588 man.G444 Mar 7:21 ForG1063 from within,G2081 out ofG1537 theG3588 heartG2588 of men,G444 proceedG1607 evilG2556 thoughts,G1261 adulteries,G3430 fornications,G4202 murders,G5408 Mar 7:22 Thefts,G2829 covetousness,G4124 wickedness,G4189 deceit,G1388 lasciviousness,G766 an evilG4190 eye,G3788 blasphemy,G988 pride,G5243 foolishness:G877 Mar 7:23 AllG3956 theseG5023 evil thingsG4190 comeG1607 from within,G2081 andG2532 defileG2840 theG3588 man.G444 17Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ περὶ τῆς παραβολῆς. 18καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὔπω νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι; 19ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλὰ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα. 20ἔλεγε δὲ ὅτι Τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενον, ἐκεῖνο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 21ἔσωθεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ διαλογισμοὶ οἱ κακοὶ ἐκπορεύονται, μοιχεῖαι, πορνεῖαι, φόνοι, 22κλοπαί, πλεονεξίαι, πονηρίαι, δόλος, ἀσέλγεια, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, βλασφημία, ὑπερηφανία, ἀφροσύνη· 23πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἔσωθεν ἐκπορεύεται καὶ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. G2840 κοινόω koinoō koy-no'-o From G2839; to make (or consider) profane (ceremonially): - call common, defile, pollute, unclean. G2556 κακός kakos kak-os' Apparently a primary word; worthless (intrinsically such; whereas G4190 properly refers to effects), that is, (subjectively) depraved, or (objectively) injurious: - bad, evil, harm, ill, noisome, wicked. G4202 πορνεία porneia por-ni'-ah From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication. G4190 πονηρός ponēros pon-ay-ros' From a derivative of G4192; hurtful, that is, evil (properly in effect or influence, and thus differing from G2556, which refers rather to essential character, as well as from G4550, which indicates degeneracy from original virtue); figuratively calamitous; also (passively) ill, that is, diseased; but especially (morally) culpable, that is, derelict, vicious, facinorous; neuter (singular) mischief, malice, or (plural) guilt; masculine (singular) the devil, or (plural) sinners: - bad, evil, grievous, harm, lewd, malicious, wicked (-ness). See also G4191. G766 ἀσέλγεια aselgeia as-elg'-i-a From a compound of G1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed σελγής selgēs (of uncertain derivation, but apparently meaning continent); licentiousness (sometimes including other vices): - filthy, lasciviousness, wantonness. G877 ἀφροσύνη aphrosunē af-ros-oo'-nay From G878; senselessness, that is, (euphemistically) egotism; (morally) recklessness: - folly, foolishly (-ness). And because fornication was included in the definition of fornication we must expand: zânâh zaw-naw' A primitive root (highly fed and therefore wanton); to commit adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple forniciation, rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah): - (cause to) commit fornication, X continually, X great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be, play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish. H8457 תּזנת תּזנוּת taznûth taznûth taz-nooth', taz-nooth' From H2181; harlotry, that is, (figuratively) idolatry: - fornication, whoredom. G1608 ἐκπορνεύω ekporneuō ek-porn-yoo'-o From G1537 and G4203; to be utterly unchaste: - give self over to fornication. G4203 πορνεύω porneuō porn-yoo'-o From G4204; to act the harlot, that is, (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry: - commit (fornication).
Do you seriously not see the difference between forcing people to have a sterilization against their will and giving women who want it access to contraception? I should think it's easy to spot. As for Margaret Sanger: Margaret Sanger was far from being a Nazi. Actually the Nazis even banned her writings: http://www.berlin.de/rubrik/hauptstadt/verbannte_buecher/az-autor.php?buchstabe=S (you may not be able to read German, but you'll find her name in the list of banned authors). Listen to your own video closely and you'll notice that Sanger - while she found it necessary to even inform KKK-women on birth-control - was also far from being a KKK-admirer. If anything her advocating of birth control among the KKK disproves the allegation that her advocating of birth control among black communities was motivated by racist eugenicist ideas. Sadly her demonization by fanatic 'pro-life' campaigners does not only smear Sanger but - via association with the fanatics - also discredits the more level-headed 'pro-life' voices that are needed in the urgent ethical discussions that face us today. It's always better to stay fair and keep the facts straight: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/demonization_of_ms.html http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.html http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/OppositionClaimsAboutMargaretSanger.pdf But even if we worked on the assumption that Sanger was indeed an evil evil racist eugenicist, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that for that reason birth control via contraception must be morally wrong. That Hitler built the Autobahn* does not make Autobahns intrinsically evil nor does it turn people who use them today into fascists. Fine. In that case you'll soon be faced with the same problem that troubles me every time elections are due: getting priorities straight. Of course you don't have to take it, but here's a little advice in that difficult task: in the past not every self-proclaimed 'pro-lifer' has actually proven to be one. Warmongerers like Bush definitely have not: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/children-of-war/ Being pro-life in the literal sense of the word and valuing life both in and outside the womb, I'd always vote for candidates who I deem to be the least trigger-happy and the most likely to be protective of the environment our future children and grandchildren will have to live in. ----------- * actually it's a myth that Hitler built the autobahn in the sense that modern Nazi-apologists understand it, but that's a historical discussion that would lead us too far astray from the topic.
