Thread: Sex In Religion

Originally Posted by Neutral

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?

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.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

It is a fact though that throughout Judeo-Christian-Islamo civilization, prostitution was not only permitted by often encouraged ...

I stand corrected.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religi...-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.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

It is a fact though that throughout Judeo-Christian-Islamo civilization, prostitution was not only permitted by 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 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.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

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. .

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

Originally Posted by Neutral

I stand corrected.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religi...-pathetic.html

Apparently, if it allows him to get a dig in at Christians, he'll even throw Muslims under the bus

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.

Originally Posted by Neutral

And this is what supports you gifted.

Syas the guy surrounded by people asking what the hell he is even doing here. Clearly its not for serious discussion.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

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.

So, basically no intellectual arguementation whatsoever. As usual.

Well, you had your chance, just your standard trolling. Again, as usual.

Welcome back to ignore partner.

I was curious to see why you would jump out of the blue to defend gifted? Well, looks like nothing more than the spoilt antics of someone who was beaten in too many debates - nothing more. Agh, I wonder what the Bible says about holding grudges? Science?

Good bye again MDF. I have no desire to again expose myself to your emotional hyperbolye, illogical rambling, and, quite frankly, abusive behavior.

Originally Posted by Neutral

Well, then why not try actually making that case. Try ACTUALLY supporting a thesis that promiscuity in humans is a good thing?

Ok, but will you promise you'll give an objectively placed reasoning against?

Originally Posted by Neutral

Because the science is quite clear as well.

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/255/27/
Hardly:
"Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip."
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

"A flurry of small studies suggest that sex is as good for your health as vitamin D and broccoli. It not only relieves stress, improves sleep and burns calories, it can also reduce pain, ease depression, strengthen blood vessels, boost the immune system and lower the risk of prostate and breast cancer."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...365120630.html

Read more about the obvious benefits:
http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2010/...s-of-sex-nsfw/
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationshi...enefits-of-sex
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-a...#axzz1mQ0sJV78

Originally Posted by Neutral

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

Ok whatever -here's my position:

If you want to have sex, you should be allowed to go ahead and make love for as hard and long as you please. The health benefits of sexual intercourse are readily apparent as stated above. Morally speaking, I cannot see a reason why wanting to do what you are naturally designed to pursue and psychologically desire is a bad thing when it has no victims. Having sex is fun, healthy and natural. It is IMMORAL to deny people the right to practice and exercise yourself to achieve such ends. Without any mental deficiencies or ailments, no one has the interests of themselves better understood than the individual. As such, when it comes to simple agreements whose effects pertain to no one but those involved in the free interaction, society has no place to stop them, this includes sexual intercourse. As John Stuart Mill put it: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." This means that if someone wishes to go a more radical application of this freedom, ie be promiscuous, then they have the absolute right to do so. Even if the damage of such action was debilitating, psychologically or physically, it would not change the freedom and right of that individual to continue such action where they have fully functioning control of their mental faculties.

I await Neutral's response.

Originally Posted by MisLed

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.

I am not referring so close to home, in terms of religious authorities, I'm referring more to the social conditions and tendencies surrounding the practice.

Hre's a few links about prostitution in Renaissance Italy - the religious center of Christian Europe:

"Wealthy men had mistresses and concubines, but the courtesan did not come to prominence again until around 1450. During the rediscovery of the Classics, stories about the hetairai surfaced, and there was a market for courtesans once again, particularly in Italy. A courtesan of Venice, Veronica Franco, built a refuge for prostitutes in 1577. It was unique in its time, as it allowed the women to live there with their children and go outside to work at legitimate jobs.[58]"
http://home.comcast.net/~mikibu/Arti...ostitution.htm

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...uraged&f=false

http://garnlebaron.wordpress.com/sex...ssance_europe/

In all three religions it was considered sinful. It was detested by the Jewish prophets (who were revered by Jesus) and condemned by Muhammad, but this didnt stop its use, tolerance and even promotion under each religious group's authority.

I'm not quite sure where you are drawing the line in your argument. The Bible itself has not changed in its regard toward prostitution, temple or otherwise. Or course, MEN cannot always be counted on to do what is promoted in the Bible or what is considered the right thing to do in God's eyes or commands. So, i'm really not going to argue with you on this matter. Man is the problem. Not God's law.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Ok, but will you promise you'll give an objectively placed reasoning against?

Promiscuity is a part of the reasoning listed on this page:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Avoid!/std.htm

The moral issue is simply this: If you are not adhering to the commands of God, then do as you please but harm none.