Bible Accuracy Discussion

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I've heard Dawkins mentioned so much at this stage that I'm begining to think that he is the Atheists new god

That's weird - I know what you mean, but despite that, you're certainly the only person to mention him on that page....

By the way, Christianity and society survey here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

"A leading atheist thinker" is probably a bit more accurate description than "God" :rolleyes:

Another contrast is that we actually have evidence that Dawkins exists.

Owen

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I've heard Dawkins mentioned so much at this stage that I'm begining to think that he is the Atheists new god

Well Dawkins is neither invisible, silent, or imaginary (From an Atheist's perspective) so he's not a God.

Fanny Cradock

Son Goku wrote:

That is unlikely because of:

Think about it this way, you and I are not professional sociologists and hence have no idea what constitutes a decent survey or not. If you can think of a couple of problems off the top of your head a professional sociologist after several years of training would not be making them, unless they weren't actually problems, but only appear so initially.

Assumption. I have worked on several studies during my college years that used surveys. Core to these were the understanding and application of the correct methods used to construct surveys so as to eliminate bias etc. I'm not necessarily taking exception to your link because it has something to do with Christianity. I would point out the same problems with any survey.

Son Goku wrote:

It doesn't matter, that is how statistical significance works. There is a 92% chance that is 92% representative of the population (other surveys push it to 99.5%). This is standard p-test stuff. This is how most of these tests work. We don't have direct access to people heads, so we go with statistical results. From this survey, there is only an 8% chance that you're criticism is correct. Factor in other studies and the chance that you are correct is reduced significantly. (To outside 0.005%) Tests like this don't claim to have absolute results, they attempt to establish the likelihood of given hypothesis. The hypothesis that religious or secular beliefs significantly or even moderately effect morality in the First World is pushed beyond reasonable doubts, by these surveys.
If you take the opposing position, it is has been demonstrated to be far more unlikely.

I've forgotten all my statistics at this stage, but you are telling me that there is a 99.5% certainty that people (Christians or otherwise) are correctly answering how they would react to a situation they have not found themselves in before? As I said before: hypothetical questions = hypothetical answers.

Son Goku wrote:

I notice you were quick to point out how it didn't make certain people's faith, without also pointing out it didn't make certain if they were secularist, even though the survey tested both.

Indeed, I failed to point out that. However, I personally believe that atheism is easier to define than faith. Why? Well, I think that a persons atheism can fairly easily be established: "Do you believe in God? No!". Then there are the grey areas of agnosticism where may people believe in 'something'. The degree of variance as to what this something is and what bearing it has on someone's life would be extremely difficult to factor into a survey. Now, the whole faith issue. I don't for one second believe that just because you go to church every week it means that you have any Christian faith. Someone may just be going along with the motions for whatever reason. "Do you believe in God? Yes" Reading between the lines you may find the answer is really something like: "I go to please my mum" etc. They say they are Christian, but they may espouse none of the teachings of Jesus.

Son Goku wrote:

Perhaps, although this survey wasn't trying to discover Christianity's or Christians influence on society. It was testing how dependant morality was on later learnt value systems.

If so, why is it being mentioned in this thread? I think you can definitely trace the broader moral values of our society to the core values of Christianity. I've not done surveys myself :rolleyes:, but I think if you look at other regions of the world that have a dissimilar and stricter religious emphasis you will see a completely different set of morals and practices. Some of these practices (I'll let you think of examples yourself), which I argue can be directly be traced to the religious beliefs of that region, would be considered abhorrent in our society; a society built very much on the principal of Christian ideals.

Son Goku wrote:

You mean people's morality could possibly depend on the strife where they live? Naturally it could, but again the survey wasn't attempting to see that.

True, but it links into my point above.

Son Goku wrote:

Remember, it also shows that being secularist doesn't make much of a difference. A fact you didn't comment on, instead saying how it says nothing about Christianity.

In terms of saving a drowning child etc. I wouold completely agree that it doesn't. I have no problem believing that an atheist etc. is as likely to jump into a lake to save a child as much as a Christian. However, morals don't just centre around those type of extremes.

Son Goku wrote:

Let's get clear what these surveys say:
(a)People really have a base morality that doesn't seem to stem from value systems they acquire later.

Fair enough. I do think that we all have a moral core - a God given one. Maybe that is my ultimate point.

Son Goku wrote:

Do not be so quick to write this off, based on an intuitive reaction. To be honest you read like you percieved this survey to be saying that Christianity was immoral or has no influence. It has an influence, but it's no different to anything else in the hands of the average person.

I didn't mean to come across this way. Of course, as a Christian I believe that basic morals are inherent to almost all men and women. Can they be corrupted? Yes.

From a personal point of view I would probably be considered a very poor example of a Christian - the stuff I've done - yet I know that I'm a good person - I know what is right and wrong (similar to anyone else)> yet, I believe that I can be a better and more moral person (without being judgemental) if I was to more closely adhere to the teachings of Jesus. Does this make sense?

Ultimately, I'm not saying that anyone is better than anyone else. I don't look at a 'non-believer' and think them morally corrupt. The majority of my very best friends would have no faith. Many Christians fall far below the teachings of Christ. In certain cases, may well have a moral core that is inferior (maybe not the correct word) to an atheist. As an example of sf someone who I don't believe to be a Christian but with a very strong moral conviction, I would look at Bob Geldoff (one f or two?). I'm sure he would disagree, but I view the the good work that he has headed as being (almost) Christian.

What I'm really trying to say is that our society has been immeasurably and positively influenced by Jesus. Yet this is not always obvious. Added to this society has also, but often separately*, been influenced by the church (admittedly not always in a good way). Without beating around the bush, I will say that adherence to the teachings of Jesus will make you - for want of a better word - more moral.

*As an important side note: the Jesus and the church shouldn't be confused. I think that this is often the case and that's where problems arise; people believe that the inevitable failings of the church are Gods failings - they are not.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

That's weird - I know what you mean, but despite that, you're certainly the only person to mention him on that page....

By the way, Christianity and society survey here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I understand, but someone mentioned 'meme' or some such in one of their posts (can't remember who). I had to look the meaning up: it was coined by Dawkings back in 1976. The suggestion was tongue in cheek. It was mostly just and observation that he is quoted a great deal by some atheists (I'm pigeon-holing you all) in the same way a Christian would scripture.

Scofflaw

Fanny Craddock wrote:

From a personal point of view I would probably be considered a very poor example of a Christian - the stuff I've done - yet I know that I'm a good person - I know what is right and wrong (similar to anyone else)> yet, I believe that I can be a better and more moral person (without being judgemental) if I was to more closely adhere to the teachings of Jesus. Does this make sense?

It makes sense to me - but then I have no problem following the teachings of Jesus. Whether or not I accept that he even existed, let alone his divinity, much of what is attributed to him makes sense. Indeed, so do most of the ten commandments.

Overall, much of what religions say makes sense. Religion has attracted over millenia the attention of many of humanity's best minds, as well as its worst - it would be a huge surprise if there was nothing in there worth hearing...but none of it requires deity-power to make it work.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I understand, but someone mentioned 'meme' or some such in one of their posts (can't remember who). I had to look the meaning up: it was coined by Dawkings back in 1976. The suggestion was tongue in cheek. It was mostly just and observation that he is quoted a great deal by some atheists (I'm pigeon-holing you all) in the same way a Christian would scripture.

There are nearly as many disagreements between atheists over Dawkins as there are disagreements between Christians over Scripture, too...

Personally I think he's a clever man, but plays too well to the ears of doctrinaire atheists. In addition, he understands faith as well as fish understand nuclear physics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [Fanny Cradock] I understand, but someone mentioned 'meme' or some such in one of their
> posts (can't remember who).

May have been me. I've tendency to use the word from time to time

> I had to look the meaning up: it was coined by Dawkings back in 1976.

Er, that's "Dawkins" and he coined it towards the end of his book, The Selfish Gene.

> The suggestion was tongue in cheek.

Not really. It's an extension of the idea of evolution into the area of human culture to help explain how ideas propagate from person to person -- things like jokes, tunes, languages, political ideologies, religions and just about every other human cultural artifact. Nothing tongue-in-cheek about it at all. It's a persuasively simple explanation which is worth reading more about and I recommend Susan Blackmore's 'The Meme Machine' if you're interested.

philologos

ned78 wrote:

Don't tell me you believe this Brian? Please don't. I'm Godless, and yes, I love the fact that I can have sex with many many people before marriage, but I don't spread disease. I use my freewill that your God provided me to use contraception. I certainly don't want Children, and even if I did have them, like most people with a moral compass, I wouldn't leave them. And I'm not a druggie because of my lack of faith in God.

You seem to be making the assumption, and correct me if I'm wrong, that without a concept of God, members of society will lose their conscience.

I agree with Brian in some cases. But I also understand that those of the Humanist tradition also have deep morals (well some of them do). I think Brian is saying that this attitude applies to people who do not have a sensible choice of morals, as the ones that have been passed down via Christianity. Regardless of whether you believe in our Book. I honestly think that it is a very good philosophy to live life by. It discourages sexual selfishness and lustfulness, it discourages greed, and yes it discourages slander, racism and a lot of things that are rampant in our society today. I would agree with Brian saying that if people followed the Christian way of life (not necciserily believing in it) all of these evils could be removed from our society. However God has made us flawed individuals at the same time, and indeed there would be some sin in the world still, but much of it could be eradicated. Some, including myself believe that this is God trying to remind us of what is good in the world by occasionally showing us what is bad.

Regardless, of whether you are willing to put your faith in it or not. The Bible is one of the finest moral codes in the world, and it is indeed a good structure for how people should lead their lives.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote:

Er, that's "Dawkins" and he coined it towards the end of his book, The Selfish Gene.

Ah, my bad.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

The Bible is one of the finest moral codes in the world

I would strongly disagree with that statement. Strongly strongly disagree. In fact I'm not sure I could disagree more.

- The Bible describes homosexuality as an abomination

- The Bible condones and even encourages the act of slavery.

- Physical punishment is allowable towards slaves as they are property, so long as the slave does not die.

- Any child that does not obey his mother or father is to be killed.

- Death is considered fitting punishment for even small "crimes"

- Women are considered property owned by men and a woman's place is to be ruled by her father or husband.

- Rape of an unmarried woman is considered a destruction of property, not of a life.

- Divorce is immoral and considered an act of adultery.

- Those who follow other religions or who attempt to convert people to their religion should be put to death.

- The "nice" moral codes in the Bible, such as the ten commandments, only apply within the Hebrews. They go out the window when dealing with other cultures who regularly suffer genocide at the hands of the Hebrews.

- Human sacrifice of children for God is condoned and even encouraged.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea....

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I would strongly disagree with that statement. Strongly strongly disagree. In fact I'm not sure I could disagree more.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea....

I would agree with all of this. That may seem to contradict what I said earlier about Jesus' reported teachings, but doesn't. Much of the Bible (and thereby much of 'Christian' teaching) is at a very low level of morality, if it even registers positively on the scale.

Certainly, this statement...

Jakkass wrote:

The Bible is one of the finest moral codes in the world, and it is indeed a good structure for how people should lead their lives.

...I would see as wrong - or perhaps outdated is a better word. The Bible is a reasonable guide to life if the alternative is barbarism - but the alternative is not barbarism any more, however much Christians like to pretend it is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

Much of the Bible (and thereby much of 'Christian' teaching) is at a very low level of morality, if it even registers positively on the scale.

Is it fair to say that those of us raised in a Christian faith will have a picture of what we might term 'commonsense Christianity', which takes the best bits and leaves the rest behind. That 'commonsense' Christian morality (which any of us could probably make a fist of setting out) is quite reasonable.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

Is it fair to say that those of us raised in a Christian faith will have a picture of what we might term 'commonsense Christianity', which takes the best bits and leaves the rest behind. That 'commonsense' Christian morality (which any of us could probably make a fist of setting out) is quite reasonable.

Atheists such as Dawkins (since we are mentioning Dawkins now Fanny ) would argue thought that because of this "common sense" ability that people clearly have, one has to wonder is the morality actually coming from the Bible at all, or do we already have a strong moral core and therefore are able to choose what is and what isn't moral from the Bible.

If that is the case then the question becomes one of if there a need for the Bible in the first place, or perhaps I would say is there any more need for the Bible than any other book, religious or otherwise, that attempts to deal with morality.

Christians such as BC often ask atheists where do we get our morality if not from some religious text. The answer, that is often surprising to them, is that we get our morality from exactly the same place they do, from humanity itself. After all to an atheists the Bible is simply a book produced by mankind in an attempt to form a moral framework. It is no different to any secular attempt to form a moral frame work, such as the UN Charter of Rights or something like Communism. All are humanity exploring the morality of humanity.

I would personally see the Bible as a particularly bad attempt to define a moral frame work, just as I would view something like Communism. But the fact that I can do this demonstrates that what ever moral compass I'm using to judge the Bible didn't originate with the Bible itself.

Religion is a result of humanities exploration of human morality, rather than the other way around.

Owen

Jakkass wrote:

The Bible is one of the finest moral codes in the world, and it is indeed a good structure for how people should lead their lives.

Did you read the same book as me? An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth?

robindch

> That 'commonsense' Christian morality (which any of us could probably
> make a fist of setting out) is quite reasonable.

What's interesting from the evolutionary/memetic point of view, is that the "commonsense" view of christian morals has changed with each generation and within each different culture, just as prevailing cultural expectations have changed.

Religious morality is tailing human cultural development at some distance, while claiming that it's leading it.

Bradidup

ned78 wrote:

Quoting scripture does nothing to sway Athiests. Would you be even remotely swayed if I started quoting from The Hiram Key, Holy Blood Holy Grail, or even The God Delusion?

What dose the Bible say about an Athiest ?????
Psalm 14:1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, "THERE IS NO GOD". They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

What dose the Oxford Dictonary say about a FOOL???
Silly person. simpleton, unwise person, void of understanding, indiscrete, stupid,

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Atheists such as Dawkins (since we are mentioning Dawkins now Fanny ) would argue thought that because of this "common sense" ability that people clearly have, one has to wonder is the morality actually coming from the Bible at all, or do we already have a strong moral core and therefore are able to choose what is and what isn't moral from the Bible.

Religion is a result of humanities exploration of human morality, rather than the other way around.

It's interesting to see how many of our Christian posters (particularly those who came to their faith in adulthood) have said something along the lines of "I looked at Christianity, and it all seemed right to me - that's how I knew it was true".

Substitute the faith of your choice for Christianity in that - the point is the same. You agree with your religion because it agrees with you. Indeed, most people gloss over the bits they don't like.

So, then, while I agree with quite a lot of Christian morality, I don't feel that "need to belong" which I think characterises the faithful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Bradidup wrote:

What dose the Bible say about an Athiest ?????
Psalm 14:1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, "THERE IS NO GOD". They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

What dose the Oxford Dictonary say about a FOOL???
Silly person. simpleton, unwise person, void of understanding, indiscrete, stupid,

Indeed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

And I keep pointing out to you that you are not talking about hope you are talking about belief. Religion isn't hope, it is belief. Christians don't hope that God might exists and that they may some how get to an afterlife. They believe that, often strongly, and they believe strongly that they have to do certain things to get this. And this belief effects rational decision making, such as refusing to hand out condoms to people who need the. So yes I portray it negatively because this belief makes people act in a negative fashion.

First of all, I know 'religion isn't hope'. I clearly asked you to do your homework as regards Christs teaching, and not to keep regurgitating the same old nonsense about religion. Yes I am talking about belief. but the 'Hope' comes through belief. You then asssume that it negatively effects decision making, such as the condom issue. I think we are both ignorant to the facts. Our opinions are based on stories etc, about Africa. Really, the Christian thing to do would be to ease suffering. I would have to see the situation first hand and decide what the 'loving' thing to do would be. However, the loving thing does not necessarily mean the simplest or quickest thing. Jesus, cured all sorts, and forgave all sorts. If an AIDS sufferer came to me and said, 'I'm gonna have sex with a girl I met tonight, could I have a condom', Would the loving thing be to give the condom, or would that be the easy thing? Could you see another way of dealing with this other than giving the condom?

Well that is kinda the point JimiTime.

So You say people should just sleep around? You would see no moral issue with that?

Yes it is. Very harmful in some cases. Have you not seen the Magdaline Laudries?

Once again, what you say has no relevance to Christs teachings. Is the Atom bomb a reason to believe science is evil or wrong? No, its a misuse of a fantastic discovery. 'Christians' and 'Christian organisations' have been responsible for alot of misery through the years. No-one can deny that. However, were they acting as Christ taught? As I keep saying, you must seperate the actions of 'Christians' and the teachings of Christ, because it doesn't take a genius to see that there are many, many cases where these truly conflict. You seem to just breeze over the fact that the message is, 'Love'. So many try to organise, and as such lay down rules and creeds etc, however for so many people the message of 'Love' is lost.

As I said, your belief that it is wrong causes you to act in a way that is harmful to either yourself or others.

My Christian concience, 'should' always lead to the 'Loving' solution. If as I said earlier, I felt that the 'loving' thing to do was to give the man a condom then love will prevail. However, would this be a shortsighted solution?

Yes but that ain't going to happen because "fornication" is a perfectly normal and natural thing to do. In fact we are designed to do it, it is are primary purpose in life, and we have a whole load of evolutionary systems that make us want to do it. It is far more damaging to not engage in sexual activity and to repress sexuality. I would imagine you won't agree because of Christianities massive hang up over sex, but your argument is like saying we could really cut down on the number of colds and flu people get if everyone would just stop breathing and talking to each other.

'Christian hang up about sex'. What hang up? That we don't feel that it is fulfilling to sleep around? That we feel that sex is an experience that should be within the intimacy of a loving relationship? Yeh, I've got such a hang up:rolleyes: I think what you mean to say is that, Christians dis-approve of the blase approach to sex. I certainly see it as natural, but i don't see bedhopping as 'natural'.

Why should people have to "control" (ie surpress) their sexual urges. It is only your religion that says sex is immoral and shameful.

My God, says fornication, not sex is immoral. Also Controlling is not the same as surpressing!

Love is largely irrelevant. You think everyone who is married in a church loves each other? You think everyone who has sex outside of married don't love each other?

First of all, real marriage is of the heart! After 3 months together with my now wife, we both considered ourselves married, as our hearts were one. The wedding is pretty irrelavent. Another thing, Love is all that matters! Without love you are emptiness, be that from family, friends, God or partner.

Well you see that is the problem with HIV in Africa. More often than not the people who have it have to be rather short sighted because they will be dead soon ... :rolleyes:

wont dignify your point scoring melodramatic garbage with an intelligent answer!

Here and now is what matters. If I have the chance to save someone's life here and now I will take it.

Good for you! Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish. Don't you understand what I'm saying?? Condoms are only a beginning! Attitudes must change for real change to occur! Its not just handing out condoms. Such a solution is shortsighted.

Owen

Bradidup wrote:

What dose the Bible say about an Athiest ?????
Psalm 14:1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, "THERE IS NO GOD". They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

What dose the Oxford Dictonary say about a FOOL???
Silly person. simpleton, unwise person, void of understanding, indiscrete, stupid,

:rolleyes: So ... because I say there's no God ... I'm corrupt and incapable of doing good deeds? News Flash! Fine Fail are Atheists!

There's a touch of the Emperor's New Clothes about your post Bradidup, if I don't see your point of view, I'm a fool. Nice. Very mature.

Owen

JimiTime wrote:

Its not just handing out condoms. Such a solution is shortsighted.

Handing out Condoms is not a short sighted solution. Africa is currently in a crisis whereby AIDS is rampant, and the uneducated masses there believe that they can rid themselves of AIDS by raping a virgin. You can open the Bible all you want, and try to convince them that it's better to be in a marriage situation before sex, but just like in small towns in Ireland where there's nothing else to do but play GAA, in Africa, there's bugger all else to do except play football and have sex. Handing out Condoms will reduce poverty (Less population to sustain), disease, and might just make people think a little differently about how they approach the concept of sex itself.

Sex, with many many people is perfectly normal. It's only the Catholic church who have an issue with this.

Zombrex

Bradidup wrote:

What dose the Bible say about an Athiest ?????
Psalm 14:1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, "THERE IS NO GOD". They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

What dose the Oxford Dictonary say about a FOOL???
Silly person. simpleton, unwise person, void of understanding, indiscrete, stupid,

Oh this game is fun ... how does Oxford Dictionary define "brainwash"

brainwash
verb subject (someone) to a prolonged process to transform their attitudes and beliefs totally.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I think we are both ignorant to the facts. Our opinions are based on stories etc, about Africa.

Well if by stories you mean official UN World Health Organisation reports, and news reports from the BBC and Reuters then yes my opinions are based on "stories"

JimiTime wrote:

Really, the Christian thing to do would be to ease suffering.

Apparently not.

JimiTime wrote:

Could you see another way of dealing with this other than giving the condom?

Kiddnap him? Execute him? Tell him that he will go to hell if he has sex?

JimiTime wrote:

So You say people should just sleep around?

If they want to.

JimiTime wrote:

You would see no moral issue with that?

No. It is not immoral to have sex.

There are health risks, as there are with anything, and there are emotional issues, as there are with anything. But the actually physical act of having sexual intercourse outside of a marriage environment is not an immoral act. Far from it.

You can tell that it isn't an immoral act yourself simply by the fact that Christianity says it is completely immoral for a couple to have sex a day before they get married, but completely moral (and encouraged) for the same couple to have sex a day after they get married. Which is nonsense.

What is immoral in my view is to be completely clueless when it comes to sexual health, and have no idea about things like STIs or pregnancy or how to protect against both. Therefore I also think it is immoral when people in authority, be it priests, teachers or parents, refuse to educate and inform young people about sexual health in an frank and honest manner. This "Abstanse Only" sexual education philosophy drives me nuts.

JimiTime wrote:

However, were they acting as Christ taught?

Well they clearly think they are, and can probably quote many many Biblical passages that support them. So obviously there is an interpretation of the Bible that does support what they believed.

But then there is a Biblical interpretation for pretty much anything.

You claim that the Bible doesn't support something like the Magdaline Laudaries. But the truth is that it is only your interpretation of the Bible that doesn't support something like the Magdaline Laudaries. For every passage that says love thy neighbour there is another that says that if someone is sinful they are going straight to hell.

JimiTime wrote:

You seem to just breeze over the fact that the message is, 'Love'.

That is because the "message" isn't actually "Love". That is your interpretation of the very vague Bible.

The message can be anything you want it to be, including hate and fear.

For example, say I want to expell from my town every those who don't follow my particular religious doctrine, as you hear about happening in the US quite a bit. Can this be supported by the Bible? You would probably say no, Jesus said love thy neighbour. But of course the actual answer is "Of course it can!"

Matt 12:25 says

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

And further down

30 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

Clearly Jesus is saying that a divided town will not last, and the evil within the town will consume the town. Therefore such evil must be removed from the town for the protection of the town. The greater good as it were.

Its quite easy to find a justification in the Bible for pretty much anything you want to do. Everything from witch burning to the persecution of the Jews has been done by men quoting scripture and verse.

JimiTime wrote:

So many try to organise, and as such lay down rules and creeds etc, however for so many people the message of 'Love' is lost.

Well that is because for many love isn't the message in the first place.

JimiTime wrote:

I think what you mean to say is that, Christians dis-approve of the blase approach to sex. I certainly see it as natural, but i don't see bedhopping as 'natural'.

The very fact that you keep using terms like "bedhopping", "sleeping around" and "fornication" over and over to describe anyone not having sex inside a marriage (which I might point out if often not loving nor much of a relationship) kinda shows what I'm talking about when I say the Christian hang up over sex.

You appear to automatically view anything that isn't sex within marriage as two drunk strangers shagging behind a chip shop at 3am.

JimiTime wrote:

My God, says fornication, not sex is immoral.

Fornication (sex outside marriage) is sex. In fact it is pretty much exactly the same as sex within a marriage, except maybe less boring.

JimiTime wrote:

Love is all that matters!

"Love" changes, as break up and divorce rates demonstrate. "Love" is also often confused with other emotions, included insecurity, need and sexual desire.

I personally would think it is a very bad idea for anyone to get married to anyone until one has

a) matured with relation to relationships (ie had proper full blown relationships, sex and all, with at least a few previous people)

b) matured with relation to sex and sexual identity (so one can know that it isn't pent up sexual desire that is making them feel a certain way)

c) lived with the person they are going to marry so they know who they really are.

Otherwise someone who gets married with out doing the above is just setting themselves up for a fall later in life.

I've seen a lot of my friends get married because they believed they were truly "in love" only to have it end a few years down the line. While you might argue that they were never in love to begin with, I would not say that they were faking when at 19 or so they believed they were in love. At the time they believed they were, and would always be, in love. But did they really have the experience to know this? Feelings changes over time. It is only by going through that that we learn to recognise it, and learn to see who we could possibly stay with for the rest of our lives.

The whole idea that marriage must be eternal leads to people who have fallen out of love staying together out of fear or guilt, leading to bitter wasted lives. Its a shame really that people don't just take a bit more time at the start of there lives exploring and getting to know themselves before committing to something like marriage.

JimiTime wrote:

Good for you! Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish. Don't you understand what I'm saying??

I do.

But the point you are not realising is that you cannot "teach" a man or woman to simply ignore sexual biology any more than you can teach a man to stop breathing.

You can tell a person to stop breathing, but sooner or later they will need to take a breath.

This of course ignores the fact that the Bible doesn't actually teach, it instructs. "Don't have sex" is about as much teaching as the Bible does. So even if it was possible for a human to learn how to turn of their natural sexual biology, the Bible doesn't teach them that anyway.

JimiTime wrote:

Condoms are only a beginning! Attitudes must change for real change to occur! Its not just handing out condoms. Such a solution is shortsighted.

I agree, but the change isn't the Bible. Handing out condoms alone and expecting that to solve the problem of AIDS in Africa would be short sighted, but that isn't what I think should happen.

But also as ned points out, while being short sighted, handing out condoms also helps stop the spread of HIV, so even if it is a short sighted solution on its own it is still far better than nothing, or far better than simply saying "Don't have sex", which is just a nonsense option in my view.

The change is full proper sexual education, and proper access to what people need for good sexual health (condoms, medicine, information) so people can take ownership of their own sexual health, rather than having it owned by the Christian church or any other religious group whole claim to be looking after there eternal souls.

They should be able to make intelligent informed decisions about their own sexual health, rather than having those decisions made by religion dogma.

Owen

Wicknight wrote:

They should be able to make intelligent informed decisions about their own sexual health, rather than having those decisions made by religion dogma.

Well done Wicknight. Some very interesting points, but I find the one above to be the best of all. It's impossible for me to listen to, interpret, or digest anything the Vatican says regarding sex - a basic human function they've had no experience of. It's like Agnes down the road telling me how dangerous it is to drive a Bentley Continental GT at 100mph, purely based on her own experience of driving a Micra at 30mph.

As an Atheist, I have many theist friends. One of which is a Protestant Bishop, who is married with Children. Healthiest religious viewpoint I have ever seen. He's actually qualified to give advice to families, because he has one himself.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

Religion is a result of humanities exploration of human morality, rather than the other way around.

Is it also fair to say that the exploration began when it was hard to think of a reasonable explanation for why the Sun rises in the morning, other than some immensely powerful being must have made it so.

Scofflaw wrote:

It's interesting to see how many of our Christian posters (particularly those who came to their faith in adulthood) have said something along the lines of "I looked at Christianity, and it all seemed right to me - that's how I knew it was true".

Substitute the faith of your choice for Christianity in that - the point is the same. You agree with your religion because it agrees with you. Indeed, most people gloss over the bits they don't like.

So, then, while I agree with quite a lot of Christian morality, I don't feel that "need to belong" which I think characterises the faithful.

Which again (I can’t resist an opportunity to make my favourite point) suggests that belief in God is a consequence of the decision to adopt a particular religion, and not a cause. In other words, someone says ‘Hinduism, I like the cut of your jib’ and signs up for whatever goes with being a Hindu, rather than someone saying ‘I reckon there is a God, and he wants a relationship with us. I’d better find which religion is the right one to communicate through’.

There is some value in going through the standard arguments for the lack of credibility of a God concept. But I think part of the reason atheist/theist discussion goes on at some length without apparently meeting is because we talk about two different things. Atheists see no point in following a religion based on a God that isn’t there. Theists, on the other hand, don’t believe in God because it’s credible. They do it as a consequence of wanting to be Catholics/Muslims/whatever. The commitment or allegience comes first, and then the belief in God as a consequence.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

First of all, real marriage is of the heart! After 3 months together with my now wife, we both considered ourselves married, as our hearts were one. The wedding is pretty irrelavent.

So, if I understand you...couples married by the church but who do not love each other would be comitting sin by engaging in sexual intercourse. Meanwhile, couples not married by the church but who love each other and consider themselves married would not be comitting sin.

Indeed, the thrust of your point seems to be that the correct interpretation of the belief is that sex outside love would be wrong, rather than sex outside marriage

Wicknight wrote:

Christianity says it is completely immoral for a couple to have sex a day before they get married, but completely moral (and encouraged) for the same couple to have sex a day after they get married.

It would seem that you and JimiTime disagree strongly on this point. He says that love and considering yourself married in your heart is whats important....not words spoken and vows taken in some house of god in front of a spiritual leader.

Dr Pepper

Bradidup wrote:

What dose the Bible say about an Athiest ?????
Psalm 14:1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, "THERE IS NO GOD". They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

What dose the Oxford Dictonary say about a FOOL???
Silly person. simpleton, unwise person, void of understanding, indiscrete, stupid,

Hilarious! You are not well my friend..

robindch

> They should be able to make intelligent informed decisions about their own
> sexual health, rather than having those decisions made by religion dogma.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a family relative over the christmas. She works for a shop in Ireland which forwards cash to a orphanage in India. Long-standing allegations of fraud on the Indian side of this operation notwithstanding, the orphanage caters, I believe largely, for the children of parents who've died of AIDS while giving the assorted hindus, muslims etc an education filled with religious instruction. The catholic priest who runs the orphanage has vetoed telling the kids (who range in age from newborns to 16 years old) anything about AIDS at all, and my family relative though this was a damn good thing too.

It was "immoral", you see, to tell people how easy it is to catch a deadly disease.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

Is it also fair to say that the exploration began when it was hard to think of a reasonable explanation for why the Sun rises in the morning, other than some immensely powerful being must have made it so.

Well humans do seem to have an almost instinctive need to view the world in terms of human action.

From "Why is there thunder and lightning?" to modern day Creationism, humans seem to fall back on viewing the natural world around us in terms of the action of someone. This seems to make concepts easier to understand, and from an evolutionary point of view it probably makes sense since most of the time our brains are used assessing things within the context of the actions of others.

The question of "Why?" is often asked, as in "Why is there life on Earth?" This is attempting to view a natural phenomena in terms of a human doing something for a reason. God (or gods) in most religions are described as basically powerful humans, who do things for human like reasons.

It always raises alarm bells with me when someone attempts to explain something that has nothing to do with humans in the terms of a human action, be that creationism or why a natural disaster.

Schuhart wrote:

Theists, on the other hand, don’t believe in God because it’s credible. They do it as a consequence of wanting to be Catholics/Muslims/whatever.

That is an interesting point, and an interesting way of looking at it.

As an atheists I've always recognised that religious people, particularly those who choose their religion rather than being born into it, do so because the following of the religion offers them something they need, be it support through a diffcult time, to reassurance that there is an after-life.

As you say the move towards the religion itself seems to come even before the belief in the religions deity, which I find fascinating. This is often demonstrated by some Christians who seem to place the Bible, and faith in the Bible, almost higher in importance than God Himself. They seem to be able to imagine there being no God, but not imagine that the Bible might be wrong, or at least they would not believe in God if the Bible was wrong. Growing up in Catholic Ireland, where the Bible was always secondary to the actual belief in God, this idea when I first started to encounter it seems bizarre to say the least. None of my friends (mostly Irish and Catholic) have any problem saying the Bible is wrong in some places. But it seems that some Christians, particularly those who move towards Christianity in later life, move towards the Bible first, possibly because they like what they hear, and then as you say accept God. The Bible becomes more significant to God.

This also explains why some Christians (and other religions of course) get quite annoyed when something like the Bible is attacked on grounds of accuracy or relevance. Again, initially I found this bizarre. I figure that all Christians were like my Catholic friends, to whom the Bible comes a distant second to actually believing in God. They don't care if the Bible is riddled with holes, it isn't that important to the day to day living of being a "Christian". But to some the Bible is very very important and appears to hold the foundation of the belief, rather than the foundation being God as it is with my friends.

Therefore an attack aimmed towards the Bible (or any of the aspects of the religion that acted as a foundation for belief) is seen as an attack on the very core reason for believing, and an attack on the aspect of support that the religion gives the person.

For example, if belief in the accuracy of the Bible is why someone believes they will have an after life, and if they really want an after life, this belief is very important, then an attack on the Bible is an attack on their promise of an after-life. And to them this is unacceptable.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

It would seem that you and JimiTime disagree strongly on this point. He says that love and considering yourself married in your heart is whats important....not words spoken and vows taken in some house of god in front of a spiritual leader.

Well lucky for me Jesus is on my side ... which is actually giving me a warm feeling inside ... oh wait .. no, I sat on a pop tart ...

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

It was "immoral", you see, to tell people how easy it is to catch a deadly disease.

Well its the age old idea (not just Christian) that if you tell people about sex they will want to go and do it, and if you don't tell people about sex they won't want to go and do it.

It is naivety in its purest form

robindch

> It is naivety in its purest form

Risking being grumpier than usual about this kind of thing -- this isn't naivety, this is murderous, malignant arrogance -- thinking that your own belief is more important than somebody else's existence.

One wonders whether any of them have ever told an AIDS suffers that yes, they knew exactly how to help prevent them from catching the disease, but wouldn't tell them because it wasn't good for them to know how to protect themselves :mad:

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> It is naivety in its purest form

Risking being grumpier than usual about this kind of thing -- this isn't naivety, this is murderous, malignant arrogance -- thinking that your own belief is more important than somebody else's existence.

You may be grumpier, but you are also right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Well if by stories you mean official UN World Health Organisation reports, and news reports from the BBC and Reuters then yes my opinions are based on "stories"

Yes, although your sarcasm suggests you think you're well informed, you are not IMO, until you go and see what is happening for yourself. Which is why I stated that we are both in ignorance. Can you accept that?

Apparently not.

Why do you feel the need to express your views in this manner? Its non-informative, self absorbed and insulting to my intelligence!

Kiddnap him? Execute him? Tell him that he will go to hell if he has sex?

Do you want to have a reasonable thinking discussion, or would you rather just hurl stones?

If they want to.

Ok, we can nail this arguement down. You believe sleeping around is fine. I don't. Lets move on!

No. It is not immoral to have sex.

Absolutely, whole heartedly agree.

There are health risks, as there are with anything, and there are emotional issues, as there are with anything. But the actually physical act of having sexual intercourse outside of a marriage environment is not an immoral act. Far from it.

According to you! Do you also think people who have sexual urges towards children, or animals etc etc, are normal. The usual answer is that its about consent. But really we are talking about your point about 'sexual urges being natural'. Now if its possible to have an unnatural sexual urge, then your morality theory is flawed, because you don't know whats natural and whats not.

You can tell that it isn't an immoral act yourself simply by the fact that Christianity says it is completely immoral for a couple to have sex a day before they get married, but completely moral (and encouraged) for the same couple to have sex a day after they get married. Which is nonsense.

Remain as the fool if you wish. Do your homework if you actually want to be informed.

What is immoral in my view is to be completely clueless when it comes to sexual health, and have no idea about things like STIs or pregnancy or how to protect against both. Therefore I also think it is immoral when people in authority, be it priests, teachers or parents, refuse to educate and inform young people about sexual health in an frank and honest manner. This "Abstanse Only" sexual education philosophy drives me nuts.

Ok, whats the relevance to my point?

Well they clearly think they are, and can probably quote many many Biblical passages that support them. So obviously there is an interpretation of the Bible that does support what they believed.

This is just Lazy mindedness. You do your research properly, before you vent your views. there will be people on this site who will tell you things as christians, that are not in line with Christ. Now you can be lazy, and just say, oh well its all about interpretation. Its Not. Its about, honesty, faith and accurate knowledge. People may be able to take verses out of context to justify things they do, however, the honest, faithful slave of Christ, will not be hoodwinked!

But then there is a Biblical interpretation for pretty much anything.

Cliche after cliche!

You claim that the Bible doesn't support something like the Magdaline Laudaries. But the truth is that it is only your interpretation of the Bible that doesn't support something like the Magdaline Laudaries. For every passage that says love thy neighbour there is another that says that if someone is sinful they are going straight to hell.

Context! Context! Context!

That is because the "message" isn't actually "Love". That is your interpretation of the very vague Bible.

The message can be anything you want it to be, including hate and fear.

For example, say I want to expell from my town every those who don't follow my particular religious doctrine, as you hear about happening in the US quite a bit. Can this be supported by the Bible? You would probably say no, Jesus said love thy neighbour. But of course the actual answer is "Of course it can!"

Matt 12:25 says

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

And further down

30 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

Clearly Jesus is saying that a divided town will not last, and the evil within the town will consume the town. Therefore such evil must be removed from the town for the protection of the town. The greater good as it were.

Its quite easy to find a justification in the Bible for pretty much anything you want to do. Everything from witch burning to the persecution of the Jews has been done by men quoting scripture and verse.

Sigh:(

Well that is because for many love isn't the message in the first place.

Aha, maybe we are getting somewhere now.

The very fact that you keep using terms like "bedhopping", "sleeping around" and "fornication" over and over to describe anyone not having sex inside a marriage (which I might point out if often not loving nor much of a relationship) kinda shows what I'm talking about when I say the Christian hang up over sex.

Its nothing to do with the act of sex. Its to do with its abuse! Sex is perfectly natural, however, fornication is not. But again, we disagree on this.

You appear to automatically view anything that isn't sex within marriage as two drunk strangers shagging behind a chip shop at 3am.

No, you assume i do.

Fornication (sex outside marriage) is sex. In fact it is pretty much exactly the same as sex within a marriage, except maybe less boring.

'except maybe less boring'. your oozing machismo:rolleyes: you having a cigerette round the back of the bike shed aswell!

"Love" changes, as break up and divorce rates demonstrate. "Love" is also often confused with other emotions, included insecurity, need and sexual desire.

No, 'Love' does not change! i would rethink that statement.

I personally would think it is a very bad idea for anyone to get married to anyone until one has

a) matured with relation to relationships (ie had proper full blown relationships, sex and all, with at least a few previous people)

b) matured with relation to sex and sexual identity (so one can know that it isn't pent up sexual desire that is making them feel a certain way)

c) lived with the person they are going to marry so they know who they really are.

Otherwise someone who gets married with out doing the above is just setting themselves up for a fall later in life.

I've seen a lot of my friends get married because they believed they were truly "in love" only to have it end a few years down the line. While you might argue that they were never in love to begin with, I would not say that they were faking when at 19 or so they believed they were in love. At the time they believed they were, and would always be, in love. But did they really have the experience to know this? Feelings changes over time. It is only by going through that that we learn to recognise it, and learn to see who we could possibly stay with for the rest of our lives.

The whole idea that marriage must be eternal leads to people who have fallen out of love staying together out of fear or guilt, leading to bitter wasted lives. Its a shame really that people don't just take a bit more time at the start of there lives exploring and getting to know themselves before committing to something like marriage.

It seems that you have had your life experiences, you've come up with your theories on how things should be done, and are pretty much adamant that you are right. Personally, I disagree with you. So what more can I say.

I do.

But the point you are not realising is that you cannot "teach" a man or woman to simply ignore sexual biology any more than you can teach a man to stop breathing.

You can tell a person to stop breathing, but sooner or later they will need to take a breath.

So sexual biology dictates that a man sleep with as many people as he likes? I think you need to seperate your sexual biology and mine here.

This of course ignores the fact that the Bible doesn't actually teach, it instructs. "Don't have sex" is about as much teaching as the Bible does. So even if it was possible for a human to learn how to turn of their natural sexual biology, the Bible doesn't teach them that anyway.

The bible does not instruct 'don't have sex'. You continually make that point, and I continually correct you. It gives you a guide to your sexual responsability. At this stage though, it really seems that you just want to shout me down.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

One wonders whether any of them have ever told an AIDS suffers that yes, they knew exactly how to help prevent them from catching the disease, but wouldn't tell them because it wasn't good for them to know how to protect themselves :mad:

Well they would probably say "We told you not to have sex, now look at you"

Unfortunately something like AIDS tends to only strengthen the conviction of those who think that sex is shameful, dirty and immoral.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Its nothing to do with the act of sex. Its to do with its abuse! Sex is perfectly natural, however, fornication is not. But again, we disagree on this.

Perhaps you could define 'sex' as opposed to 'fornication'? The usual definition of fornication, as far as I'm aware, is sex outside marriage - which it appears is not your definition?

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

bonkey wrote:

So, if I understand you...couples married by the church but who do not love each other would be comitting sin by engaging in sexual intercourse. Meanwhile, couples not married by the church but who love each other and consider themselves married would not be comitting sin.

Indeed, the thrust of your point seems to be that the correct interpretation of the belief is that sex outside love would be wrong, rather than sex outside marriage

you've nearly got it. If a couple marry but are not in love and have sex, it is not sinful, for they are not fornicating. However, they will in time be very unhappy together, unless they learn to love each other. A couple married in heart, are not committing sin. If I were on a desert island with a woman, and we became married in heart, then is that sinful? No. the wedding ceremony is a public declaration that you are committed to your partner for life, and that you are now one flesh. There are many who marry, but are not married in heart. These people miss the point of what a marriage is, as defined by Jesus. If I were in a 'truly christian' society, to sleep with a girl would constitute marriage. People would not assume it was a one night stand etc, it would just be that we are now one. The marriage ceremony would probably happen after the fact. Christ is not about showing off, he's about the heart! Now, if the honourable thing to do among the society your in is to get married i.e. the public declaration marriage, before intercourse, then that should be honoured. the only time that one must neglect to follow society or your parents for that matter, is if it is in opposition to what is right as taught by Jesus.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

you've nearly got it. If a couple marry but are not in love and have sex, it is not sinful, for they are not fornicating. However, they will in time be very unhappy together, unless they learn to love each other. A couple married in heart, are not committing sin. If I were on a desert island with a woman, and we became married in heart, then is that sinful? No. the wedding ceremony is a public declaration that you are committed to your partner for life, and that you are now one flesh. There are many who marry, but are not married in heart. These people miss the point of what a marriage is, as defined by Jesus. If I were in a 'truly christian' society, to sleep with a girl would constitute marriage. People would not assume it was a one night stand etc, it would just be that we are now one. The marriage ceremony would probably happen after the fact. Christ is not about showing off, he's about the heart! Now, if the honourable thing to do among the society your in is to get married i.e. the public declaration marriage, before intercourse, then that should be honoured. the only time that one must neglect to follow society or your parents for that matter, is if it is in opposition to what is right as taught by Jesus.

So, your interpretation is that what Jesus meant by marriage is not the 'legal' definition, but a state of committed love?

As a matter of interest, how can you personally tell whether that love and comittment will last? It's baffled a lot of people, so it would be handy to know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote:

Perhaps you could define 'sex' as opposed to 'fornication'? The usual definition of fornication, as far as I'm aware, is sex outside marriage - which it appears is not your definition?

cordially,
Scofflaw

My definition of fornication is the same as yours. why does it not appear to be?

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

My definition of fornication is the same as yours. why does it not appear to be?

Ah. Your definition of fornication ('sex outside marriage') may appear to be the same, but it seems to be based on a different definition of 'marriage'.

Personally, I would define 'fornication' (insofar as I would bother) as 'casual' sex - sex without committment, intention of committment, or knowledge of the other person.

Do I feel that fornication is wrong? No, I don't. I think it's almost certainly bad for you, in the sense that it habituates you to treating other people, and yourself, as objects for thoughtless gratification.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote:

So, your interpretation is that what Jesus meant by marriage is not the 'legal' definition, but a state of committed love?

Well think about it! As I mentioned earlier, if you only have 2 people in a place, then what other marriage have you got? Did Adam and Eve have a marriage ceremony? (I know you don't believe in their existence, but for sake of arguement). I thought I made it clear in my post to bonkey, if you have questions about certain points relay them to me.

As a matter of interest, how can you personally tell whether that love and comittment will last? It's baffled a lot of people, so it would be handy to know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Seek true, real, love. The Love Christ taught 'cannot' pass away. If you know what love is and how it manifests itself, then you can identify it in another.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Yes, although your sarcasm suggests you think you're well informed, you are not IMO, until you go and see what is happening for yourself. Which is why I stated that we are both in ignorance. Can you accept that?

Well that would be a rather arrogant position for me to take.

Why would I think that by simply going to Africa I would have a better idea of what is going on that organisation of professional doctors and volunteers living and working over there who spend there entire professional time learning what is going on with regard to HIV and AIDS?

JimiTime wrote:

Why do you feel the need to express your views in this manner? Its non-informative, self absorbed and insulting to my intelligence!

Because you keep proclaiming something that clearly, even by your own actions, isn't true. It is rather difficult when you make a statement and then simply ignore examples that show your statement doesn't hold.

You can claim that your religion is about love all you like, it doesn't make it any more true.

You keep saying we should go to the teachings of Jesus rather than the actions of his followers. Which is fair enough, but we've done that and you still shut the discuss down and retreat to simply repeating over and over your interpretation of your religion.

JimiTime wrote:

Do you want to have a reasonable thinking discussion, or would you rather just hurl stones?

That was actually a genuine question.

Without forcing someone not to have sex what do you suggest you do to protect someone from HIV. Knowing the Bible won't stop something catching HIV if they decide to have sex.

JimiTime wrote:

Absolutely, whole heartedly agree.

Sorry, what I meant to say it isn't immoral to have sex, in or outside of marriage, since having sex is having sex.

JimiTime wrote:

According to you! Do you also think people who have sexual urges towards children, or animals etc etc, are normal.

Ok, back up for a sec.

Firstly, ignoring paedophilia, bestiality or homosexuality for a moment, do you think that an adult having sexual urges towards another adult of the different sex is abnormal or wrong and therefore should not be acted upon?

Secondly, to answer your question, I think that paedophilia and bestiality are wrong not because the urges are abnormal, but because acting on them harms another. Neither a child nor a animal can consent to sexual intercourse, and as such it is immoral to have sex with a child or a animal. It is basically rape.

Heterosexual and homosexuality on the other hand are about two consenting adults.

As such I see nothing wrong with sex between consenting adults.

I would strongly recommend that these consenting adults make themselves aware of all relevant sexual health matters, and approach sex in a mature adult fashion.

But I would suggest that with anything else in life as well, from driving a car to going on holiday.

JimiTime wrote:

Now if its possible to have an unnatural sexual urge, then your morality theory is flawed

I'm not sure how one has an unnatural sexual urge, given that by the very fact that the urge exists it is a consequence of biological nature.

I assume what you mean is a sexual urge that is not normal based on the average human, ie something like homosexuality.

In that case I still am not sure what your point is, since we have not even got to discussing the sexual urges of the minority of the population who have non-average sexual urges, such as homosexuals.

As I asked before, do you think the sexual urge between an adult man towards an adult woman, or vice versa, is not normal or wrong?

JimiTime wrote:

Remain as the fool if you wish. Do your homework if you actually want to be informed.

What part of my statement was incorrect based on Biblical teachings?

JimiTime wrote:

Ok, whats the relevance to my point?

The relevance is the issue of morality based on the dangers of sex. The real danger of sex is not the marriage status of those having the sex, but it is the lack of education, lack of awareness, of those having sex.

JimiTime wrote:

there will be people on this site who will tell you things as christians, that are not in line with Christ.

Again, they will most likely disagree, and will be able to quote scripture to back up their ideas.

So the reality is that they are not in line with your interpretation of Jesus. Which again is kinda my point, the Bible is so open to interpretation that it can be used to back up pretty much anything.

JimiTime wrote:

Now you can be lazy, and just say, oh well its all about interpretation.

I don't know why you call that a lazy assessment. "Accurate" would probably be a better word.

Are you claiming that people who you disagree with have never backed up their position with quotes from the Bible? I gave you an example below that you just ignored.

JimiTime wrote:

Sigh:(

Quite a response....

JimiTime wrote:

No, you assume i do.

How do you define "abuse of sex"? The Bible defines it as sex outside of an official marriage.

JimiTime wrote:

'except maybe less boring'.

Its a simple fact of life, backed up by many many studies, that sex after marriage becomes less exciting the longer into the marriage.

Which, one would think, is probably a reason to have sex before marriage, even if it is just with the person you end up marrying.

JimiTime wrote:

No, 'Love' does not change! i would rethink that statement.

That is a rather arrogant statement. I think anyone who has ever got divorced would disagree. Are you claiming that they were never in love in the first place?

JimiTime wrote:

It seems that you have had your life experiences, you've come up with your theories on how things should be done, and are pretty much adamant that you are right.

Maybe I should start my own religion ...

JimiTime wrote:

So sexual biology dictates that a man sleep with as many people as he likes?

Yes, in the same way as biology dictates that a man or woman breath as much air as much as they like.

I must say that it is hard not to think you share your religion's hang ups over sex when you make statements like this. Your whole comment drips distan for this idea, that someone would actually have sexual desire and have sex when they want to have sex.

The underlying concept seems to be that sex outside of a marriage is bad for you, and that people shouldn't do it, or that sex is some how dirty and disrespectful.

When you say "as he likes?" what do you mean?

Why would he have more sex than he likes, or why would he have less sex than he likes?

Your comment suggests that sex outside of marriage is something we should save ourselves from, lest it corrupt us. Which of course is a concept that is found through the history of Judeo/Christian culture.

JimiTime wrote:

I think you need to seperate your sexual biology and mine here.

I've no idea what you mean by this?

What ever your biology is then that dictates the amount of sex you want to have. You can try and control or suppress that if you wish, but the very fact that you are doing that shows that you have a sexual biology that is urging you to have more sex than you currently are. If you didn't then it wouldn't be an issue.

JimiTime wrote:

At this stage though, it really seems that you just want to shout me down.

No offense JimiTime but I keep giving you long detailed posts on my position in an attempt to explain and clarify and you respond with nonsense one line comments, so I'm not sure who is trying to shut who down.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Well think about it! As I mentioned earlier, if you only have 2 people in a place, then what other marriage have you got? Did Adam and Eve have a marriage ceremony? (I know you don't believe in their existence, but for sake of arguement). I thought I made it clear in my post to bonkey, if you have questions about certain points relay them to me.

There is a dispensation for such circumstances, usually, but it remains the duty of the couple to be married in the eyes of the 'law' as well as the 'heart'.

You will find that most people regard Adam & Eve as having been directly 'married in the sight of God', and that is why they did not require the assistance of a priest.

JimiTime wrote:

Seek true, real, love. The Love Christ taught 'cannot' pass away. If you know what love is and how it manifests itself, then you can identify it in another.

Interesting. So your explanation of why atheists have one of the lowest divorce rates of all 'religious groups' would be what then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

No offense JimiTime but I keep giving you long detailed posts on my position in an attempt to explain and clarify and you respond with nonsense one line comments, so I'm not sure who is trying to shut who down.

Ok, We'll leave it there so.

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote:

There is a dispensation for such circumstances, usually, but it remains the duty of the couple to be married in the eyes of the 'law' as well as the 'heart'.

read my post to bonkey and you will see that the public marriage was to be observed where it is the custom.

You will find that most people regard Adam & Eve as having been directly 'married in the sight of God', and that is why they did not require the assistance of a priest.

I got married in a registry office, I did not need a priest. God is concerned with matters of the heart. Those who walk in error, but do not know they walk in error are not as guilty as the man who knowingly walks in error. Now as far as marriage is concerned, depending on the culture you live in, the marriage can vary. In certain cultures a marriage was just staying the night with a woman. no big ceremony etc. You get the idea.

Interesting. So your explanation of why atheists have one of the lowest divorce rates of all 'religious groups' would be what then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't know. Maybe they have a better idea of self worth and thus learn to love naturally. i keep trying to tell you all, that the corruption of Christs teachings have led to much evil, but you must seperate the religion from the teaching of christ. Look at southern America 'the bible belt' and the racism etc, within 'Christian' communities. Now, if you took a ststistic based on people who actually follow Christs teachings, the stats would be different, because christ tells us to Love, and that marriage is for life. this is what I have kept asking Wicknight to do. Stop looking at religion as a knowledge base for knowing what God and Jesus teach. Look at the teachings yourself. just because you say, 'see what happened here or there, and they were all this or that christian religion', does not mean that they are actually obeying what Christ teaches. You must deal with the teaching, not with the people who claim to live by it. I mean, the pharisees were the reverred religious men of the day, but Jesus told us how corrupt they were.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

this is what I have kept asking Wicknight to do. Stop looking at religion as a knowledge base for knowing what God and Jesus teach. Look at the teachings yourself.

The point you are missing Jimi is that we actually are.

You use the example of the deep south. Well the Old Testament condones and gives guidelines to regulate slavery. So God back then didn't seem to mind slavery.

Ok, so one assumes Jesus will say no slavery is bad.

But actually he doesn't. Aside from stating that he does not come to abolish the old laws, he also incorporates the metaphor of the master/slave into his teachings, as a the way things should be -

"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

So, can you see how a white farmer in the USA 150 years ago would see no moral reason not to own a slave, based on an accurate reading of the Bible, both Old Testament and New?

These are quotes from 19th century anti-abolishists -

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." - Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

JimiTime wrote:

just because you say, 'see what happened here or there, and they were all this or that christian religion',

It is more accurate to say that the following is being said - See what happened here or there, and they were all this or that Christian religion, and they all found passages from scripture to support what they were doing

I doubt there has ever been a crime done in the name of Christianity where the criminals did not have a Biblical passage on hand to support their actions.

robindch

> why atheists have one of the lowest divorce rates of all 'religious groups' [...]

...and according to research done in Denmark where they've had gay marriage and gay-couple adoption for many years, it turns out that gay divorces are much less common -- by a factor of three-to-one -- than heterosexual divorces:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNG1H59R5Q1.DTL

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote:

Now, if you took a ststistic based on people who actually follow Christs teachings, the stats would be different, because christ tells us to Love, and that marriage is for life. this is what I have kept asking Wicknight to do. Stop looking at religion as a knowledge base for knowing what God and Jesus teach. Look at the teachings yourself. just because you say, 'see what happened here or there, and they were all this or that christian religion', does not mean that they are actually obeying what Christ teaches. You must deal with the teaching, not with the people who claim to live by it. I mean, the pharisees were the reverred religious men of the day, but Jesus told us how corrupt they were.

Argh... I've missed the last couple of days of this debate and now I'm confronted with walls of text and endless quoting of each other

Anyway, JimiTime is correct. At pains of repeating myself, religion does not always represent Jesus. Some people seem to hold the sins of the church - particularly the Catholic Church in this country - against God.

I'm not usually one for quoting scripture, but this is from Matthew 12 (I'm using a contemporary version of the Bible called The Message) -

Jesus said:

"There is far more at stake here than religion. If you had any idea what this scripture meant - 'I prefer a flexible heart to an inflexible ritual'"

That says it all really.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

I figure that all Christians were like my Catholic friends, to whom the Bible comes a distant second to actually believing in God. They don't care if the Bible is riddled with holes, it isn't that important to the day to day living of being a "Christian".

I know exactly what you mean. The average Catholic utterly subscribes to that comment of Fr Dougal McGuire that doctrine is 'only a bit of a laugh', and I think when you come from that outlook its hard to relate to someone producing pages of Bible quotes as if this was meant to settle things.