I've selected a story from among today's reports on CNN.com that I think would be of concern to many Xians. I'm going to then offer not only my personal atheist viewpoint but I'm also going to offer what I believe would be the general Xian reaction to the same story. The purpose: to gauge the accuracy of this speculative Xian view by holding it open to public scrutiny and to illustrate the difference in thinking that makes these two groups hopelessly incompatible. I'm curious to hear from theist and atheist alike. Not all Xians will respond to something like with with the same degree of religious or moral indignation. Some are likely to shake their heads and take it in stride while others will be absolutely outraged. My goal is to strike a general Xian reaction without going too far in either direction.
Here's the story - Two More States Allow Same-Sex Civil Unions (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/01/us/civil-unions/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)
My Personal Atheist Reaction: I couldn't care less who anyone chooses to live with and/or love. In what possible way does the love these women share with one another impact my life? It doesn't. They're free to love whomever they want. This is not a problem.
My Speculative Xian Reaction: This is more sad evidence that this country is moving further from a Christ based (Christian) morality to a secular free-for-all where anything goes. Do the words of God mean nothing? For He said: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22) This holds equally true for women lying together. This is one step closer to allowing all gay marriage to flourish in clear violation of our Heavenly Father's own edict. What sort of lesson is this to teach our children? I pray for the future of this once great nation.
It could easily be much more fire and brimstone as Pat Robertson would do or Jerry Falwell would've done but my speculative Xian isn't a raging fundamentalist nutcase, just a bible thumping member of the conservative right.
Feel free to comment and/or offer your own interpretation.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 02, 2012, 02:18:17 AM
My Personal Atheist Reaction: I couldn't care less who anyone chooses to live with and/or love. In what possible way does the love these women share with one another impact my life? It doesn't. They're free to love whomever they want. This is not a problem.
Xian Reaction to Your Atheist Reaction: I love the smell of burning souls in the morning.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on January 02, 2012, 09:19:36 AM
Xian Reaction to Your Atheist Reaction: I love the smell of burning souls in the morning.
LMAO!
To the OP, yes, your speculative Christian reaction is pretty close to what I would expect (some) Christians to say. I find it really interesting that (some) Christians seem to hold the opinion that legalizing gay marriage somehow goes against their rights - as if the Big Plan is:
Step 1) Legalize gay marriage
Step 2) Force all Christians regardless of sexual orientation to
participate in a gay marriage.
I would love to hear an actual theists take on this, as it's not much fun debating a theoretical Christian. I don't like to have to supply both sides of the debate. LOL
Quote from: Ali on January 03, 2012, 12:47:29 AM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on January 02, 2012, 09:19:36 AM
Xian Reaction to Your Atheist Reaction: I love the smell of burning souls in the morning.
LMAO!
To the OP, yes, your speculative Christian reaction is pretty close to what I would expect (some) Christians to say. I find it really interesting that (some) Christians seem to hold the opinion that legalizing gay marriage somehow goes against their rights - as if the Big Plan is:
Step 1) Legalize gay marriage
Step 2) Force all Christians regardless of sexual orientation to participate in a gay marriage.
I would love to hear an actual theists take on this, as it's not much fun debating a theoretical Christian. I don't like to have to supply both sides of the debate. LOL
Thanks. I do a pretty convincing theroretical Scientologist too.
I'd like to see some theist response as well. I'm curious why same sex unions are considered to be such a dire threat.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on January 02, 2012, 09:19:36 AMXian Reaction to Your Atheist Reaction: I love the smell of burning souls in the morning.
It smells like divine justice...and bratwurst.
I think that most theists don't care or actually support same sex marriage...it's only the older, deep southern, and evangelical groups that complain about it. As these groups age out of existence and newer generations find less and less appeal in fire and brimstone beliefs I think we'll see the backlash against gay marriage disappear.
Quote from: Whitney on January 03, 2012, 01:13:29 AM
I think that most theists don't care or actually support same sex marriage...it's only the older, deep southern, and evangelical groups that complain about it. As these groups age out of existence and newer generations find less and less appeal in fire and brimstone beliefs I think we'll see the backlash against gay marriage disappear.
Whitney, that's true too; it depends on the "theist". I just read a stat that said that as of 2011, 53% of Americans support gay marriage, and since I think something like 85-ish% of Americans claim some sort of belief in a higher power, there has got to be a lot of overlap between people who believe in a higher power and who also support gay marriage.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx
I think that the reason that I automatically think of Christians as being opposed to gay marriage is because I assume that the majority of the 45% that don't support it must be religious - just because I have never heard a non-religious argument against gay marriage that made a lick of sense, and even the so-called non-religious reasons that I have heard have been put forth by theists who are trying to spin things. Plus my family is all made up of Evangelical Christians, so those are the attitudes that I was raised with, and that I automatically associate with the term "Christian." ;)
Quote from: Ali on January 03, 2012, 02:46:54 AM
just because I have never heard a non-religious argument against gay marriage that made a lick of sense, and even the so-called non-religious reasons that I have heard have been put forth by theists who are trying to spin things.
I have known of a very few atheists who are anti-gay-rights...one I came across on another forum (he was good at making himself sound reasoned but his reasons fell apart when anyone with a strong background in biology or psychology dissected them). The other I heard about through a rant post by Matt Dilahunty (guy from Atheist Experience TV show) on facebook...there is apparently a black atheist radio/tv show out of some southern area (forgot where) and they were gay bashing. None of them had rational reasons for their bigotry though...all boiled down to typical "it's not natural" or "it grosses me out" type of stuff.
Cut and pasted from the article in Ali's link:
Quote"PRINCETON, NJ -- For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change."
I suspected those results probably weren't reflective of the conservative right. It's this group I was referencing in my initial post. Independants and Democrats are generally open-minded enough not to get all bent out of shape over gay marriage and may even be willing to alter their views over time so they're not really the issue. When Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin, or Rick Perry, or, well, all that lot, change THEIR minds, well, then you've really got something.
Would still like to hear from a Leviticus quoting type theist on this.
My perception of this article is simply, It is what it is.
A Christian should understand that this world is heading in a direction that if we Christians believe in God and His word, we cannot stop. In fact, the faster it it happens, the sooner He returns. I don't care a whole lot whether the society I live in allows Gay Marriage or not. I happen to stand more on the side of allowing it, while I also stand on the side that says homosexual ACTS are an abomination. (I don't think this thread is about debating whether that is right or wrong...or to explain my stance further.)
My point is simply to say that the reality is whether the Christian likes it or not, things are headed in a direction that we will NEED to or WANT to be as far from...if that is possible. (Matt. 24)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 03, 2012, 04:27:53 PM
I happen to stand more on the side of allowing it, while I also stand on the side that says homosexual ACTS are an abomination.
"abomination" is such a big, judgmental word. I am surprised to read it coming from you AnimatedDirt.
I understand you are for separation of state and church and are for people having freedom of choice to "sin" or not.
But I was thinking maybe you thought of Christian morals as being a guideline for yourself in order to help you make decisions in your life with regards to your own actions rather than to judge others by.
Of course we are all free to judge so I am not getting hypocritical on you, I was just surprised by your choice of word.
Quote from: Stevil on January 03, 2012, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 03, 2012, 04:27:53 PM
I happen to stand more on the side of allowing it, while I also stand on the side that says homosexual ACTS are an abomination.
"abomination" is such a big, judgmental word. I am surprised to read it coming from you AnimatedDirt.
I understand you are for separation of state and church and are for people having freedom of choice to "sin" or not.
But I was thinking maybe you thought of Christian morals as being a guideline for yourself in order to help you make decisions in your life with regards to your own actions rather than to judge others by.
Of course we are all free to judge so I am not getting hypocritical on you, I was just surprised by your choice of word.
When sin is categorized as one bigger than another, then the use of "abomination" is rather judgmental. However when one (rightly) equates any sin(s) as an abomination, then we can see that whether one has homosexual sex or steals a penny, both are equally an abomination. It is within this context that I use(d)
abomination above...that and to quote the biblical English text.
This is to say that any Christian that holds to a strict interpretation of the bible in the context of homosexuality, in my opinion is simply just as guilty of committing an abominable sin in simple words of hate towards another human.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 03, 2012, 09:23:43 PM
When sin is categorized as one bigger than another, then the use of "abomination" is rather judgmental. However when one (rightly) equates any sin(s) as an abomination, then we can see that whether one has homosexual sex or steals a penny, both are equally an abomination. It is within this context that I use(d) abomination above...that and to quote the biblical English text.
This is to say that any Christian that holds to a strict interpretation of the bible in the context of homosexuality, in my opinion is simply just as guilty of committing an abominable sin in simple words of hate towards another human.
Why not simply say that it is a sin rather than abomination. It would be much easier for your atheist audience to understand the intent behind your words.
Quote from: Stevil on January 03, 2012, 09:42:24 PM
Why not simply say that it is a sin rather than abomination. It would be much easier for your atheist audience to understand the intent behind your words.
Point taken. Homosexual
acts is sin.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 03, 2012, 03:38:21 AM
Would still like to hear from a Leviticus quoting type theist on this.
I guess I was just trying to give
MadBomr101 what he/she wants. ;)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 03, 2012, 10:08:55 PM
Point taken. Homosexual acts is sin.
Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.
Want to see something even crazier? Check out this news bit from Dallas, Texas: http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-texas-santa-massacre,0,3623246.story
So...a man dressed in a Santa Suite kills the entire family and himself during Christmas! It could be that the man is Pathological....or it could be that he was Muslim - and this is was not Texas News WILL NOT DISCUSS!
Religion strikes again!
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on January 03, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
Want to see something even crazier? Check out this news bit from Dallas, Texas: http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-texas-santa-massacre,0,3623246.story
So...a man dressed in a Santa Suite kills the entire family and himself during Christmas! It could be that the man is Pathological....or it could be that he was Muslim - and this is was not Texas News WILL NOT DISCUSS!
Religion strikes again!
I don't think we can assume that he wasn't Christian...the family was practicing Christmas; they all has Muslim names...so it could have been a Muslim Christian family and just a psychotic ex husband.
Quote from: Crow on January 03, 2012, 10:19:42 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 03, 2012, 10:08:55 PM
Point taken. Homosexual acts is sin.
Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.
The statement is not to convey whether I've tried, not tried, liked, or disliked...I've tried lots of acts of
sin in my life. Some I've liked (and still like) and some don't appeal to me personally.
Quote from: Whitney on January 03, 2012, 11:10:03 PM
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on January 03, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
Want to see something even crazier? Check out this news bit from Dallas, Texas: http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-texas-santa-massacre,0,3623246.story
So...a man dressed in a Santa Suite kills the entire family and himself during Christmas! It could be that the man is Pathological....or it could be that he was Muslim - and this is was not Texas News WILL NOT DISCUSS!
Religion strikes again!
I don't think we can assume that he wasn't Christian...the family was practicing Christmas; they all has Muslim names...so it could have been a Muslim Christian family and just a psychotic ex husband.
No..No one will discuss what happened. This News will go into George Orwell's "Memory Hole" and be forgotten. It is too much of a liability. Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia!
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 03, 2012, 04:27:53 PM
My perception of this article is simply, It is what it is.
A Christian should understand that this world is heading in a direction that if we Christians believe in God and His word, we cannot stop. In fact, the faster it it happens, the sooner He returns. I don't care a whole lot whether the society I live in allows Gay Marriage or not. I happen to stand more on the side of allowing it, while I also stand on the side that says homosexual ACTS are an abomination.
The part I don't get is why Xians care who someone else chooses to love or screw. There's no emotional investment at work here. These people are strangers who, for whatever reason, aren't attratcted to the opposite sex. I don't understand that but it's also no concern of mine as it doesn't impact my life in any meaningful way. In what way does this impact the lives of Xians that they're so offended and/or threatened by it?
QuoteI guess I was just trying to give MadBomr101 what he/she wants.
He/she thanks you. :)
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 04, 2012, 12:57:50 AM
The part I don't get is why Xians care who someone else chooses to love or screw. There's no emotional interestment at work here. These people are strangers who, for whatever reason, aren't attratcted to the opposite sex. I don't understand that but it's also no concern of mine as it doesn't impact my life in any meaningful way. In what way does this impact the lives of Xians that they're so offended and/or threatened by it?
I agree with this. I can completely understand a Christian saying "In my religion, only heterosexual couples can marry/have sex/whatever, so I personally would never engage in a homosexual relationship." That's reasonable. But I don't get why they have to add "And if I can prevent it, people I have never met and otherwise care nothing about won't be able to either!" I just think it's so bizarre that they think that they (or weirder yet, the
government)should have a say in the love lives of consenting adults. Also weird - typically the people who are most against gay marriage are Conservatives, who claim to be in favor of "small government." I can't imagine a bigger government intrusion than a government that tries to legislate interpersonal relationships.
Quote from: Ali on January 04, 2012, 01:06:33 AM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 04, 2012, 12:57:50 AM
The part I don't get is why Xians care who someone else chooses to love or screw. There's no emotional interestment at work here. These people are strangers who, for whatever reason, aren't attratcted to the opposite sex. I don't understand that but it's also no concern of mine as it doesn't impact my life in any meaningful way. In what way does this impact the lives of Xians that they're so offended and/or threatened by it?
I agree with this. I can completely understand a Christian saying "In my religion, only heterosexual couples can marry/have sex/whatever, so I personally would never engage in a homosexual relationship." That's reasonable. But I don't get why they have to add "And if I can prevent it, people I have never met and otherwise care nothing about won't be able to either!" I just think it's so bizarre that they think that they (or weirder yet, the government)should have a say in the love lives of consenting adults. Also weird - typically the people who are most against gay marriage are Conservatives, who claim to be in favor of "small government." I can't imagine a bigger government intrusion than a government that tries to legislate interpersonal relationships.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for the assist.
Quote from: Whitney on January 03, 2012, 01:13:29 AM
I think that most theists don't care or actually support same sex marriage...it's only the older, deep southern, and evangelical groups that complain about it. As these groups age out of existence and newer generations find less and less appeal in fire and brimstone beliefs I think we'll see the backlash against gay marriage disappear.
This. The gay marriage issue will cease to be important, even for most Christians, in the future. It didn't even register on Jesus' radar, and Paul only briefly spoke of homosexuality, and mostly in the context of flagrant promiscuity, not committed relationships. Homosexuality didn't even make it into the 10 Commandments, but adultery did, something that even Christian ministers have problems with.
If two people want to legally accept responsibility for each other, then what business of it is mine other than to say: I agree! This is marriage, I guess...in its most fundamental terms!
I am for it 100%!
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 03, 2012, 11:32:20 PM
Quote from: Crow on January 03, 2012, 10:19:42 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 03, 2012, 10:08:55 PM
Point taken. Homosexual acts is sin.
Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.
The statement is not to convey whether I've tried, not tried, liked, or disliked...I've tried lots of acts of sin in my life. Some I've liked (and still like) and some don't appeal to me personally.
I'm going to refrain from saying many things right now, so I won't break rules or get kicked off this amazing forum...
But good sir, you cannot state your opinions as facts. It's what I dislike THE MOST of religious people.
My love is wonderful, joyful, sad, complicated, sometimes stressful and everything a human being is allowed to feel, but my love is NOT A SIN.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 03:00:26 AM
I'm going to refrain from saying many things right now, so I won't break rules or get kicked off this amazing forum...
But good sir, you cannot state your opinions as facts. It's what I dislike THE MOST of religious people.
My love is wonderful, joyful, sad, complicated, sometimes stressful and everything a human being is allowed to feel, but my love is NOT A SIN.
I'm sorry for offending you. It was not my intention. We are in the religion section of this forum and within a thread about a "Xtian Perception" and I'm giving my opinion. In context of "Xtian" AND the OP citing a commonly known position of this religious book, saying, "Homosexual acts is sin" is quite spot on, factual...in context. You may disagree. We're not specifically discussing our position on the that subject, rather what it means that more and more are accepting. I would humbly ask you go back and read from the start. MAYBE you will see my position different or simply ask my position.
Again, I apologize for offending you.
I'm fine, seriously.
In a three year commited relationship, and planning to get married in a few years.
Just curious, do you really think everything written in the bible is to be taken as a literal fact? I have read it and jesus never says hate the gays, but okay. Human love is adult human, consensual love.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 05:17:03 AM
I'm fine, seriously.
In a three year commited relationship, and planning to get married in a few years.
I am really happy for your happiness. Really.
Quote from: SweetdeathJust curious, do you really think everything written in the bible is to be taken as a literal fact? I have read it and jesus never says hate the gays, but okay. Human love is adult human, consensual love.
Like what...for the most part, I do hold that the bible is factual at least as best humans saw or knew what they were writing about. Much like two different people writing about a battle, each has their own perspective and just because they differ of some things, doesn't mean one or the other is wrong.
Edit: Modified the quote...missed the name.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 03, 2012, 12:59:06 AM
I'd like to see some theist response as well. I'm curious why same sex unions are considered to be such a dire threat.
I know I'm coming very late to this discussion, but the reasons I've heard all boil down to "because God says so". I knew a woman once who said that she personally couldn't see anything wrong with homosexuality, or why anyone would find it upsetting for any reason, but since her god was against it (according to the bible) she had to be too. It didn't matter than she didn't understand her god's reasons for being against it, it only mattered that he was against it and as his follower she had to accept that there was therefore some mysterious thing wrong with it and treat it accordingly. That's all there was to it.
Altho I consider such reasons and such beliefs silly, they do make sense if you accept that some people honestly believe a) that there is an invisible, immortal superman that's in control of everything, b) if they please this being it will make them invisible and immortal too one day (not sure about also becoming supermen, that might be reserved) and c) the bible is the guidebook to what pleases this being. And altho there's a lot of contradiction in the bible about what god is and is not pleased by, god's displeasure with homosexuality seems unambiguous.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 05:17:03 AM
I have read it and jesus never says hate the gays, but okay.
I don't recall where he ever said it was OK either, I don't think he ever mentioned homosexuality at all. As much as I'd like to claim that as a point for our side, Jesus (or his ghost writer, or whoever) didn't have any trouble speaking up and correcting the rules of the OT he thought were wrong -- the ones about divorce, for instance. I think it more reasonable to guess that he didn't say anything about homosexuality because he had no problem with the OT view of it.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 05, 2012, 05:36:52 AMI know I'm coming very late to this discussion, but the reasons I've heard all boil down to "because God says so". I knew a woman once who said that she personally couldn't see anything wrong with homosexuality, or why anyone would find it upsetting for any reason, but since her god was against it (according to the bible) she had to be too. It didn't matter than she didn't understand her god's reasons for being against it, it only mattered that he was against it and as his follower she had to accept that there was therefore some mysterious thing wrong with it and treat it accordingly. That's all there was to it.
Yup and that's one of the single most infuriating aspects of religious faith, blind and unquestioning obedience whether you understand it or not. This is not a good thing yet Xians will proudly claim it as a demonstration of the strength of their faith. It's like being proud of being ignorant and irrational.
I guess you can spin anything if you want to.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 05:53:44 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 05, 2012, 05:36:52 AMI know I'm coming very late to this discussion, but the reasons I've heard all boil down to "because God says so". I knew a woman once who said that she personally couldn't see anything wrong with homosexuality, or why anyone would find it upsetting for any reason, but since her god was against it (according to the bible) she had to be too. It didn't matter than she didn't understand her god's reasons for being against it, it only mattered that he was against it and as his follower she had to accept that there was therefore some mysterious thing wrong with it and treat it accordingly. That's all there was to it.
Yup and that's one of the single most infuriating aspects of religious faith, blind and unquestioning obedience whether you understand it or not. This is not a good thing yet Xians will proudly claim it as a demonstration of the strength of their faith. It's like being proud of being ignorant and irrational.
I guess you can spin anything if you want to.
Another reason why AD's "I'm happy for you" seems more condesending than anything, but I digress.
I don't choose my sexuality, nor whom I fall in love with. I also regret nothing.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 05:59:27 AM
I don't choose my sexuality, nor whom I fall in love with. I also regret nothing.
Ah, but you do choose if you
act on it and that's the point that all hard-line biblicalists agree is a sin (some also say the mere feelings are a sin as well, while others are more generous and give us a pass on the feelings so long as we're celibate).
What's unfair, a real pisser in fact, is that while our sexual lives don't affect the fundies religious beliefs, the fundies religious beliefs could affect our sexual lives if the Republicans make a successful power grab. And that's what makes the conservative Xtian perspective so damn scary, at least for me.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 05, 2012, 05:36:52 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 05:17:03 AM
I have read it and jesus never says hate the gays, but okay.
I don't recall where he ever said it was OK either, I don't think he ever mentioned homosexuality at all. As much as I'd like to claim that as a point for our side, Jesus (or his ghost writer, or whoever) didn't have any trouble speaking up and correcting the rules of the OT he thought were wrong -- the ones about divorce, for instance. I think it more reasonable to guess that he didn't say anything about homosexuality because he had no problem with the OT view of it.
The OT only mentions dudes lying with eachother, lesbians are not mentioned at all. I'm left to assume that lesbians are OK according to the bible... a bit sexist, but it is the bible.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 05, 2012, 07:42:17 AM
Ah, but you do choose if you act on it and that's the point that all hard-line biblicalists agree is a sin (some also say the mere feelings are a sin as well, while others are more generous and give us a pass on the feelings so long as we're celibate).
What's unfair, a real pisser in fact, is that while our sexual lives don't affect the fundies religious beliefs, the fundies religious beliefs could affect our sexual lives if the Republicans make a successful power grab. And that's what makes the conservative Xtian perspective so damn scary, at least for me.
I love how Christians throw that out (it's only a sin to act on it) like that's some great concession or mercy on their part. "Hey, as long as you're cool with a life that is devoid of intimacy, companionship, love, family, all of the very best parts of being human, you're cool by us! Aren't we tolerant?" *Retch*
Quote from: Ali on January 05, 2012, 02:43:22 PM
I love how Christians throw that out (it's only a sin to act on it) like that's some great concession or mercy on their part. "Hey, as long as you're cool with a life that is devoid of intimacy, companionship, love, family, all of the very best parts of being human, you're cool by us! Aren't we tolerant?" *Retch*
Yeah, and I have seen the emotional damage this has caused among devout Xtian gays, one of my aunts among them, who have tried to tow this line.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 05, 2012, 03:07:22 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 05, 2012, 02:43:22 PM
I love how Christians throw that out (it's only a sin to act on it) like that's some great concession or mercy on their part. "Hey, as long as you're cool with a life that is devoid of intimacy, companionship, love, family, all of the very best parts of being human, you're cool by us! Aren't we tolerant?" *Retch*
Yeah, and I have seen the emotional damage this has caused among devout Xtian gays, one of my aunts among them, who have tried to tow this line.
That's really sad. I'm sorry your aunt has to go through ANY emotional suffering about her sexuality.
But christians never ever stop to care whom threy hurt. Look at the assholes who protest military funerals. I mean WHAT THE FUCK?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 03:31:38 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 05, 2012, 03:07:22 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 05, 2012, 02:43:22 PM
I love how Christians throw that out (it's only a sin to act on it) like that's some great concession or mercy on their part. "Hey, as long as you're cool with a life that is devoid of intimacy, companionship, love, family, all of the very best parts of being human, you're cool by us! Aren't we tolerant?" *Retch*
Yeah, and I have seen the emotional damage this has caused among devout Xtian gays, one of my aunts among them, who have tried to tow this line.
That's really sad. I'm sorry your aunt has to go through ANY emotional suffering about her sexuality.
But christians never ever stop to care whom threy hurt. Look at the assholes who protest military funerals. I mean WHAT THE FUCK?
Christian population approx 2,000,000,000
Christians who picket funerals 60 ('ish)
60/2,000,000,000*100 = 0.000,003%
The Phelps clan get a lot of publicity but they are about as typical of Christians as I am ;D
My mum was a Christian and she would not have hurt a fly (figurativly speaking). Can you imagine any of the Christian members here picking on somebody because of their sexual preferences? Yes, there are theists of all types Christian, Islamic and Jewish who's view of homosexuals is informed and driven by their religion. But there are many who have got past the outdated prejudice of days gone by. I realise this is a subject close to your heart as we have seen recently, but damning all for the sins of some simply isn't fair IMO.
QuoteThe OT only mentions dudes lying with eachother, lesbians are not mentioned at all. I'm left to assume that lesbians are OK according to the bible... a bit sexist, but it is the bible.
I was just going to ask about this, because that's my recollection as well. And to expand on that, many people seem to say that their personal objections about homosexuality have to do with anal sex. Never mind the straight folks who do it. Never mind the gay men who choose oral instead. Let's just broad brush everyone instead. Talk about leaping to contusions.
Personally, I think anything between consenting adults is no one else's business. Why christians (particularly conservative ones) can't get this through their thick skulls is beyond me.
Maybe they are jealous of the non christians and their awesome sex lifes? ^__~
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 05:59:27 AM
Another reason why AD's "I'm happy for you" seems more condesending than anything, but I digress.
I cannot dictate how genuine you feel my words are to you.
Quote from: SweetdeathI don't choose my sexuality, nor whom I fall in love with. I also regret nothing.
I agree. The fairytale book is clear. If you break one letter of the law, you are a sinner. Therefore whether one is gay or not gay, neither is more sinful than the other. I hope that doesn't offend you. It's not meant to. It brings us together onto common ground. Neither one of us is better or worse than the other.
Quote from: Tank on January 05, 2012, 03:44:41 PM
My mum was a Christian and she would not have hurt a fly (figurativly speaking). Can you imagine any of the Christian members here picking on somebody because of their sexual preferences? Yes, there are theists of all types Christian, Islamic and Jewish who's view of homosexuals is informed and driven by their religion. But there are many who have got past the outdated prejudice of days gone by. I realise this is a subject close to your heart as we have seen recently, but damning all for the sins of some simply isn't fair IMO.
That's true too, Tank. And I have to admit, particularly when it comes to the topic of gay marriage (that's a hot button topic for me -it just seems SO unfair and inhumane) I tend to picture "Christians" as this sort of swirling faceless mass that is intent on perpetrating this sort of bigotry and unequality on their fellow citizens. But in my real life, I actually really like the majority of the Christians I know, even the ones that I have some serious ideological disagreements with. I wonder if that is how Christians see homosexuals too. My parents are evangelicals, and opposed to gay marriage (cause Godsaidso) and yet they have several gay friends. I've never been able to figure out how they reconcile the two, but I guess it's probably the same sort of thing. We're fine with people on an individual basis, but we don't like the "idea" of their group.
Quote from: Ali on January 05, 2012, 02:43:22 PM
I love how Christians throw that out (it's only a sin to act on it) like that's some great concession or mercy on their part. "Hey, as long as you're cool with a life that is devoid of intimacy, companionship, love, family, all of the very best parts of being human, you're cool by us! Aren't we tolerant?" *Retch*
You're right. It's not much of a concession on the part of the Christian that condemns the homosexual because he/she is homosexual. We (Christians) should not condemn 'you' for being homosexual. Even thinking about a sin...is sin already.
Quote from: Matthew 5:27,28 NIV"You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
I personally have acted on this probably more times than the average person has acted on sex physically. Who's the "bigger" sinner?
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Matthew vii 1
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 04:39:26 PM
Even thinking about a sin...is sin already.
I've always wondered about this. Can Christians and other's who believe this actually control their thoughts so that they no longer think about taboo topics? Maybe I just have some sort of crazy unruly Tourette's style brain, but I have all sorts of random thoughts popping in and out all of the time. Some of them "sinful" if you consider thinking about sex and whatnot "sinful". Sure, I can push thoughts aside once they're in there, but I can't seem to pre-emptively stop them from happening. Can you? And if not, why would something that is impossible to stop be a sin in the first place?
Quote from: Ali on January 05, 2012, 05:02:46 PM
I've always wondered about this. Can Christians and other's who believe this actually control their thoughts so that they no longer think about taboo topics? Maybe I just have some sort of crazy unruly Tourette's style brain, but I have all sorts of random thoughts popping in and out all of the time. Some of them "sinful" if you consider thinking about sex and whatnot "sinful". Sure, I can push thoughts aside once they're in there, but I can't seem to pre-emptively stop them from happening. Can you? And if not, why would something that is impossible to stop be a sin in the first place?
I don't think it's necessarily ALL our thoughts that pop in and out of our minds, as this is obvious to us and therefore more so to the fairytale God, but those that we ponder over and over, think on, imagine, visualize...
The NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text:
"looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."
Oh brother, everything is a sin, am I right?
Anyway have fun with that crap. I'm just going to be happy over here. Got a mlp convention to attend on Saturday. >___>
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 05:17:32 PM
Oh brother, everything is a sin, am I right?
No. Not everything.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 05:10:00 PMThe NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text: "looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."
Yeah and what a steaming load of bullshit that is. Let's make thinking a sin. I'm telling ya, it's no wonder they put this jerkoff to death. ::)
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 06:15:16 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 05:10:00 PMThe NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text: "looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."
Yeah and what a steaming load of bullshit that is. Let's makes thinking a sin. I'm telling ya, it's no wonder they put this jerkoff to death. ::)
Ramen!
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 05:10:00 PM
I don't think it's necessarily ALL our thoughts that pop in and out of our minds, as this is obvious to us and therefore more so to the fairytale God, but those that we ponder over and over, think on, imagine, visualize...
The NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text: "looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."
That makes more sense than every passing thought being a sin. We'd all be doomed, doomed, DOOMED if it was the latter. lol Personally, I think the whole sin thing is silly. Rather, I think we're all born innocent. But, hey, I'm not christian, so there ya go.
Wouldn't physical actions matter more than thoughts? e_e Can god now read minds? Does he think he's cool like Professor Xiavier?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
Wouldn't physical actions matter more than thoughts? ...
Well *I* think so. But I guess god is the thought police.
Quote from: Traveler on January 05, 2012, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
Wouldn't physical actions matter more than thoughts? ...
Well *I* think so. But I guess god is the thought police.
Glad he isn't real, or I might just give a fuck. :D
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 04:57:31 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 03:00:26 AM
I'm going to refrain from saying many things right now, so I won't break rules or get kicked off this amazing forum...
But good sir, you cannot state your opinions as facts. It's what I dislike THE MOST of religious people.
My love is wonderful, joyful, sad, complicated, sometimes stressful and everything a human being is allowed to feel, but my love is NOT A SIN.
I'm sorry for offending you. It was not my intention. We are in the religion section of this forum and within a thread about a "Xtian Perception" and I'm giving my opinion. In context of "Xtian" AND the OP citing a commonly known position of this religious book, saying, "Homosexual acts is sin" is quite spot on, factual...in context. You may disagree. We're not specifically discussing our position on the that subject, rather what it means that more and more are accepting. I would humbly ask you go back and read from the start. MAYBE you will see my position different or simply ask my position.
Again, I apologize for offending you.
I'm wondering if Sweetdeath saw the part where you called it an abomination. It seems much more offensive that simply stating the Christian perceived fact that homosexuality is a sin.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 04:39:26 PM
Quote from: Matthew 5:27,28 NIV"You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
I personally have acted on this probably more times than the average person has acted on sex physically. Who's the "bigger" sinner?
It seems incredibly strange and against nature to attempt to deny the primal urges of sexuality. Without sex we fail to exist
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
Wouldn't physical actions matter more than thoughts?
Absolutely. Otherwise, we'd have jail terms for thinking about robbing a bank or raping the cashier at the Circle K. I'll go one further, I've murdered my boss in my heart SO many times. Among men, I've broken no law but so far as god is concerned, I'm a serial killer.
DUMB!
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 07:23:24 PMIt seems incredibly strange and against nature to attempt to deny the primal urges of sexuality. Without sex we fail to exist
Or have a hell of a good time. ;D
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 07:23:24 PM
It seems incredibly strange and against nature to attempt to deny the primal urges of sexuality. Without sex we fail to exist
Who said to deny primal urges of sexuality. This is taking too much liberty and simply coming to your own biased conclusions. If the fairytale, the God created sex. I think it is obvious to the less biased that sex is therefore a good thing.
Seems like something similar that
Davin wrote on:
Quote from: Davin on January 04, 2012, 11:38:16 PM
Is there some aspect of doubt or inability to rationally defend the concept that results in people resorting to extreme irrational means to defend the belief in the concept?
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 07:23:24 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 04:39:26 PM
Quote from: Matthew 5:27,28 NIV"You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
I personally have acted on this probably more times than the average person has acted on sex physically. Who's the "bigger" sinner?
It seems incredibly strange and against nature to attempt to deny the primal urges of sexuality. Without sex we fail to exist
I quite enjoy le sex. *sips earl gray*
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 07:43:07 PM
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 07:23:24 PM
It seems incredibly strange and against nature to attempt to deny the primal urges of sexuality. Without sex we fail to exist
Who said to deny primal urges of sexuality.
Lustful thoughts are a part of sex
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 08:42:20 PM
Lustful thoughts are a part of sex
It leads to sex, yes, but it's not necessarily part of sex. There's healthy lust and not-so-healthy lust. One leads to sex another might lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 08:54:58 PM
It leads to sex, yes, but it's not necessarily part of sex. There's healthy lust and not-so-healthy lust. One leads to sex another might lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...
But throwing out all lustful thoughts just because they *might* lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...That's throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it? I've had puh-lenty of lusty thoughts in my life, and not once have they lead to rape, incest, or pedophilia. I think I've got a proven track record for healthy lust. ;D
Quote from: Ali on January 05, 2012, 09:05:00 PM
But throwing out all lustful thoughts just because they *might* lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...That's throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it? I've had puh-lenty of lusty thoughts in my life, and not once have they lead to rape, incest, or pedophilia. I think I've got a proven track record for healthy lust. ;D
Are you saying that because your lust has never lead to any of these such things, no one elses has? Remember, I never condemned the healthy lust...in its correct context, there's nothing wrong with it. Of course you and I may differ on "correct context" however, we probably agree more than disagree on "healty lust" not being lust that results in rape...
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 08:54:58 PM
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 08:42:20 PM
Lustful thoughts are a part of sex
It leads to sex, yes, but it's not necessarily part of sex. There's healthy lust and not-so-healthy lust. One leads to sex another might lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...
Lustful thoughts are not a part of sex? Well if not what the hell are they? That's like saying the Saturn V first, second and third stages were not part of the moon landing because they didn't get to the moon! :D
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 09:08:22 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 05, 2012, 09:05:00 PM
But throwing out all lustful thoughts just because they *might* lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...That's throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it? I've had puh-lenty of lusty thoughts in my life, and not once have they lead to rape, incest, or pedophilia. I think I've got a proven track record for healthy lust. ;D
Are you saying that because your lust has never lead to any of these such things, no one elses has?
It is like the minority report movie.
We cannot judge and pre-emptively strike.
Lust is a healthy part of nature, without it we would never procreate.
Quote from: Tank on January 05, 2012, 09:16:00 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 08:54:58 PM
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 08:42:20 PM
Lustful thoughts are a part of sex
It leads to sex, yes, but it's not necessarily part of sex. There's healthy lust and not-so-healthy lust. One leads to sex another might lead to rape, incest, pedophilia...
Lustful thoughts are not a part of sex? Well if not what the hell are they? That's like saying the Saturn V first, second and third stages were not part of the moon landing because they didn't get to the moon! :D
I did say necessarily, didn't I? I never said lustful thoughts are not part of sex. I think I clarified my point in that some lust leads to what most of us would term unhealthy "sex"...
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 09:31:40 PM
Lust is a healthy part of nature, without it we would never procreate.
We agree.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 04:57:31 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 03:00:26 AM
I'm going to refrain from saying many things right now, so I won't break rules or get kicked off this amazing forum...
But good sir, you cannot state your opinions as facts. It's what I dislike THE MOST of religious people.
My love is wonderful, joyful, sad, complicated, sometimes stressful and everything a human being is allowed to feel, but my love is NOT A SIN.
I'm sorry for offending you. It was not my intention. We are in the religion section of this forum and within a thread about a "Xtian Perception" and I'm giving my opinion. In context of "Xtian" AND the OP citing a commonly known position of this religious book, saying, "Homosexual acts is sin" is quite spot on, factual...in context. You may disagree. We're not specifically discussing our position on the that subject, rather what it means that more and more are accepting. I would humbly ask you go back and read from the start. MAYBE you will see my position different or simply ask my position.
Again, I apologize for offending you.
I think it's simply a matter of fact that many parts of the Bible are offensive to gay people and that a Christian must view homosexuality as sin (even if they are a gay chrsitian). The OP asked for a fundamental christian view and got it (well, a light version of it). AD's view is much more tame than some of what you'll come across from Christians (in that he considers homosexuality just another sin and not a sin that is worse than other sins) and, more importantly, he's not set on limiting gay rights just because of his religious views.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 05:10:00 PM
The NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text: "looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."
Does this refer only to his sexual desire, or to the woman's as well? I know it probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm curious. If both of them have to be lusting in their hearts before its a sin, that's going to let a lot of men off the hook since most women catching a man looking at them lecherously are going to be thinking "What a creep", not "Yippee, I'm gonna get some!"
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 01:12:25 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 05:10:00 PM
The NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text: "looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."
Does this refer only to his sexual desire, or to the woman's as well? I know it probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm curious. If both of them have to be lusting in their hearts before its a sin, that's going to let a lot of men off the hook since most women catching a man looking at them lecherously are going to be thinking "What a creep", not "Yippee, I'm gonna get some!"
The interpretation I was always told was that basically fantasizing about a sin is the same as doing it; even if you never intended to actually act on the thought. It would just be a sin on the part of the person actually committing what would amount to a thought crime; not the subject of the thought. If you think about it in terms of there being an all knowing god who knows what you are thinking then it makes sense that unclean thoughts would be unfavorable....comparable to airing sinister thoughts out loud in a public space.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 01:12:25 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 05:10:00 PM
The NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text: "looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."
Does this refer only to his sexual desire, or to the woman's as well? I know it probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm curious. If both of them have to be lusting in their hearts before its a sin, that's going to let a lot of men off the hook since most women catching a man looking at them lecherously are going to be thinking "What a creep", not "Yippee, I'm gonna get some!"
It refers to the person, be it male or female, that lusts. It's a personal/secret type sin that's being talked about hence "in his heart".
Quote from: Whitney on January 05, 2012, 10:30:08 PM
I think it's simply a matter of fact that many parts of the Bible are offensive to gay people and that a Christian must view homosexuality as sin (even if they are a gay chrsitian). The OP asked for a fundamental christian view and got it (well, a light version of it). AD's view is much more tame than some of what you'll come across from Christians (in that he considers homosexuality just another sin and not a sin that is worse than other sins) and, more importantly, he's not set on limiting gay rights just because of his religious views.
Another Christian perspective that also finds support in the New Testament is that Jesus "took away the sin of the world," so that God is simply no longer interested in searching out various sins, but desires to move past that to a relationship, for which faith is the initial step. An analogy would be a parent who, when the child was 15, was concerned about all the things the child was sneaking around doing, but when the child is 35, those things are no longer of interest, and the parent simply wants to have a visit.
Failure to see the progression in the Bible from rules to relationship often results in a distorted view of God, IMO. It may be advisable for Christians to, as an experiment, remove the OT altogether and any references to it in the NT, and see what remains. It's pretty much a story of redemption and relationship, unclouded by issues that controlled during the faith's "adolescence." But, like our relationship with our parents, it's sometimes hard to get over those things and move on to maturity.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 01:12:25 AMDoes this refer only to his sexual desire, or to the woman's as well? I know it probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm curious. If both of them have to be lusting in their hearts before its a sin, that's going to let a lot of men off the hook since most women catching a man looking at them lecherously are going to be thinking "What a creep", not "Yippee, I'm gonna get some!"
For a vast majority of men, myself included, exactly the opposite is true. If women would just get with the program on this, men would be a lot happier. ;D
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 06, 2012, 01:47:17 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 01:12:25 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 05:10:00 PM
The NIV Commentary gives this as an interpretation on that text: "looks at a woman lustfully. Not a passing glance but a willful, calculated stare that arouses sexual desire. According to Jesus this is a form of adultery even if it is only "in his heart."
Does this refer only to his sexual desire, or to the woman's as well? I know it probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm curious. If both of them have to be lusting in their hearts before its a sin, that's going to let a lot of men off the hook since most women catching a man looking at them lecherously are going to be thinking "What a creep", not "Yippee, I'm gonna get some!"
It refers to the person, be it male or female, that lusts. It's a personal/secret type sin that's being talked about hence "in his heart".
The NIV interpretation seems oddly worded then. Wouldn't the person giving the willful, calculated stare already be feeling desire, otherwise what would be the point of staring? "That arouses desire" suggests something happening after the stare, something caused by the stare, which would not be the starers desire since the person staring is already in that state.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 04:22:28 AM
The NIV interpretation seems oddly worded then. Wouldn't the person giving the willful, calculated stare already be feeling desire, otherwise what would be the point of staring? "That arouses desire" suggests something happening after the stare, something caused by the stare, which would not be the starers desire since the person staring is already in that state.
Of course. The thought originated "in the heart" and manifest itself in the stare, the thought...that's why Jesus says,
"...has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 06, 2012, 04:41:27 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 04:22:28 AM
The NIV interpretation seems oddly worded then. Wouldn't the person giving the willful, calculated stare already be feeling desire, otherwise what would be the point of staring? "That arouses desire" suggests something happening after the stare, something caused by the stare, which would not be the starers desire since the person staring is already in that state.
Of course. The thought originated "in the heart" and manifest itself in the stare, the thought...that's why Jesus says, "...has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
But whose desire is the stare calculated to arouse then? That's what's confusing me.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 04:46:50 AM
But whose desire is the stare calculated to arouse then? That's what's confusing me.
Sorry, but I really don't understand. I'm guessing you're not understanding that the one "staring" is the one lusting? How would someone starring cause the one being stared at to be aroused? It happens, I suppose, but how many women do we know that feel aroused sexually by being stared at?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 06, 2012, 10:01:11 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 04:46:50 AM
But whose desire is the stare calculated to arouse then? That's what's confusing me.
Sorry, but I really don't understand. I'm guessing you're not understanding that the one "staring" is the one lusting? How would someone starring cause the one being stared at to be aroused? It happens, I suppose, but how many women do we know that feel aroused sexually by being stared at?
That's my problem -- the way the NIV interpretation is worded, that's what it seems to be suggesting. Which I've already agreed in another post is ridiculous. Ah well, it doesn't really matter, I understand the point -- lusting after someone you're not officially permitted by marriage to lust after is a sin for Xtians. It's just the wording is odd.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 07, 2012, 01:39:49 AMThat's my problem -- the way the NIV interpretation is worded, that's what it seems to be suggesting. Which I've already agreed in another post is ridiculous. Ah well, it doesn't really matter, I understand the point -- lusting after someone you're not officially permitted by marriage to lust after is a sin for Xtians. It's just the wording is odd.
No matter how they word it, it's just dumb.
Human beings are lustful creatures. It's our nature. Man is the only creature that's in heat 365 days a year. Every other creature goes into heat only during the mating season while Man engages is sex purely for recreation much of the time all year round. So leave it to religion to make a sin out of something that has been programmed into us at the very core of our being.
Something esle that makes no sense, if one believes in god then our sex drive was his doing when we were created. How moronic would it be to create a being that's horny all the time then make that a sin? It makes no sense so I say let's all lust to our heart's content and not feel guilty about it. There are much bigger problems in this world to get worked up over than just checking out a hot pair of legs.
...or whatever turns one on.
*le gasp* Are you saying god is a total moron that made humans flawed purposely?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 07, 2012, 04:25:37 AM*le gasp* Are you saying god is a total moron that made humans flawed purposely?
Well, yeah, but, in all fairness to god, I guess he's gotta get his jollies somehow.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 07, 2012, 05:03:22 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 07, 2012, 04:25:37 AM*le gasp* Are you saying god is a total moron that made humans flawed purposely?
Well, yeah, but, in all fairness to god, I guess he's gotta get his jollies somehow.
Makes it sound like he deliberately set humans up to fail, since there's no way anyone but an asexual could avoid committing that particular sin.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 07, 2012, 05:08:08 AM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 07, 2012, 05:03:22 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 07, 2012, 04:25:37 AM*le gasp* Are you saying god is a total moron that made humans flawed purposely?
Well, yeah, but, in all fairness to god, I guess he's gotta get his jollies somehow.
Makes it sound like he deliberately set humans up to fail, since there's no way anyone but an asexual could avoid committing that particular sin.
Exactly. God is...kind of a messed up guy.
Or we a simply evolved apes, with just enough brains to be dangerous.
Quote from: Tank on January 07, 2012, 05:36:16 AM
Or we a simply evolved apes, with just enough brains to be dangerous.
So I can go ahead and enjoy fantasizing about a three-way with Liam Neeson and Halle Berry? Life is good.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 07, 2012, 06:41:58 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 07, 2012, 05:36:16 AM
Or we a simply evolved apes, with just enough brains to be dangerous.
So I can go ahead and enjoy fantasizing about a three-way with Liam Neeson and Halle Berry? Life is good.
Yep! :D
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 07, 2012, 06:41:58 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 07, 2012, 05:36:16 AM
Or we a simply evolved apes, with just enough brains to be dangerous.
So I can go ahead and enjoy fantasizing about a three-way with Liam Neeson and Halle Berry? Life is good.
Feel free, and try and squeeze me in there somewhere. I'm totally good with lust. One of the most fun sins there is.
GO LUST!