religion and sex before marriage - REDONE (2 Viewers)

[Sophie777]

You can believe what you want to believe. I accept that religion cannot be proved either way. You believe something, there is the possibility that you are wrong. I, unlike you, can accept I may be wrong.

I don't want to argue with you anymore as it doesn't get anywhere.

I never said I was right... as you can see. But, you know, you could NOT read all my posts and come in at the end as if you are my father and tell me to not act the way I do.

 

[gemita]

Gemita, People saying to me God does exist is just as insulting as me saying to them God does not exist. The sole reason I say this is to attempt to use their logic back at them. I don't know if God exists at all. I have absolutely no idea. But I find it insulting for people to assume that their opinion on matter is correct and hence if God does exist then my way of living is somehow inferior.

So, my opinion is only expressed in such a way due to me insult at people assuming their views as fact.

That's a good point and I totally understand where you're coming from. I also find it extremely offensive when people try to tell me that my beliefs are inferior and "I will be saved because Jesus loves me". I don't want to be saved. In my opinion, Jesus doesn't love me because Jesus died a very long time ago, is not god, and has no idea that I exist.

But that's only my opinion, and I respect that other people don't agree with me. All I was saying was that I don't see the point in you insulting other people's beliefs just because they insult yours. I mean, if you don't appreciate it, why do you do it back? I get your thing of using their logic back at them, but that's not really very productive....you just end up with people insulting each other over who is wrong.

And also I think you were very clearly saying that you are right when you made the point that you can't argue that evolution is not the way we got here, because we share 99% of our genes with apes.

 

[Sophie777]

Because I have tried and tried to converse with these people, but to no avail. I am therefore brought to this.

They won't listen to my opinion, they dismiss it as "YOu don't understand the power of God" and say "God loves you" and IT ANNOYS ME SO MUCH!

I know that i said that, I was doing that to make a point. By saying 'you can't argue with evolution' or whatever I said I was merely pointing out the way they were going about their argument. I realise that I may have made some of the assumptions of mine were correct along the way but I do not seriously know this. I only believe it.

 

[Wilmo]

ok...maybe i miss read this, or are u REALLY trying to say that what u follow is NOT a religion? that seems retarded to me...but then i again, i have, apparently, misread another post, so please clear this up for me...

What I mean is that religion is a man made stucture for our beliefs, and that is not something i would settle for. If i took the meaning of religion to be "something you do every day", then yes I'd follow a religion. I am a follower of the techings of Christ, and not of the teachings of christians.

Its sorta hard for me to explain, christianity is my religion per se, but I dont think it should fall under the label of religion. In my opinion, someone were to follow the object of that "religion", i.e. christians follow Christ, then its not religion. I dont know what you'd call it, but you are not conforming to a man made structure which is how I see religion.

true, i agree with ur argument of the flawed nature of humans and all, but ur assuming that religion is "created" by humans, and in doing so, u have just said that what u believe in is "created"...that is illogical considering the rest of ur post...

^I explained that above (poorly... but im lazy )

no, i DONT believe the manipulation thing either...how does being greedy make us want to fit something in to a little box? that seems like ur using religion to fill in the blanks, or trying to push a square block through a round hole. THAT is NOT how u treat or view religion, especially cos the rest of ur post shows that u actually are devout, or atleast religious.

Religion IS like trying to push a square block through a round hole. God gave us a round block when he sent his son to fulfill his laws and promises. Yet religion is people picking up a square block and forcing it in. What I believe ignores the square block and goes straight for the round one, like God meant.

ok, now with this quote from the bible...u use it to argue the abhorence of change to the bible...yet hasnt things been added to it? it was not the original that was sent down to Jesus approximately 2000 years ago. it was paraphrased by other people from what was remembered. now, these people MAY be very honest and all...i cannot argue with that, because i dont know much about it, but...u must realise that what was written once by "God", as he sent down the religion, it is NOT the same as before...thus doesn't ur quote go against ur own religion? i do not want to argue this point if u dont want to as i dont intend to attack christianity...this is merely to clear things up for me.

Its true that some things may have been added or subtracted... BUT the earliest manuscripts found very closely match the later ones showing that the texts have remained relatively unchanged. Very little has changed from the earliest known manuscripts (which are historically close to the event compared to some other texts). And also:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

If I believe that God is infallible, then it would be hypocritical of me to believe that his word is false. If i have faith in God, then I also have faith that his Word remains true through out all generations.

thats nice to hear...i wont compromise on my religion either, but the way u word it makes it seem as though u are asked to be different? now that shouldnt be the case. i am different per se, because of what i believe in, not because my religion tells me to be different. im not sure if that makes sense, but think about it.

Well a christian is supposed to be different. As i said, the word holy means to be set apart for God. I am different because I am an individual, but I am also different because I am set apart for God to use me to work out his plan.

Please note that my being different in no way makes me superior to anyone. I will stand out if I am living how I am called to live, but everybody is still equal, and therefore a christian who acts superior is not living a christian life style.

with the context part of that statement...WRONG...u cannot say it is relevant in all contexts. context is the way of preceiving something. if u deliberately try to make something mean something that it doesn't by taking minor passages from any text, u can create any meaning. so saying ur religion caters for all concepts is wrong - because all ur confirming is that ur religion may be interpreted in any way. when looking at the context of a text, u must look for textual integrity, or take a statement in context of what else was said about that incident or topic at that time as well. if u are able to isolate a few words that say "jump off a building", yet when taken in the context of the rest of the sentence, it actually says "jump off a building if there is a fire"... u cannot say that it still makes sense. context alters the perception of truth, or any meaning that may be derived, and u must be able to look at things from the intended context, or something totally obscure may result...

You are 100% right... I am wrong... sort of. When I thought context, i thought time and place. Thats why I used the word. I meant something which was relevent in ancient greece 2000 years ago will still be relevent in America 2000 years in the future. As long as the original message is held to, then that message will always have its place in any society. But if the message is changed by different interpretations, it automatically becomes the word of man, and not the word of God.

here it is evident that context changes how the bible can be viewed...u say two things in ur argument which, to me at least, go against what u are saying.

The way the bible "can" be viewed changes, but the bible isnt meant to be interpreted by men. The message of the bible did not change, for it cannot change as it means the same thing through out all generations. The religious leaders of the time distorted what was true and labeled him a heretic. They added what they themselves believed without realising the bible never says anything against it.

If people apply different readings to the bible, then it is no longer the word of God. It is possible to apply different readings, but it is not possible to have it remain true if you do that.


Sorry if some of that wasn't what you were getting at... sometimes i am easily confused

Gemita, People saying to me God does exist is just as insulting as me saying to them God does not exist. The sole reason I say this is to attempt to use their logic back at them. I don't know if God exists at all. I have absolutely no idea. But I find it insulting for people to assume that their opinion on matter is correct and hence if God does exist then my way of living is somehow inferior.

So, my opinion is only expressed in such a way due to me insult at people assuming their views as fact.

I may be slightly out of line in saying this, but if you are unsure whether there is or isnt a God, how can you continue to argue? Id understand if you were presenting both sides of the argument, or opposed to both of them... but if you are undecided whats the point in arguing?

 

[Sophie777]

Because God not existing is a more valuable opinion with more evidence. I am swayed to this and this is what I believe, that the bible is untrue and that all organised religions are incorrect. But my point is, that I don't know either way.

 

[gemita]

Because I have tried and tried to converse with these people, but to no avail. I am therefore brought to this.

They won't listen to my opinion, they dismiss it as "YOu don't understand the power of God" and say "God loves you" and IT ANNOYS ME SO MUCH!

I know that i said that, I was doing that to make a point. By saying 'you can't argue with evolution' or whatever I said I was merely pointing out the way they were going about their argument. I realise that I may have made some of the assumptions of mine were correct along the way but I do not seriously know this. I only believe it.

Fair enough. I feel your pain with the whole patronising "God is your personal savious, accept him into your life" thing. I want to start door knocking and bringing the light of non-believing to people's lives, see if they like me telling them they shouldn't believe what they do.

 

[sub]

agghhhhh....im regretting getting involved with forums....theyre so addictive.....theyve obviously already claimed sub! I hope the highlight of my day doesn't become come to the computer to see what Sophie's written.......

i resent that...i get on when i can...im not addicted

*applies another bos patch*

...much better.

and no its not the highlight of my day either...i look fwd to finishing my exams ....and just cos i write long posts means that i can come back later...much later, and check out what has happened...

EDIT: note the last huge post took 10 mins to get done...it may look huge, but its not long really...I AM NOT ADDICTED...and anyone else doing eco tomoro...goodluck or if u have anthing else tomoro, goodluck

 

[zahid]

^ ^

Sub u fucken genius u will get 99.95 UAI for sure.

 

[osk]

Its true that some things may have been added or subtracted... BUT the earliest manuscripts found very closely match the later ones showing that the texts have remained relatively unchanged. Very little has changed from the earliest known manuscripts (which are historically close to the event compared to some other texts). And also:

Yeh.....look at newer translations of the Bible....Such as the New International Version......they're translated from the most ancient manuscripts available....new discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that the bible we read today is virtually the same as the scriptures read thousands of years ago.......

it is amazing how such an ancient text can be so relevant to today's world.....and although context may change....human nature does not....and I guarentee there is a verse in the bible providing insight into every type of problem exisiting today.....I think the problem is that many verses are written in a context which does not apply today......for example, a verse in the Bible might warn against lust and sexual immorality....using the many sex filled pagan rituals which existed at that time as an example. Just because this example is not relevant today does not stop us from applying this verse to sources of lust in the modern world.....perhaps pornography, movies, strip clubs etc......the concept is not at all being changed....only the context in which it is used

 

[Wilmo]

Because God not existing is a more valuable opinion with more evidence. I am swayed to this and this is what I believe, that the bible is untrue and that all organised religions are incorrect. But my point is, that I don't know either way.

Fair enough

I didnt mean it to sound like you should stop saying your point of view (if it did sound like that). You have heaps of interesting things to say, and its good to have someone from all sides of the discussion... Discussions are pretty boring when not all views are represented in them

Keep it up

 

[Dougie]

this is much like the conversation in this thread... take a look if u haven't already
http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?p=975495#post975495

 

[OZGIRL86]

yes-im not religious

 

[sub]

I dont know what you'd call it, but you are not conforming to a man made structure which is how I see religion.

religion is NOT a man made structure...i guess our views on religion differ, but that's probably only at a definition level.

Religion IS like trying to push a square block through a round hole. God gave us a round block when he sent his son to fulfill his laws and promises. Yet religion is people picking up a square block and forcing it in. What I believe ignores the square block and goes straight for the round one, like God meant.

no, i dont believe so. religion IS the round block, and that's what u are given. what people do with another block per se, is NOT following the religion, its like they (ok, warning crude example ensues take the round block and attach their own little bits to it and cut out stuff as well...so the block that used to fit in, no longer does... what people do with religion is NOT the religion, but its application. again, its probably just another definition thing...

Its true that some things may have been added or subtracted... BUT the earliest manuscripts found very closely match the later ones showing that the texts have remained relatively unchanged. Very little has changed from the earliest known manuscripts (which are historically close to the event compared to some other texts).

ok, i agree it MAY be relatively unchanged from the original, BUT the original itself is NOT the original, but a retake on the events after the event...around 40 years or so if im not mistaken. and therefore anything added or removed within this time is up in the air. but thats a WHOLE other topic, and one that will most likely lead to insults and the such, which id rather not go down. one more thing...a question rather...cos i heard this from some place...i forget the source, but should i come across it again, ill gove it to you... it sed that the earliest bible found, which was about 100 years after the original or the second copy (or whatever...really close to that time) had no explicit mention that Jesus was god's son...now whether or not this is true is to me vague, cos i dont have the source on me, but should i find it ill pass it on...just wondering if u knew anything about that or not.

If I believe that God is infallible, then it would be hypocritical of me to believe that his word is false. If i have faith in God, then I also have faith that his Word remains true through out all generations.
...

You are 100% right... I am wrong... sort of. When I thought context, i thought time and place. Thats why I used the word. I meant something which was relevent in ancient greece 2000 years ago will still be relevent in America 2000 years in the future. As long as the original message is held to, then that message will always have its place in any society. But if the message is changed by different interpretations, it automatically becomes the word of man, and not the word of God.

yeah i agree, but im pretty sure that my definition of "context" was a bit broader and thus the difference of opinion, so it seems we hold similar views...

Sorry if some of that wasn't what you were getting at... sometimes i am easily confused

hehehe, that's how i felt after eco today...confused. i dont think arguing this would get us any further...it was merely to learn more about ur religion than anything else

to sophie: u claimed ealier that proving that "there needs to be a god and therefore there is a god is not logical"...why? if u can prove that without god there cannot be anything, yet with god, it all works, then isnt it proof by contradiction that there is a god? im a little confused about ur reasoning...

^ ^

Sub u fucken genius u will get 99.95 UAI for sure.

no i wont...no where near...not with chem and english. i might get lucky and have chem not count, but i cant evade english...even here i get paid out for not writing in sentences and im not even being marked...so there is no chance of that mark...
also, next time join the discussion withour random bursts of bs...and if anyone thinks that's what my posts are...well all i can say is atleast i tried to make sense.
oh, and watch ur language mate...

 

[KeypadSDM]

Sex is purely physical. You're able to have perfectly enjoyable sex without being in love.
Love is mental. You can be in love without having sex.

Although you are allowed to mix the two, there is no necessity in doing so.

For the record, marriage isn't a word, it's a sentence.

FOCUS: There is no need for marriage before sex, or even love before sex.

 

[osk]

FOCUS: There is no need for marriage before sex, or even love before sex.[/QUOTE]

Ok, not everyone agrees with marriage before sex, but the statement in bold is absolutely ridiculous. You have to remember what sex is....it is a process by which children are born, however pleasurable. No contraceptives are 100% effective. Can you really justify little children being born into casual, loveless relationships...... knowing they were not born out of love but simply as an accidental result of their parents' selfish desires?

Have some sympathy!!!.......Surely someone agrees with me????

 

[KeypadSDM]

Prostitutes exist. Q.E.D.

You don't need to love someone before you have sex with them. It might be a fling thing, it might be a release from a stressful situation, the point is, love in unnecessary. I'm sure if you're in the middle of it you're thinking "Man, I love this girl/guy" as opposed to "My hand is now stuck ... bugger".

 

[Sophie777]

Most people have sex just to have an orgasm. I don't think people are thinking of whether it is 'fair to the kids which they don't think will be born, if they don't love eachother.

 

[osk]

Prostitutes exist. Q.E.D.

You don't need to love someone before you have sex with them. It might be a fling thing, it might be a release from a stressful situation, the point is, love in unnecessary. I'm sure if you're in the middle of it you're thinking "Man, I love this girl/guy" as opposed to "My hand is now stuck ... bugger".

Keypad,

I asked you whether it was fair to children who are born as accidental results of what you call "flings".......you didn't answer me.....surely somewhere in your heart you must have sympathy for such children????..........yes, some children born out of such situations are likely to develop normally, but you cannot deny that many would be deeply scarred or hurt to find the truth............what about the accidental children of prostitutes? likely to be robbed of knowing their fathers, and growing up knowing they are the result of their mothers liason with a complete stranger........how could you possibly justify this??

Sex is never just about two people, it always holds the possibilty of tiny new lives being brought into the world..........

 

[KeypadSDM]

Keypad,

I asked you whether it was fair to children who are born as accidental results of what you call "flings".......you didn't answer me.....surely somewhere in your heart you must have sympathy for such children????..........yes, some children born out of such situations are likely to develop normally, but you cannot deny that many would be deeply scarred or hurt to find the truth............what about the accidental children of prostitutes? likely to be robbed of knowing their fathers, and growing up knowing they are the result of their mothers liason with a complete stranger........how could you possibly justify this??

Sex is never just about two people, it always holds the possibilty of tiny new lives being brought into the world..........

Abortion, the pill. You know, the "anti-Fundamentalist" techniques.

 

[davidmenz]

an important quote for all religious people to ponder

"religion is doing what your told no matter what is right, morality is doing what is right no matter what your told"

if indeed you believe in god and jesus as his human incarnation or son you have to look on the trouble disputs and schisms this has caused if the case is that god did send jesus as a redeemer i think he got somthing wrong more trouble has been caused from this than anyother event in history

just a theory that i have adapted from a recent book i read god needs to make people believe that nothing or only suffering exists after death so humans can create their own sense of morality that is un tainted by religious beliefs and customs

another theory based on logical progression:
god was created by man to explain where he came from but no religious orders or beliefs stemmed from this man then created an opposite to god who was evil and appointed himself as gods messenger to incite fear into people and gain control of the masses

anyway back on to the topic i believe that marriage is just a piece of paper which makes people financially tied to each other love is what really ties people together

sex before marriage is ok but you should always make your first time with somone special so u appreciate it then experiment with others so you find out what you like and can reach physical fullfillment which is what we in this materialistic age crave