When did Pat Buchanon's disciples get here?
I really don't see what's so bad about having sex before marriage. But I'm not Catholic of course. :)
Because it's a violation of the 6th commandment (or 7th in some traditions). If you are any type of Christian (you did not make that clear), having sex before marriage should be considered a sin. If you are not any type of Christian, the Commandments probably don't mean that much to you...unless you're Jewish...or maybe a Muslim.
But remember that to commit a mortal sin, one must have a complete understanding that it is a mortal sin and he must freely choose do it even with that knowledge. So that is not to say every instance of pre-marital sex that happens in the world is an instance of mortal sin - it is wrong, but it will not damn the people invloved, if they do not realize it is wrong.
First of all, you should know that I'm a protestant, reformed that is.
I suppose the commandment you're referring to is "thou shalt not commit adultery." IMO this is defined as having sexual intercourse with a man/woman that is either married or having a relationship.
I think that the origin of the idea that having pre-marital sex is a sin, lies in the ancient Middle East. As this is still the case over there, it's next to impossible for a girl to marry if she is not a virgin. Sex before marriage would then have a devestating effect on a women's life, and thus should be considered a sin.
Nowadays, in western societies, this is no longer the case. Pre-marital sex is IMHO not a violation of the 6th/7th commandment anymore and therefore not a sin.
Thats the problem with people today. If they don't like something in the Bible they change it, or just ignore it, so that they can do what they want. Saying that things chang over the years, but they couldn't be more wrong. If God put something in the Bible he put it there for a reason and there would be no reason to change. God said things like this would happen in the last days of the Earth. That the everything that was once thought of as good would turn bad and the bad would turn to good.
Originally posted by Gold leader
First of all, you should know that I'm a protestant, reformed that is.
I suppose the commandment you're referring to is "thou shalt not commit adultery." IMO this is defined as having sexual intercourse with a man/woman that is either married or having a relationship.
I think that the origin of the idea that having pre-marital sex is a sin, lies in the ancient Middle East. As this is still the case over there, it's next to impossible for a girl to marry if she is not a virgin. Sex before marriage would then have a devestating effect on a women's life, and thus should be considered a sin.
Nowadays, in western societies, this is no longer the case. Pre-marital sex is IMHO not a violation of the 6th/7th commandment anymore and therefore not a sin.
You are ignoring the spirit of the commandment. The Church has taught from the very beginning that fornication is a sin against that commandment. But if you need it stated explicitly, then check Heb 13:4 - "Adulterers and fornicators God will judge but the marriage bed is undefiled" - that about says it all. Also check I Corinthians 6:9-11 - "Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God" - so, it's quite clear.
Originally posted by Kylilin
When did Pat Buchanon's disciples get here?
The question should be "When did the liberals show up?"
We've always been here.
Originally posted by Keyan Farlander
You are ignoring the spirit of the commandment. The Church has taught from the very beginning that fornication is a sin against that commandment. But if you need it stated explicitly, then check Heb 13:4 - "Adulterers and fornicators God will judge but the marriage bed is undefiled" - that about says it all. Also check I Corinthians 6:9-11 - "Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God" - so, it's quite clear.
And that goes the story of King David as well. I think he was staring at some naked chick taking a shower on the roof (which, I suppose, was the style at the time-a very sinfull style). And then it resulted in an affair. He was really upset with this, that he put himelf in extreme limits to apologize to God. (I haven't heard this story in years so I might of missed something.)
You know, religion is another good reason why women = evil. Temtation is to great with them all around all the time and politics always get in the way. I bet God should have skipped this whole women thing and make the world full of men - shipping men down to Earth with 1st-class FEDEX boxes or that transport thing that was seen in the Terminator movies. Then again, in front of the eyes of God and fellow aliens, that will make us look like a bunch of homosexs. So women has at least have SOME kind of use after all. But that still leave us with the temptaion problem. Life sucks. :(
I think the liberals started to show up when they started getting ranked on.
Originally posted by JR2000Z
You know, religion is another good reason why women = evil. Temtation is to great with them all around all the time and politics always get in the way. I bet God should have skipped this whole women thing and make the world full of men - shipping men down to Earth with 1st-class FEDEX boxes or that transport thing that was seen in the Terminator movies. Then again, in front of the eyes of God and fellow aliens, that will make us look like a bunch of homosexs. So women has at least have SOME kind of use after all. But that still leave us with the temptaion problem. Life sucks.:(
The only problem I see with this way of thinking is that if we say that God created everything, then he also must have created the human sex drive, and in creating it he must approve of it and intend for it to be used. Therefore, what you are defining as 'temptation' is just another aspect of human existence that we were all meant to experience and cannot be viewed as evil, since God created it.
Just a thought:
Were Adam and Eve ever married? I don't remember reading that anywhere, yet they were commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" which apparently they did by having children.
God said for man (humanity) to multiply and fill the Earth. God created the love that a man has for a woman and visa versa. But he did not creat the lust of the eye and the flesh, you are an idiot if you think that. That was the devil. People often under estimate what he can do. He is he rout of all evil, kinda like money is (having money is not a sin, but the love of money over God is). Having sex with your wife is a gift from God, so to speak, and you can do it as often as you want. Having sex with someone who is not your wife is a sin. Having lustful thoughts is just something we all have to deal with. We are not perfect and shouldn't expect to not sin.
Originally posted by edlib
The only problem I see with this way of thinking is that if we say that God created everything, then he also must have created the human sex drive, and in creating it he must approve of it and intend for it to be used. Therefore, what you are defining as 'temptation' is just another aspect of human existence that we were all meant to experience and cannot be viewed as evil, since God created it.
Not everything in the world is here because God wished it to be. Evil and sin were never part of the plan, but because God respects man's free will (and the free will of the angels) he allowed them to be brought in by man's actions. But in the case of sexual drive, it is supposed to be used (in the proper context), and for good purpose. But I think <b>JR</b> was not entirely serious with that post.
Were Adam and Eve ever married? I don't remember reading that anywhere, yet they were commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" which apparently they did by having children.
Eve was created as a wife for Adam. That part of the story of creation is in many ways a metaphor for marriage - about how men and women were created to be together in a specific holy bond.
Originally posted by Keyan Farlander
Eve was created as a wife for Adam. That part of the story of creation is in many ways a metaphor for marriage - about how men and women were created to be together in a specific holy bond.
Thats just another example of how people use the Bible to justify their point, some people quote the Bible verse for verse, yet others like to "read between the lines". Pick one people, if you are going to quote the Bible to prove your point, don't start talking about metaphors in the Bible...
Originally posted by Kylilin
Thats just another example of how people use the Bible to justify their point, some people quote the Bible verse for verse, yet others like to "read between the lines". Pick one people, if you are going to quote the Bible to prove your point, don't start talking about metaphors in the Bible...
There are many levels on which the Bible can be understood. Taking the whole thing literally or taking the whole thing as metaphor is going too far in one direction or the other. I don't believe I have any right to interpret the Bible in any way I want - I accept the interpretation (which this understanding of the story of creation is consistent with) that has been laid out for me by those in authority to do so. Authority that comes from the chair of St. Peter. It was the Church that defined the Bible and the Church alone that teaches what it means. Any such personal interpretations, in my opinion, are without justification.
Originally posted by Keyan Farlander
But I think JR was not entirely serious with that post.
Neither was I, for the most part. I was attempting to stir up more conversation on the subject.
I just forgot the ;)
I do like to make sure people are really thinking about what they are saying (or in this case, posting) however.
Much harm has been done down the ages by equating natural human sexuality and sexual feelings (in every context, including marrage) with sin. That's just not true. Humans are sexual beings, and, historically, total repression has done far more harm than good.
How did this topic get off onto a religious bent? You people, jeez.
Were talking about sex and religion here Niner.
If you dont like sex or religion, then you dont have to reply.
:p
(But I would think that you would like the sex part. );)
Got that right. I'm not too big on the religion thing, but sex...hellz, now there's a topic.
I'm a guy, so sue me...
Originally posted by Keyan Farlander
There are many levels on which the Bible can be understood. Taking the whole thing literally or taking the whole thing as metaphor is going too far in one direction or the other. I don't believe I have any right to interpret the Bible in any way I want - I accept the interpretation (which this understanding of the story of creation is consistent with) that has been laid out for me by those in authority to do so. Authority that comes from the chair of St. Peter. It was the Church that defined the Bible and the Church alone that teaches what it means. Any such personal interpretations, in my opinion, are without justification.
This is where I disagree...the Church has not even existed as long as the Bible, so how can they define it? :confused: (Or, at least be the ultimate authority on it...)
Through faith dude! Faith!
Seper Fi!
Faith in God? Or the Church?
Gotta have a helluva lotta faith to believe in religion. All omnipotent-deity based religions require faith.
Still not too big on it though.
We all know that the Old Testament was taken place and written before Jesus right? During that time, religious scholors wrote down what happended.
The books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and the rest of the New Testiment were written not by themselves but scholors as well. From what I was told, the Popes Infallibility (meaning that, being the descendent of St. Peter, has the power to change information as he see fit) tells what should such information shoud and shouldn't be in the Bible. Of course, they try to make the Bible a Christian Book, not a Catholic one.
(Again, its been years sinse I learned about this. I might of screwed someting up.)
Originally posted by Rogue Nine
Gotta have a helluva lotta faith to believe in religion. All omnipotent-deity based religions require faith.
Not to mention caffine. Last night, I stayed up 2:30 AM talking about religion to you people. Its 1:02 right now, so I hope I dont have to sleep through Chruch today. :rolleyes:
Mass is at 6 PM for me :D:D
I get to sleep til noon.
Originally posted by Redwing
This is where I disagree...the Church has not even existed as long as the Bible, so how can they define it? :confused: (Or, at least be the ultimate authority on it...)
Since the Church has existed since the time of Christ, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. It was the Church that enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred and canonical."
I don't have to go to church tomorrow. My parents aren't home and won't be for a while. Go me.
My brother is an alter server and he ALWAYS get the 7:30 morning masses. After about 3 years, I quited alter servers last June due to simmular reasons.
My plan is that if I wake up without enough sleep,, my eyes would be red enough to think that Im on high amounts of drugs, then I will get kicked out of the Mass service. Then I wont end up sleeping through it. I can only hope....
Originally posted by Keyan Farlander
Since the Church has existed since the time of Christ, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. It was the Church that enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred and canonical."
Not the Catholic Church. Not purgatory, priests, etc. And that's what I'm talking about...
NOTE: I am really not in any condition to carry out any kind of debate X_x
EDIT: Yeah, see? Stupid human brain...;)
If you havent noticed, its been changed so it reflect other Christian religions as well.
...
huh? What was changed?
Uhhhhh.....
I don't know.
*smack*
Damn.
What were we talking about again? :D
Sex and religion. Thats it!
Of course! Those two go together hand in hand. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Redwing
Not the Catholic Church. Not purgatory, priests, etc. And that's what I'm talking about...
Yes - the Catholic Church, purgatory, priests, bishops, a pope, Confession, Eucherist, all of it. You can certainly find that all those things existed at the very beginning of Christianity and were not formally abandoned by a significant number of people until more than 15 centuries later.
?!?
Tell me why they aren't in the Bible then?
Because in the mid 300s religious leaders came together and discussed what should and shouldn't be in the Bible.
Today, there are different versions of the Bible. The Prodistent Bible, for example, has less amounts of books then the Roman Catholic Church's version of the Bible.
The Bibles you see in hotel rooms usually have the books (mostly Old Testiment) and the books that are simular in most Christian religions.
The standard Bible today is the New International Version, which includes all of the Old and New Testaments. It doesn't leave any books out. To my knowledge, both Catholics and Protestants use this version. There's also the King James Version, which is probably the second most popular translation. There are others, like the New American Standard, but for the most part, the NIV and the KJV are the ones you're most likely to see. They each have the same exact books in them.
When I was young, I had a Bible that had a section called the Deuterocanonicals in them. It included books like Tobit, Susanna, and the Maccabees. Not all Bibles have this section.
Originally posted by Redwing
?!?
Tell me why they aren't in the Bible then?
They ARE in the Bible, but some people choose to see those passages in a light different from what the Church has traditionally taught.
But why does everything have to be in the Bible anyway? Christ did not give teaching authority to the Bible, he gave it to the Church. All Christians believe that the Bible contains what the Holy Spirit wanted it to contain, but that does not mean it contains everything we need to know. What the Church has taught through spoken word is just as important as what is in the Bible, and the Bible itself confirms this. Therefore, any claim that states that everything we need to know as Christians can be found in the Bible contains a contradiction.
ALL:
About the books of the Bible. The Protestant and Catholic New Testaments are the same, but differ in the Old. The Catholic Old Testament contains seven books not found in the Protestant Old Testament - Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch - plus there are additional parts in Esther and Daniel. These seven books are called "deuterocanonical" by Catholics and are considered just as inspired as the others. They are called "apocrypha" by Protestants and are not considered inspired.
Originally posted by Keyan Farlander
They ARE in the Bible, but some people choose to see those passages in a light different from what the Church has traditionally taught.
But why does everything have to be in the Bible anyway? Christ did not give teaching authority to the Bible, he gave it to the Church. All Christians believe that the Bible contains what the Holy Spirit wanted it to contain, but that does not mean it contains everything we need to know. What the Church has taught through spoken word is just as important as what is in the Bible, and the Bible itself confirms this. Therefore, any claim that states that everything we need to know as Christians can be found in the Bible contains a contradiction.
ALL:
About the books of the Bible. The Protestant and Catholic New Testaments are the same, but differ in the Old. The Catholic Old Testament contains seven books not found in the Protestant Old Testament - Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch - plus there are additional parts in Esther and Daniel. These seven books are called "deuterocanonical" by Catholics and are considered just as inspired as the others. They are called "apocrypha" by Protestants and are not considered inspired.
I didn't claim that. But the Catholic church has made major doctrines out of passages that can be interpreted in multiple ways, using their authority of infallibility supposedly gotten from Saint Peter (who never actually claimed this in the Bible, in fact being the most-rebuked major disciple)
I agree Peter had plenty of authority, but he was certainly not infallible. If the Catholic Church had A) not considered the pope to be unquestionable and B) not gotten involved in the sorry mess of politics all those centuries ago, there likely wouldn't be Protestants.
As for the books of the Bible, I can't really argue with you there for various reasons. How do you define "inspired" anyway? Is this a tangible thing? Where in the Bible does it have this *requirement for inclusion*? Seems to me it should've been more author based. But I digress...
Originally posted by Redwing
I didn't claim that. But the Catholic church has made major doctrines out of passages that can be interpreted in multiple ways, using their authority of infallibility supposedly gotten from Saint Peter (who never actually claimed this in the Bible, in fact being the most-rebuked major disciple)
As I said, they did not have to come from the Bible. Things do not have to be in the Bible for them to be religious truths.
I agree Peter had plenty of authority, but he was certainly not infallible. If the Catholic Church had A) not considered the pope to be unquestionable and B) not gotten involved in the sorry mess of politics all those centuries ago, there likely wouldn't be Protestants.
Infallibility applies not to every single thing a pope says, but only when he speaks "from the chair" and intends to speak infallibly. When he does this, we believe God protects him from proclaiming something untrue as the truth. Note that this also only applies to matters of faith and morals.
As for the books of the Bible, I can't really argue with you there for various reasons. How do you define "inspired" anyway? Is this a tangible thing? Where in the Bible does it have this *requirement for inclusion*? Seems to me it should've been more author based. But I digress...
Of course you can't argue with me - I stated nothing but what the different groups believe. "Inspired" means that the author was inspired by God to write what he did and that in doing so God protected the author from writing anything untrue about God, morallity, etc. Obviously there is nowhere in the Bible that states what indicates an inspired book - after all, how could you decide if that passage were inspired or not? Something outside the Bible has to decide what the Bible contains or you have some circular issues. And it was the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, that decided this.
As I said, they did not have to come from the Bible. Things do not have to be in the Bible for them to be religious truths.
Infallibility applies not to every single thing a pope says, but only when he speaks "from the chair" and intends to speak infallibly. When he does this, we believe God protects him from proclaiming something untrue as the truth. Note that this also only applies to matters of faith and morals.
Then what happened to not adding to the Bible? The Bible states that no one can add to or subtract from it... and I didn't see a phrase, "except for the pope".
uh, the Pope DOESN'T add to the Bible. There is no "Pope Urban VII's Bible Number 8" or anything.
Originally posted by Keyan Farlander
As I said, they did not have to come from the Bible. Things do not have to be in the Bible for them to be religious truths.
You provide no insight.
I declare myself the victor.
Originally posted by Redwing
Then what happened to not adding to the Bible? The Bible states that no one can add to or subtract from it... and I didn't see a phrase, "except for the pope".
That's not adding to the Bible. But the Protestants DID subtract from it, didn't they? Hmm...
However, I believe you are refering to the end of the Book of Revelation. The adding in that context does not refer to the Bible, but to the Book of Revelation alone. (Just an FYI.)
Originally posted by Keyan Farlander
However, I believe you are refering to the end of the Book of Revelation. The adding in that context does not refer to the Bible, but to the Book of Revelation alone. (Just an FYI.)
Ummmmmm......If you don't already know this I'll tell you.
Revelation is part of the BIBLE.
Originally posted by BasiliskJC
Ummmmmm......If you don't already know this I'll tell you.
Revelation is part of the BIBLE.
So?
I believe that ^ about sums it up. :/
Now I'm about 0.05 percent in the mood for a debate right now, so I'm not going to argue about anything else. Besides, Nute declared himself the victor already. :p