The Christianity Thread

I think Rott is arguing that it's immoral for infertile people to have sex. (Which seems kind of odd for a guy who's admittedly into BDSM—bondage is completely unnecessary for reproduction.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

@Rottweiler

Because again, even if you discount choosing to not have children, it means you think infertile and menopausal woman should never have sex.

Heck, it also disqualifies even fertile couples who have sex during the wrong part of a woman's cycle or when she's taking medication or doing something like breastfeeding which reduces fertility temporarily as a side effect.

Plus there's the very big and very debatable assumption that procreation is the sole acceptable purpose and reason to have sex.

I mean, seriously, even the absolutely devout Christians still generally have sex even when it's impossible or unlikely to cause pregnancy.

edited 24th Oct '11 7:50:51 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Feo, do you want to have a civil discussion, or do you want to stick to drive-by insults like "you're not a Christian" and "that's dumb because you like bondage"?

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

@Jeysie: "Because again, even if you discount choosing to not have children,"

That is also a sin. If you don't get that, you'll never understand the concept of sexual sins.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Leviticus is potentially a bit more complex than conservative Christians would lead people to believe.

I believe someone mentioned that it’s more against sodomy, and not necessarily homosexuality.It could also pertain to using a woman’s bed specifically for the act. Also the chapter starts by discussing worshiping of Molek, a major no-no. The sexual messages below might be in reference to rituals still.

Paul’s writings on the matter have a lot of discussion as well. It’s possible he was more angry at the Roman’s habit of screwing anything with a hole then attacking homosexual relationships in general. It’s worth noting that Paul ALSO opens with discussing idolatry before heading straight sex talk. Further leading credence to the idea that he was discussing “idolatry, ritual sex” and not making a blanket statement against homosexuality.

There’s also the possibility he was discussing pederasty specifically.

edited 26th Oct '11 4:29:09 PM by Justice4243

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.

@ Rottweiler: "That is also a sin. If you don't get that, you'll never understand the concept of sexual sins."

We do understand what that means, we understand what you mean, many here simply reject your beliefs as illogical and unfounded. And that is not due to a lack of understanding of your arguments or philosophical concepts.

edited 24th Oct '11 8:02:27 PM by Anthony29

Two things to say to Rott:

First, I don't intend to insult you. I don't believe your religion is compatible with what Christianity has become, for much the same reasons that an ancient Egyptian would have little in common with a modern worshipper of Ra, but I don't think that's necessarily good or bad.

Second, did you just make an argument off Quiverfull principles? If so, I'll have to reevaluate my understanding of your beliefs yet again.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Well, yeah, I fully admit I don't understand the concept of sexual sins because they're utterly irrational.

Why is having sex without the intent to have children bad? Procreation is not the only valid reason to have sex, and there's no rational reason why it isn't perfectly acceptable to focus on one of the other reasons instead.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

I believe the rationale is "sex is a gift from God, intended for procreation within the loving relationship between a man and woman as one person—a family."

"Therefore, sex outside these qualifiers is immoral, because it's the abuse of a gift from God."

I think, anyhow.

I am now known as Flyboy.

USAF@People tend to forget that the Bible talks about how sex is can also still be used for pleasure between a man and woman because it says that brings them together as one. So, married straight couples can have sex out of pleasure becuase it brings them together as one.If you read Song Of Songs you can get the picture that sex for pleasure in marriage is allowed.Plus I remember that in the Bible it talks about how men should have sex with their wives as well.

Song of Songs doesn’t seem to be mentioning procreation at all, so it might be hard to spin the idea that all sex that's not intended to produce children is bad.

That being said, keep in mind all of this was written back in a time that a non-virgin woman was considered "damaged goods" if unwed. So many of the rules are based on this fact.

That wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with homosexuality, though...

Edit: Wow, that was quite the ninja.

edited 24th Oct '11 8:13:36 PM by Justice4243

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.

Well, as a Catholic, I believe the homosexual act is a sin, as I do things like sex outside the heterosexual marriage bond, excessive gambling and so on. Homosexual tendencies in itself isn't the sin, merely the temptation to commit the sin of sodomy.

edited 24th Oct '11 8:35:36 PM by Cojuanco

I am now known as Flyboy.

Yeah, that's the thing, really.

If a religion wants to think homosexuality is a sin, I find it illogical and irrational, but it's still their choice.

It's this whole thing with not allowing gay marriage that annoys the crap out of me, as it's basically forcing everyone to abide by Christian rules even if they don't share them/don't care.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

There's NOTHING at all "civil" about this discussion. It's poison from the ground up.

That's one thing that bothers me about these discussions. If I simply say I'm an atheist it offends the hell out of people, but at the same time it's OK to completely trash and slag my marriage (hetero, not planning on having kids).

It's not OK.

In fact, the entire concept of "sin" is not OK.

Please don't do it.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

About half of American Christians are "Pro" gay marriage, it seems.

So quite a few.

edited 24th Oct '11 8:45:25 PM by Justice4243

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.

Hm. I wouldn't have expected that.

Silly me, thinking the US Government(s) reflects the general popular opinion.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Wait wait wait. Just hold the hell on.

This is a thread for discussing. Not broad-brush bashing.

It's already got one strike against it in that the thread topic is "Christianity" as though there was anything at all that all Christians agree on.

It's got a second strike against it in that it started off with a confrontational tone to the OP.

It's on the fast track to a lockdown.

Dial the hostility and judgmentalism and assumptions and broad-brushing back and it might survive the night.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Edit: ~sigh~

Nevermind.

edited 24th Oct '11 8:57:15 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Jeysie@Just between you and me I would have a bigger problem with polygamous people and the funny thing is that its more common than I thought it was.I still don't know how the FLDS church manages to get away with polgamy plus thats not all the problems I have with that cult.

Their are many instances in the Bible where polgamy is shown but like as I said it wasn't approved of by God.

edited 24th Oct '11 8:59:05 PM by joyflower

Well, for one thing, polygamy is in the Bible, and it has never been decried except through the lens of a monogamist society.

No, there are absolutely no passages that go against polygamy; there are plenty speaking out against adultery, but polygamy seems to have been OK, as far as the Bible is concerned.

edited 24th Oct '11 9:01:35 PM by tropetown

trope@Its one of the more subtle things mainly because it doesn't really get as much as attention as other issues.

Actually there were some times when God told the kings not to multiply wives but they did it anyway.The Bible also usually shows the downsides to polgamy which alludes that its not really a good idea.

Considering that at the time, adultery was a commandment only women could break, while coveting thy neighbor's wife was only for men, and this all stemmed from the fact that women were property, I think it's rational that they'd consider polygamy to be alright, at least in the Old Testament. I couldn't say for the New Testament, or whether this holds true for the whole Old Testament.

I am now known as Flyboy.