100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The NO BIBLE ALLOWED Thread can you handle it? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Thomas3474 said: How about Mingle removes the General religion chat from this forum? Since 98% of what is posted in the General religion chat involves some form of degrading and slandering of Christianity there is really no need to discuss it. Furthermore these topics are against Mingles own rules that specificity say....
If Christianity itself was more understanding (or tolerant) of other religions they would not create so much resistance. People who disagree with the doctrines of Christianity probably have good reasons for doing so. There are people who have been hurt by their exposure to certain Christian doctrines. I don't see a lot of "degrading and slandering" of any other religions, albeit the Muslims are catching up fast. The point is, to remove or threaten to remove the general religion forum category for the reason you posted seems a bit bias towards protecting Christianity at the expense of the honest expression of opinions about a doctrine. (not a person.) People with interesting points of view about non-Christian spirituality have a very hard time starting any thread that does not degenerate into hurt feelings and Christian doctrines being preached and criticized. I don't know what the solution would be, but to eliminate the topic is probably not going to solve the problem. People should just tread with care and realize that other people have different points of view and let it be. Allow people to speak, allow people to believe what they want, allow people to be who they are. Law of allowance. 
People with interesting points of view about non-Christian spirituality have a very hard time starting any thread that does not degenerate into hurt feelings and Christian doctrines being preached and criticized You did the discrimination right there in your post. Why is it seen as "preaching" when a Christian discusses their beliefs and is seen as negative in the "general religion chat" forum, but yet it isn't seen as "preaching" when another belief states their religious beliefs? We have been over all of that before many times. I made a simple non-offensive statement above, and I'm not accusing anyone of anything. It is a general statement. I know the difference between "preaching" and "having a discussion" and I reserve the right to make that determination. I have seen both and I know the difference. The Christians are doing no more then what the other's are doing, but it turns to offensive remarks when people post comments such as you did right here. You state the Christians are preaching, but yet I never see any other belief said to being "preached" in this forum. Not all Christians "preach." Just some of them do. (You apparently still can't see the difference and you apparently are still whining about being "offended" and trying to control how people perceive things.) Besides, I was not even responding to one of your posts. But if you don't like what I have to say then just don't read my posts. NO ONE'S preaching. Merely stating their spiritual beliefs just as EVERY other belief does in this forum. Again, no one's preaching, just merely expressing their beliefs. And when it comes to the Christian faith it is segregated and said to be preaching. It is not the Christian faith that is segregated and said to be preaching it is HOW they state their beliefs as if they were facts and as if everyone else is wrong. Then they do not listen or even consider any other point of view. That is preaching. Not all Christians do that. Learn the difference and quit whining. It is not the Christian faith that is segregated and said to be preaching it is HOW they state their beliefs as if they were facts and as if everyone else is wrong. Then they do not listen or even consider any other point of view. That is preaching. Not all Christians do that. Learn the difference and quit whining First off, I'm not whining, that would be you. Whining at Christians to stop their preaching. And about the rest of your post, when someone states their beliefs, they ALL state it as a fact. Again, you're segregating Christians from the rest whom do the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My flesh has nothing to do with who I am. so wouldn't that mean that you don't take care of your flesh..like take baths and stuff? How do you get that from what I said? you claim that your flesh has nothing to do with who you are ...it that is true then why did you place a picture of yourself on mingles2 Who you are doesn't have anything to do with your flesh. be pretty cool if you told that to a policeman when he ask why you scratched your picture off your driver's license Someone can have their skin bleached, does this change who they are? let's ask Micheal Jackson Someone can get tattoos changing the color of their skin, does that change who they are? No, only changes their appearance, doesn't necessarily change WHO they are. you should read up on the holocaust |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My flesh is not the way I am. This flesh is merely a containment till my saviour returns to relieve me of it. My flesh has nothing to do with who I am. nope..remember you said that you can discuss your belief without any reference to religous scripture ..even so your saviour is telling you that you in the flesh is worthless and that is still a sign that he hates what you are and have convince you to hate yourself which is probably why you pick such a savior but anyway .....can you tell why hating your flesh is not a sign of self hatred ...or just admit that you don't know why you hate your flesh 1. I did not use any bible verse references. you referred to a savior 2. No one said anyone was worthless you said that your flesh is sinful 3. No one said anyone hates anyone or even the flesh in general you said "This flesh is merely a containment till your saviour returns to relieve you of it." 4. No one said they hate themselves thinking your flesh as being sinful is self hatred Can you please tell me where you got that from what I said? No one said anything about hatred or being worthless. read above thinking your flesh as being sinful is self hatred No it's not. It's learning to live by the spirit and what it desires then entirely what the flesh wants. Yes we still have to live a tiny bit by the flesh, for we are still in our flesh, we have to feed it, water it, go to the restroom, ect. But as for our actions and how we present our daily activies, don't have to be about what the flesh desires, again outside of eating and all that stuff the flesh needs. Nothing about self hatred. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People with interesting points of view about non-Christian spirituality have a very hard time starting any thread that does not degenerate into hurt feelings and Christian doctrines being preached and criticized.
This was my statement about the difficulty I have had personally starting a discussion about spiritual matters and beliefs that were not meant to degenerate into an argument with Christians who disagreed. It was not about Christianity but it was interrupted by Christians who began preaching their doctrines and posting scripture. This happened more than a year ago on this club and was one of the reasons I left mingle for a long time. Not all Christians preach, and in fact I have had real conversations with them. But some of them don't listen, they just preach. I know the difference. You're in a general religion chat forum. So weather your beliefs are Christian or not if they are posted in here are open to discussions with Christians or any other belief. Again, no preaching, just stating their beliefs on the matter, same thing you did with the start of the thread in mention. You state your beliefs and thoughts in a GENERAL religion chat forum, that is open for discussion with even specifically Christians doing as you did, stating their beliefs on the certain subject. Again, not preaching, just merely doing as you did, stating their beliefs on the certain subject at hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 05/08/11 12:59 PM
|
|
First off, I'm not whining, that would be you. Whining at Christians to stop their preaching. And about the rest of your post, when someone states their beliefs, they ALL state it as a fact. Again, you're segregating Christians from the rest whom do the same.
Christians segregate themselves. They think they are right and everybody else is misguided. And I was not even talking to you, or responding to your post, nor did I mention your name. I don't think all Christians elected YOU to be their champion or their defender either. So unless I address you, or quote something from you, there is no reason to even read my posts. That is, if you are going to get offended. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy said: Because again the flesh is sinful. Lustful desires and actions are sinful. Sex outside of making babies is PURELY for the physical pleasure, nothing productive comes out of it besides your physical pleasures being satisfied.
I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups. Do you think that physical pleasure is sinful? Being satisfied is sinful? Being happy is wrong? Feeling good is somehow wrong? Yes purely physical pleasure is sinful, no being "satisfied" is no sinful, and no definitely being happy is not wrong. There is a totally huge difference between "sex" and "making love". Yes they are commonly used for the same thing, but they are in fact two totally different things. Sex = Pleases physically, pleases the here and now. Making love = Pleases emotionally, spiritually, and lasts a life time. Sex = Is done with someone you may or may not have emotions for and or don't love that person. You may like them, enjoy their company, but you don't love someone you have "sex" with. You might as well be having sex with a hooker, that's about as far as the emotion between the two goes in having "sex". Making love = Is done with someone you hold great emotions for. It is an act done to not only make the person feel emotionally satisfied with you, but also physically. With the combination of emotionally satisfied and physically satisfied it is greatly multiplied in it's satisfaction. And it doesn't end that night. Those emotional feelings continue on possibly for a life time. And much more in between the difference, could go on for hours upon things such as child baring, making a family, and so on. That is what "sexual intercourse" is for. It is for building a family, there is no greater feeling then making a loving family. Sexual intercourse/making love isn't about YOU, it is about your spouse, a family, and the future. But, everything you've said concerning the differences between having superficial sex with someone you don't care about, and having meaningful fulfilling sex with someone that you do care about, would still be applicable, when a loving sincere couple have "protected" sex and planned parenthood. Planning how many children they want to have and when they'd like to have them would not in any way take away from natural beauty and fulfillment of their love-making. Therefore having protected sex and planned parenthood would in no way violate your ideals of "lovemaking" versus what you call "superficial sex". Whether or not procreation is a result would be totally irrelevant. These kinds of extremist religious values simply don't hold water. I agree with Jeannie Jeannie wrote:
I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups. Do you think that physical pleasure is sinful? Being satisfied is sinful? Being happy is wrong? Feeling good is somehow wrong? So Cowboy, you're basically telling a women that there will be no "love making" until she officially marries you. Then loving-making will only talk place until she is known to be pregnant. Then "love-making" will cease again until the baby is born. And so on. What if it turns out that either you or your wife is sterile? Does all "love-making" then cease permanently, because you reject it on the basis that being "pleasurable" is no a sufficient "excuse" for loving-making? Also, what about later in life. When your wife can no longer become pregnant? Does all 'love-making' also cease then? Sounds to me like you're just trying to turn "love-making" into "baby-making" and claiming that the act of "love-making" really has nothing at all to do with any concept of "love" at all, but rather it's entirely reduced to the very pragmatic concept of "baby-making" and is entirely dependent upon whether or not "baby-making" is possible or not. I think if you're going to be honest with a woman you should tell her that you really don't believe in "making-love" at all. All you believe in is "making-babies" and if babies can't be made then you want nothing at all to do with any "love-making" because your religious conviction is that "love-making" that can't result in making a baby is a "SIN". 
Like Jeannie said, "I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups." You're basically telling us that if you happen to accidentally marry a woman who ends up not being able to have babies, then you will refuse to "make-love" with her for your entire married life. 
Any woman who plans on marrying you better hope that she can have babies without a hitch! Also, if she has any idea of "planned parenthood" or waiting for a while before having kids, then she needs to realize that any "love-making" is also going to need to be "planned-out" accordingly. I hope for her sake, you make all of this stuff perfectly clear to the woman you plan to marry BEFORE she says "I Do!" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My flesh has nothing to do with who I am. so wouldn't that mean that you don't take care of your flesh..like take baths and stuff? How do you get that from what I said? you claim that your flesh has nothing to do with who you are ...it that is true then why did you place a picture of yourself on mingles2 Who you are doesn't have anything to do with your flesh. be pretty cool if you told that to a policeman when he ask why you scratched your picture off your driver's license Someone can have their skin bleached, does this change who they are? let's ask Micheal Jackson Someone can get tattoos changing the color of their skin, does that change who they are? No, only changes their appearance, doesn't necessarily change WHO they are. you should read up on the holocaust so wouldn't that mean that you don't take care of your flesh..like take baths and stuff? Do showers have anything to do with WHO you are outside of being clean? And the picture(s) wouldn't show this or not show this. Someone may never shower but once a week and took their di you claim that your flesh has nothing to do with who you are ...it that is true then why did you place a picture of yourself on mingles2 Because this is a dating site. Someone has to be attracted both physically and intellectually for a relationship to either start or last. So a picture has to be put as to show them how one appears and see if that one would be attracted to the other. For if one is only attracted in ONE specific category but not in the others, the relationship won't work out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the mean time - here are some thoughts on spirit beings.
to my understanding angels are spirits, ghosts of dead humans are spirits and there are spirits called poltergeists and there are demon spirits. So where did all these spirits come from - are they of one species or many? If you believe in God did he create the spirit first and then the body or the body and then the spirit. AND can a dead human's spirit become a Demon spirit? Now to get back on topic. Here is my theory: Your question as to where these spirits came from is a good one. They all came from the same source. That would be the living universe. (God) There are many many kinds of spirit beings. "God" manifests as thinking stuff and thinking centers. A human is a thinking center. An angel is a thinking center. Even a single cell is a thinking center. Thinking centers are channels for the conscious thinking stuff of the universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, I'm not whining, that would be you. Whining at Christians to stop their preaching. And about the rest of your post, when someone states their beliefs, they ALL state it as a fact. Again, you're segregating Christians from the rest whom do the same.
Christians segregate themselves. They think they are right and everybody else is misguided. And I was not even talking to you, or responding to your post, nor did I mention your name. I don't think all Christians elected YOU to be their champion or their defender either. So unless I address you, or quote something from you, there is no reason to even read my posts. That is, if you are going to get offended. Hate to tell you, but this is a chat forum for all mingle2 users. If you wish to have specifically a conversation with a specific someone, that would be what emails are for. Christians segregate themselves. They think they are right and everybody else is misguided. And so do all other beliefs, so why again point out specifically the Christians? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
funches
on
Sun 05/08/11 01:07 PM
|
|
My flesh is not the way I am. This flesh is merely a containment till my saviour returns to relieve me of it. My flesh has nothing to do with who I am. nope..remember you said that you can discuss your belief without any reference to religous scripture ..even so your saviour is telling you that you in the flesh is worthless and that is still a sign that he hates what you are and have convince you to hate yourself which is probably why you pick such a savior but anyway .....can you tell why hating your flesh is not a sign of self hatred ...or just admit that you don't know why you hate your flesh 1. I did not use any bible verse references. you referred to a savior 2. No one said anyone was worthless you said that your flesh is sinful 3. No one said anyone hates anyone or even the flesh in general you said "This flesh is merely a containment till your saviour returns to relieve you of it." 4. No one said they hate themselves thinking your flesh as being sinful is self hatred Can you please tell me where you got that from what I said? No one said anything about hatred or being worthless. read above thinking your flesh as being sinful is self hatred No it's not. It's learning to live by the spirit and what it desires then entirely what the flesh wants. Yes we still have to live a tiny bit by the flesh, for we are still in our flesh, we have to feed it, water it, go to the restroom, ect. But as for our actions and how we present our daily activies, don't have to be about what the flesh desires, again outside of eating and all that stuff the flesh needs. Nothing about self hatred. Cowboy........you're preaching from the bible again .... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy said: Because again the flesh is sinful. Lustful desires and actions are sinful. Sex outside of making babies is PURELY for the physical pleasure, nothing productive comes out of it besides your physical pleasures being satisfied.
I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups. Do you think that physical pleasure is sinful? Being satisfied is sinful? Being happy is wrong? Feeling good is somehow wrong? Yes purely physical pleasure is sinful, no being "satisfied" is no sinful, and no definitely being happy is not wrong. There is a totally huge difference between "sex" and "making love". Yes they are commonly used for the same thing, but they are in fact two totally different things. Sex = Pleases physically, pleases the here and now. Making love = Pleases emotionally, spiritually, and lasts a life time. Sex = Is done with someone you may or may not have emotions for and or don't love that person. You may like them, enjoy their company, but you don't love someone you have "sex" with. You might as well be having sex with a hooker, that's about as far as the emotion between the two goes in having "sex". Making love = Is done with someone you hold great emotions for. It is an act done to not only make the person feel emotionally satisfied with you, but also physically. With the combination of emotionally satisfied and physically satisfied it is greatly multiplied in it's satisfaction. And it doesn't end that night. Those emotional feelings continue on possibly for a life time. And much more in between the difference, could go on for hours upon things such as child baring, making a family, and so on. That is what "sexual intercourse" is for. It is for building a family, there is no greater feeling then making a loving family. Sexual intercourse/making love isn't about YOU, it is about your spouse, a family, and the future. But, everything you've said concerning the differences between having superficial sex with someone you don't care about, and having meaningful fulfilling sex with someone that you do care about, would still be applicable, when a loving sincere couple have "protected" sex and planned parenthood. Planning how many children they want to have and when they'd like to have them would not in any way take away from natural beauty and fulfillment of their love-making. Therefore having protected sex and planned parenthood would in no way violate your ideals of "lovemaking" versus what you call "superficial sex". Whether or not procreation is a result would be totally irrelevant. These kinds of extremist religious values simply don't hold water. I agree with Jeannie Jeannie wrote:
I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups. Do you think that physical pleasure is sinful? Being satisfied is sinful? Being happy is wrong? Feeling good is somehow wrong? So Cowboy, you're basically telling a women that there will be no "love making" until she officially marries you. Then loving-making will only talk place until she is known to be pregnant. Then "love-making" will cease again until the baby is born. And so on. What if it turns out that either you or your wife is sterile? Does all "love-making" then cease permanently, because you reject it on the basis that being "pleasurable" is no a sufficient "excuse" for loving-making? Also, what about later in life. When your wife can no longer become pregnant? Does all 'love-making' also cease then? Sounds to me like you're just trying to turn "love-making" into "baby-making" and claiming that the act of "love-making" really has nothing at all to do with any concept of "love" at all, but rather it's entirely reduced to the very pragmatic concept of "baby-making" and is entirely dependent upon whether or not "baby-making" is possible or not. I think if you're going to be honest with a woman you should tell her that you really don't believe in "making-love" at all. All you believe in is "making-babies" and if babies can't be made then you want nothing at all to do with any "love-making" because your religious conviction is that "love-making" that can't result in making a baby is a "SIN".
Like Jeannie said, "I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups." You're basically telling us that if you happen to accidentally marry a woman who ends up not being able to have babies, then you will refuse to "make-love" with her for your entire married life.
Any woman who plans on marrying you better hope that she can have babies without a hitch! Also, if she has any idea of "planned parenthood" or waiting for a while before having kids, then she needs to realize that any "love-making" is also going to need to be "planned-out" accordingly. I hope for her sake, you make all of this stuff perfectly clear to the woman you plan to marry BEFORE she says "I Do!"
Not to mention that the woman would be made to feel useless if she couldn't have children, and she would feel rejected if her husband only wanted to have sex with her for the purpose of getting her pregnant. Then when she goes through the change, she would feel worthless and rejected also if her husband would not have sex with her. And that is probably why Morman men go out and find a younger wife so he can continue to have sex within the boundaries of his beliefs. But his first wife, now too old to bare children is rejected. How sad a life would that be? no thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My flesh is not the way I am. This flesh is merely a containment till my saviour returns to relieve me of it. My flesh has nothing to do with who I am. nope..remember you said that you can discuss your belief without any reference to religous scripture ..even so your saviour is telling you that you in the flesh is worthless and that is still a sign that he hates what you are and have convince you to hate yourself which is probably why you pick such a savior but anyway .....can you tell why hating your flesh is not a sign of self hatred ...or just admit that you don't know why you hate your flesh 1. I did not use any bible verse references. you referred to a savior 2. No one said anyone was worthless you said that your flesh is sinful 3. No one said anyone hates anyone or even the flesh in general you said "This flesh is merely a containment till your saviour returns to relieve you of it." 4. No one said they hate themselves thinking your flesh as being sinful is self hatred Can you please tell me where you got that from what I said? No one said anything about hatred or being worthless. read above thinking your flesh as being sinful is self hatred No it's not. It's learning to live by the spirit and what it desires then entirely what the flesh wants. Yes we still have to live a tiny bit by the flesh, for we are still in our flesh, we have to feed it, water it, go to the restroom, ect. But as for our actions and how we present our daily activies, don't have to be about what the flesh desires, again outside of eating and all that stuff the flesh needs. Nothing about self hatred. Cowboy........you're preaching from the bible again .... For one I'm not preaching, merely discussing my spiritual beliefs of such. Secondly did I mention a bible verse? No sir I did not. So therefor I'm stating nothing specifically from the bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hate to tell you, but this is a chat forum for all mingle2 users. If you wish to have specifically a conversation with a specific someone, that would be what emails are for.
Oh you are perfectly welcome to read any posts I write and respond to them but don't do it if you are just going to whine, complain and argue. That's all you seem to want to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
funches
on
Sun 05/08/11 01:18 PM
|
|
you claim that your flesh has nothing to do with who you are ...it that is true then why did you place a picture of yourself on mingles2 Because this is a dating site. Someone has to be attracted both physically and intellectually for a relationship to either start or last. So a picture has to be put as to show them how one appears and see if that one would be attracted to the other. For if one is only attracted in ONE specific category but not in the others, the relationship won't work out. Cowboy... so wouldn't that mean that you are wrong and that your flesh does have something to do with you? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy said: Because again the flesh is sinful. Lustful desires and actions are sinful. Sex outside of making babies is PURELY for the physical pleasure, nothing productive comes out of it besides your physical pleasures being satisfied.
I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups. Do you think that physical pleasure is sinful? Being satisfied is sinful? Being happy is wrong? Feeling good is somehow wrong? Yes purely physical pleasure is sinful, no being "satisfied" is no sinful, and no definitely being happy is not wrong. There is a totally huge difference between "sex" and "making love". Yes they are commonly used for the same thing, but they are in fact two totally different things. Sex = Pleases physically, pleases the here and now. Making love = Pleases emotionally, spiritually, and lasts a life time. Sex = Is done with someone you may or may not have emotions for and or don't love that person. You may like them, enjoy their company, but you don't love someone you have "sex" with. You might as well be having sex with a hooker, that's about as far as the emotion between the two goes in having "sex". Making love = Is done with someone you hold great emotions for. It is an act done to not only make the person feel emotionally satisfied with you, but also physically. With the combination of emotionally satisfied and physically satisfied it is greatly multiplied in it's satisfaction. And it doesn't end that night. Those emotional feelings continue on possibly for a life time. And much more in between the difference, could go on for hours upon things such as child baring, making a family, and so on. That is what "sexual intercourse" is for. It is for building a family, there is no greater feeling then making a loving family. Sexual intercourse/making love isn't about YOU, it is about your spouse, a family, and the future. But, everything you've said concerning the differences between having superficial sex with someone you don't care about, and having meaningful fulfilling sex with someone that you do care about, would still be applicable, when a loving sincere couple have "protected" sex and planned parenthood. Planning how many children they want to have and when they'd like to have them would not in any way take away from natural beauty and fulfillment of their love-making. Therefore having protected sex and planned parenthood would in no way violate your ideals of "lovemaking" versus what you call "superficial sex". Whether or not procreation is a result would be totally irrelevant. These kinds of extremist religious values simply don't hold water. I agree with Jeannie Jeannie wrote:
I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups. Do you think that physical pleasure is sinful? Being satisfied is sinful? Being happy is wrong? Feeling good is somehow wrong? So Cowboy, you're basically telling a women that there will be no "love making" until she officially marries you. Then loving-making will only talk place until she is known to be pregnant. Then "love-making" will cease again until the baby is born. And so on. What if it turns out that either you or your wife is sterile? Does all "love-making" then cease permanently, because you reject it on the basis that being "pleasurable" is no a sufficient "excuse" for loving-making? Also, what about later in life. When your wife can no longer become pregnant? Does all 'love-making' also cease then? Sounds to me like you're just trying to turn "love-making" into "baby-making" and claiming that the act of "love-making" really has nothing at all to do with any concept of "love" at all, but rather it's entirely reduced to the very pragmatic concept of "baby-making" and is entirely dependent upon whether or not "baby-making" is possible or not. I think if you're going to be honest with a woman you should tell her that you really don't believe in "making-love" at all. All you believe in is "making-babies" and if babies can't be made then you want nothing at all to do with any "love-making" because your religious conviction is that "love-making" that can't result in making a baby is a "SIN".
Like Jeannie said, "I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups." You're basically telling us that if you happen to accidentally marry a woman who ends up not being able to have babies, then you will refuse to "make-love" with her for your entire married life.
Any woman who plans on marrying you better hope that she can have babies without a hitch! Also, if she has any idea of "planned parenthood" or waiting for a while before having kids, then she needs to realize that any "love-making" is also going to need to be "planned-out" accordingly. I hope for her sake, you make all of this stuff perfectly clear to the woman you plan to marry BEFORE she says "I Do!"
Not to mention that the woman would be made to feel useless if she couldn't have children, and she would feel rejected if her husband only wanted to have sex with her for the purpose of getting her pregnant. Then when she goes through the change, she would feel worthless and rejected also if her husband would not have sex with her. And that is probably why Morman men go out and find a younger wife so he can continue to have sex within the boundaries of his beliefs. But his first wife, now too old to bare children is rejected. How sad a life would that be? no thanks. Why would she feel useless? Is sex the center point of a relationship? Sex is not important other then child baring lol. Has no other purpose other then physical pleasure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 05/08/11 01:19 PM
|
|
Why would she feel useless? Is sex the center point of a relationship? Sex is not important other then child baring lol. Has no other purpose other then physical pleasure.
She would feel useless because she would no longer be able to bare children and that, apparently is all she is good for according to your doctrine because after she can no longer have children, her husband will no longer make love to her. That's just cruel. ps Oh yeh and being a slave to her husband and cooking and cleaning and raising his children... but forget the bedroom. No more love making for her. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My flesh is not the way I am. This flesh is merely a containment till my saviour returns to relieve me of it. My flesh has nothing to do with who I am. nope..remember you said that you can discuss your belief without any reference to religous scripture ..even so your saviour is telling you that you in the flesh is worthless and that is still a sign that he hates what you are and have convince you to hate yourself which is probably why you pick such a savior but anyway .....can you tell why hating your flesh is not a sign of self hatred ...or just admit that you don't know why you hate your flesh 1. I did not use any bible verse references. you referred to a savior 2. No one said anyone was worthless you said that your flesh is sinful 3. No one said anyone hates anyone or even the flesh in general you said "This flesh is merely a containment till your saviour returns to relieve you of it." 4. No one said they hate themselves thinking your flesh as being sinful is self hatred Can you please tell me where you got that from what I said? No one said anything about hatred or being worthless. read above thinking your flesh as being sinful is self hatred No it's not. It's learning to live by the spirit and what it desires then entirely what the flesh wants. Yes we still have to live a tiny bit by the flesh, for we are still in our flesh, we have to feed it, water it, go to the restroom, ect. But as for our actions and how we present our daily activies, don't have to be about what the flesh desires, again outside of eating and all that stuff the flesh needs. Nothing about self hatred. Cowboy........you're preaching from the bible again .... For one I'm not preaching, merely discussing my spiritual beliefs of such. Secondly did I mention a bible verse? No sir I did not. So therefor I'm stating nothing specifically from the bible. Cowboy the thread ask can you chat without reference to the bible..it didn't ask you to be a lawyer and find loopholes ....you have yet to explain where you got your belief that the flesh is sin and your savior will come and remove it if you didn't get that from the bible ....until you do...then you're preaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy said: Because again the flesh is sinful. Lustful desires and actions are sinful. Sex outside of making babies is PURELY for the physical pleasure, nothing productive comes out of it besides your physical pleasures being satisfied.
I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups. Do you think that physical pleasure is sinful? Being satisfied is sinful? Being happy is wrong? Feeling good is somehow wrong? Yes purely physical pleasure is sinful, no being "satisfied" is no sinful, and no definitely being happy is not wrong. There is a totally huge difference between "sex" and "making love". Yes they are commonly used for the same thing, but they are in fact two totally different things. Sex = Pleases physically, pleases the here and now. Making love = Pleases emotionally, spiritually, and lasts a life time. Sex = Is done with someone you may or may not have emotions for and or don't love that person. You may like them, enjoy their company, but you don't love someone you have "sex" with. You might as well be having sex with a hooker, that's about as far as the emotion between the two goes in having "sex". Making love = Is done with someone you hold great emotions for. It is an act done to not only make the person feel emotionally satisfied with you, but also physically. With the combination of emotionally satisfied and physically satisfied it is greatly multiplied in it's satisfaction. And it doesn't end that night. Those emotional feelings continue on possibly for a life time. And much more in between the difference, could go on for hours upon things such as child baring, making a family, and so on. That is what "sexual intercourse" is for. It is for building a family, there is no greater feeling then making a loving family. Sexual intercourse/making love isn't about YOU, it is about your spouse, a family, and the future. But, everything you've said concerning the differences between having superficial sex with someone you don't care about, and having meaningful fulfilling sex with someone that you do care about, would still be applicable, when a loving sincere couple have "protected" sex and planned parenthood. Planning how many children they want to have and when they'd like to have them would not in any way take away from natural beauty and fulfillment of their love-making. Therefore having protected sex and planned parenthood would in no way violate your ideals of "lovemaking" versus what you call "superficial sex". Whether or not procreation is a result would be totally irrelevant. These kinds of extremist religious values simply don't hold water. I agree with Jeannie Jeannie wrote:
I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups. Do you think that physical pleasure is sinful? Being satisfied is sinful? Being happy is wrong? Feeling good is somehow wrong? So Cowboy, you're basically telling a women that there will be no "love making" until she officially marries you. Then loving-making will only talk place until she is known to be pregnant. Then "love-making" will cease again until the baby is born. And so on. What if it turns out that either you or your wife is sterile? Does all "love-making" then cease permanently, because you reject it on the basis that being "pleasurable" is no a sufficient "excuse" for loving-making? Also, what about later in life. When your wife can no longer become pregnant? Does all 'love-making' also cease then? Sounds to me like you're just trying to turn "love-making" into "baby-making" and claiming that the act of "love-making" really has nothing at all to do with any concept of "love" at all, but rather it's entirely reduced to the very pragmatic concept of "baby-making" and is entirely dependent upon whether or not "baby-making" is possible or not. I think if you're going to be honest with a woman you should tell her that you really don't believe in "making-love" at all. All you believe in is "making-babies" and if babies can't be made then you want nothing at all to do with any "love-making" because your religious conviction is that "love-making" that can't result in making a baby is a "SIN".
Like Jeannie said, "I don't know where you are getting these ideas Cowboy but that kind of thinking can lead to serious sexual hangups." You're basically telling us that if you happen to accidentally marry a woman who ends up not being able to have babies, then you will refuse to "make-love" with her for your entire married life.
Any woman who plans on marrying you better hope that she can have babies without a hitch! Also, if she has any idea of "planned parenthood" or waiting for a while before having kids, then she needs to realize that any "love-making" is also going to need to be "planned-out" accordingly. I hope for her sake, you make all of this stuff perfectly clear to the woman you plan to marry BEFORE she says "I Do!"
What if it turns out that either you or your wife is sterile? Does all "love-making" then cease permanently, because you reject it on the basis that being "pleasurable" is no a sufficient "excuse" for loving-making? You're funny man, truly funny. And great at twisting words around to try to make the other look bad, very clever. Keep up the good work and one day you may succeed. No the "love-making" would not cease. The MAIN purpose of "sexual intercourse" is child baring. It's a moment shared between two people, a moment in life when it is just the two and nothing else in the world matters. Look at what just having "sex" causes around the world. Single parents, children who never know their dad, sexual diseases, ect. All of this would cease to exist if EVERYONE kept to one partner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, I'm not whining, that would be you. Whining at Christians to stop their preaching. And about the rest of your post, when someone states their beliefs, they ALL state it as a fact. Again, you're segregating Christians from the rest whom do the same.
Christians segregate themselves. They think they are right and everybody else is misguided. And I was not even talking to you, or responding to your post, nor did I mention your name. I don't think all Christians elected YOU to be their champion or their defender either. So unless I address you, or quote something from you, there is no reason to even read my posts. That is, if you are going to get offended. Cowboy is clearly not the "Champion" of the Christians. On the contrary very FEW Christians I've ever met would even remotely support many of Cowboy's extremists views. I know for certain that I would not have supported Cowboy's perverted extremism even back when I used to be a Christian myself. Now would any of my uncles or cousins who are STILL Christians to this very day. My mother also would not support his perverted extremists views and she was the most dedicated Christian I ever met. He's just describing his own personal perversion of the religion. He's showing us how it's possible to take any religion to the extreme. Kind of like the Arab Jihadists do when they blow people up in the name of Islam. Anyone can take a religion and pervert it. 
That doesn't make them a "spokesperson" for the religion. Cowboy isn't the spokesperson for Christianity anymore than Osama Bin Laden was the spokesperson for Islam. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing sinful about the physical pleasure of sex and orgasm unless, apparently, you are a Christian.
|
|
|
|
|
