Jesus created Sex

[Miss Anthrope]

Hey you guys--this is going nowhere. Perhaps we can stop feeding DJJ's ego so he will not keep waxing rhapsodic?

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Davidjayjordan, I think you missed my question, so *bump*


Originally Posted by jsfisher
Save me some trouble wading through this thread, if you would, Davidjayjordan: Haven't you advocated consensual sexual intercourse between persons (not necessarily marred to each other) as a beautiful and blessed thing?

JSfisher, usally you only want to try and find ammunitionto accuse rather than searching for truths. Nevertheless because Jesus answered the scribes and pharisees, let me follow his example even though I definitely am not Jesus, jus one of his mere followers and believers.

Do I advocate sex among the unmarried ? You mean to I demand that couples be wed in churches and sancitified by religion or city hall. .. NO. Love binds us not pieces iof paper, but pieces of paper show a committment.

So knowing the many pains of broken heart and misused sex and motivations, I don't advocate sex to ALL. Only to the mature and the responsible. And basically only to those that have love in their hearts so they won;t hurt those they have sex with. Usually hard core heathen can not promise this and are more of a pain than a help and an encouragement. Sex can be serious, even if done casually. And I always believe in taking responsibility for the results of sex. Children have to be cared for. Wives and husbands, lovers, or common law couples have to care for each other as well as the children produced.

So its a big question, and the answer isn't as easy as a simple Yes.

But then again, I think you just wanted a simple Yes, to further try and accuse. Am I right ?

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Hey you guys--this is going nowhere. Perhaps we can stop feeding DJJ's ego so he will not keep waxing rhapsodic?

Yes, Miss A you are going no where, so do go there once again, and take your cat with you.

Old ploy in posting kitten pics and it is getting rather irritating which is its purpose and your modus operandi in posting such pics.

 

[jsfisher]

JSfisher, usally you only want to try and find ammunitionto accuse rather than searching for truths.

I look for contradictions. A coherent, cohesive argument cannot have contradictions.

Nevertheless because Jesus answered the scribes and pharisees, let me follow his example even though I definitely am not Jesus, jus one of his mere followers and believers.

Do I advocate sex among the unmarried ? You mean to I demand that couples be wed in churches and sancitified by religion or city hall. .. NO. Love binds us not pieces iof paper, but pieces of paper show a committment.

That's what I'd thought I remembered reading. Thank you for confirming that.

...<snip>...
So its a big question, and the answer isn't as easy as a simple Yes.

But then again, I think you just wanted a simple Yes, to further try and accuse. Am I right ?

You can judge that for yourself.

You'd quoted a Bible passage to Religionstudent that seemed to condemn fornication. Yet, you consider fornication (i.e. consensual sexual intercourse between people not married to each other) acceptable. Is this not an inconsistency between your moral view and that expressed in the Bible?

 

[RandFan]

...it is getting rather irritating ...

Define irony.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

DavidJayGordon, Basically, You ask me the questions and that way we can start the conversation. I don't know where to start or what page you're on etc. Just ask me some questions about what this discussion is about and I'll answer and that can start the discussion.

 

[bruto]

I'll repeat my question, since you don't seem to have understood it.

Originally Posted by Davidjayjordan ....
No, Religious undergraduate, the Creator said....

Mat 15:19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

You have so much to learn..... as our emotions and motivations determine whether we accept truths or not. Brains are steered by our emotions. If we are honest and sincere, then we can find truths and the TRUTHGIVER.

I thought you would have known that by now.

Can you elaborate on the physiology of this rather odd statement? Are you saying that the heart sends emotions to the brain? Are you saying the brain does the thinking but not the feeling? Are you saying that Jesus was physiologically or biologically correct in locating thoughts in the heart? That it was not simply a metaphorical or vernacular use of the word? Are you sure that "heart" is the word that was used in the original Aramaic?

Can you explain this in coherent English?

 

[Paulhoff]

DJJ your Jesus is a very poor designer, . I still want to know why the sex organs are so full of problems, poor location right next to the crapper and the pisser goes right thru them. Lots of diseases attack the organs. The birth canal goes right thru the pelvis and can cause many problems in birth. The bladder in woman can and does fall into a bad position and causes trouble with passing urine, prostate problems with men as the prostate grows and blocks urethra, gee the list is almost endless and this is the best your Jesus can do, it is time for a new and better so-called god.

Paul

 

[bruto]

DJJ your Jesus is a very poor designer, . I still want to know why the sex organs are so full of problems, poor location right next to the crapper and the pisser goes right thru them. Lots of diseases attack the organs. The birth canal goes right thru the pelvis and can cause many problems in birth. The bladder in woman can and does fall into a bad position and causes trouble with passing urine, prostate problems with men as the prostate grows and blocks urethra, gee the list is almost endless and this is the best your Jesus can do, it is time for a new and better so-called god.

Paul

Not to mention that he left the instruction manual up to a committee, and it's a mess.

 

[Kochanski]

K, your utter frustration in being left out of the discussion is showing again, and again you are admitting you have lost the debate. You admit it everytime you violate the rules and post kiottens and butterflies and recipes. And yet the moderators never suspend you for such foolishness.

DJJ, this is not a debate. I can not lose a debate that does not exist. This is you preaching your nonsense. You have no proof of what you say so there is nothing to debate. Any instances of us asking you for proof are answered with childish attacks from you.

You are a troll. What you do here is purely to satisfy your own ego. So, kittens, butterflies, recipes are quite appropriate and a time honored tradition.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Yes. Kochanski for you this is not a discussion or a debate, it is just a sounding board for your rants against the Lord.

But if you lost your fear of discussing things openly , you might come out from behind your barriers and sheltered existence so that you could face these truths.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes. Kochanski for you this is not a discussion or a debate, it is just a sounding board for your rants against the Lord.

But if you lost your fear of discussing things openly , you might come out from behind your barriers and sheltered existence so that you could face these truths.

Like you've lost your fear of discussing your failed prophecy openly?

 

[bruto]

JFisher, you are so shallow and just want Yes or No answers rather than depth and discernment and values.

As mentioned, sex should be for the mature and the loving rather than the young and the immature. A true union of hearts takes maturity and love and responsibility. It takes depth and brings on depth.

But YES, we should start a whole thread on the topic of why church morality concerning sexuality is NOT from the Lord but from Paul and his legalistic buddies.

Bruto should start off this discussion, but he has turned shallow on us, after his initial great break though TRUTH. We shall hereafter it deem it Bruto-nian Truth.

It being that Paul was not always writing in the Spirit, but gave his personal opinion sometimes which was not the LORD's LAW of LOVE.

Start a new thread, every time I do it gets deleted as I would win another argument or the heated up ones would cause it to get deleted.

Ahhh sex and heat, and the heat it causes the frustrated ones.

So David, why don't you start by stating whether or not you accept the common meaning of the word "fornication," and whether or not you believe it is correctly used in the passage you cited. Fornication is generally defined as voluntary sexual intercourse between persons who are not married to each other. It is not, by definition, cut finer than that, or made exclusive or inclusive with relation to love, motivation, appropriateness or other criteria. Good or bad, justified or not, beautiful or ugly, if you have sexual relations with someone to whom you are not married, you are fornicating by definition. That's what the word means. Are you now saying that this is not what is meant by the term in the passage quoted, are you redefining the term "fornication," are you redefining the term "marriage," or are you disavowing the passage you cited? Let's see if we can address that point by itself, without further digression, insulting remarks about others' beliefs, and all the rest.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Not to mention that he left the instruction manual up to a committee, and it's a mess.

SEE Gentleman and ladies of the discussion ... HERE be more Bruto-nian TRUTH.

Bruto is mentioning that the instruction manual is a mystery as the Lord said. It takes wisdom and DISCERNMENT to figure out its mysteries of truth. It takes the Holy Spirit and honmesty and sincerity and humility to figure it out.

We can't be spoon fed truths. Its not that simple. It takes heart and soul and desire to find the truths of life, and the ultimate TRUTH.

Hence I nominate BRUTO, to start a thread on why Paul's anti-sexual opinions are not of the Lord THREAD.

Again well done Bruto, in giving us more tid bits of truth.... Bruto-nian TRUTH. Its brutal and frank, but the whole church system and usually the worldly system get it wrong. So Bruto-nian Truth must come out.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

So David, why don't you start by stating whether or not you accept the common meaning of the word "fornication," and whether or not you believe it is correctly used in the passage you cited. Fornication is generally defined as voluntary sexual intercourse between persons who are not married to each other. It is not, by definition, cut finer than that, or made exclusive or inclusive with relation to love, motivation, appropriateness or other criteria. Good or bad, justified or not, beautiful or ugly, if you have sexual relations with someone to whom you are not married, you are fornicating by definition. That's what the word means. Are you now saying that this is not what is meant by the term in the passage quoted, are you redefining the term "fornication," are you redefining the term "marriage," or are you disavowing the passage you cited? Let's see if we can address that point by itself, without further digression, insulting remarks about others' beliefs, and all the rest.

This is Dave from Phoenix's words, but he allowed me to put them on line with his permission.

I differ slightly with them but its a good start for defining fornication properly.

"Fornication" Mistranslation[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1](written by Dave in Phoenix)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]




[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Traditional Church teaching falsely misuses the Bible to judge loving, responsible singles' sexuality. True Biblical theology begins not with Church tradition and dogma but with the biblical texts themselves. Biblical theology seeks to understand how the biblical authors expressed themselves in the Greek language of New Testament times (not expanded by later Greek meanings), in terms of their culture. Only with this understanding is it legitimate to define biblical sexual ethics of the NT and find implications for today.

If you are happier in your beliefs that sex is wrong outside of marriage that may be what is best for you. But it is not from scripture as you have been taught by the Church. If you understand Church history and its biased translations you soon realize the lies and deceptions the Church is teaching regarding many sexual issues.

I Cor 6:9 badly mistranslate "porneia" as fornication. Corinth was a wide-open port city. People there could get sex any way they wanted it. Where our English translations read 'fornication', Paul's original Greek word was 'porneia' which means to sell and refers to slaves bought and sold for cultic prostitution. What was happening in the Temples of Corinth was farmers were visiting the temple preistesses who represented the furtility Gods. By having sex with these prostitutes they believed their fields would be more furtile.

In Rome, the Latin prostitutes would hang out in small alley's and behind small L shaped walls. In Latin the shape is called FORNIX, hence the place association with acts of prostitution gave "fornicatio" Where Paul was condemning sex goddess, cultic, prostitution or trafficking in slaves for that purpose, the Latin fathers substituted 'fornicatio', which led readers to believe that Paul was condemning all forms of premarital sexual intercourse."

Some modern English Bible versions translate "porneia" as "sexual immorality", a term which is supposed to clarify the somewhat obscure and dated "fornication", but is really a catch-all term that allows interpreters, both professional and lay, to apply this passage to any sexual behavior at all, far beyond the specific practices to which Paul refers.

From "Halley's Bible Handbook" 1 Cor. 6: 9-20; "Venus was the principal Deity of Corinth. Her temple was one of the most magnificent buildings in the city. In it a thousand Priestesses, Public Prostitutes, were kept, at public expense, there always ready for Immoral Indulgence, as worship to their Goddess." The Christians continued to go to the temple for sexual indulgences with the priestesses of Venus. This was all Paul was talking about and he says nothing about loving sexual pleasure-sharing with non-goddesses'!

It does violation to the Biblical text to assume I Cor.6:9 includes pre-marital sex, especially since that is not the context of the discussion, either of that chapter or of the surrounding chapters. The context of I Cor.6 is the problems with the Temple of Aphrodite. Sex with those prostitutes was idolatrous. The argument that Paul condemns singles' sex here or anywhere else in scripture is faulty interpretation. Such a position is illogical because your assumptions are based on emotional constructs rather than on history and on hard evidence.

Nothing in the NT indicates any prohibition of singles' sexuality. It seems that if we apply Jesus' teaching of love over legalism, responsible Christian sexuality is much more an example of Christ's loving desire for us than the traditional biblical values of many wives, concubines as breeders, and capturing women in battle for soldiers' sexual pleasure!

A Prodigy poster said: "..I think that David H's post cannot be so easily dismissed. I am not a theologian-although I did attend a seminary...and I have studied a fair amount of Greek.....While at the seminary, I wrote a paper on the translation of "porneia". As you must know if you have studied the question, "fornication" is a bald mistranslation of "porneia" (even my very conservative Greek professor conceded this point). If one discounts the N.T. passages containing this mistranslation--including the selection from Thessalonians...there is little remaining support for the position that the Bible condemns premarital sexuality....if one takes an objective view of what the Bible has to say on the subject, sexuality outside of marriage seems to be accepted....I would also acknowledge that most people would be happier...if they would simply accept the church's traditional position...But to condemn all sexuality outside of marriage as sin seems to go well beyond what the Bible teaches--and Paul has a good deal to say about that in Galatians."

All of us should search our own spirits. God can lead people differently, resulting in reaching different people in sharing Christ's love. We also must respect others' beliefs but try not to cause another to stumble, since some cannot handle emotionally anything other than the traditional Church


Sent in by Dave in Phoenix

His website is at [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]http://www.libchrist.com[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
His Discussion Board is at [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]http://forums.delphiforums.com/libchrust/messages[/SIZE]

 

[Davidjayjordan]

DavidJayGordon, Basically, You ask me the questions and that way we can start the conversation. I don't know where to start or what page you're on etc. Just ask me some questions about what this discussion is about and I'll answer and that can start the discussion.

Other discussions are happenning right now as others are getting into the fun of sexual education away from church indocrination. So Dustin, can I sugggest that you just start a calim, of Sex Evolved thread right HERE in the religion Section as it is your religious view.

And I shall respond thereon....... but not as the fearful do with mere attacks and counterpoints, but with the counter CLAIM that jesus created Sex.

I'll look for it, and then you weill have to try and control the thread and the mob that won;t attack you but me. For the majority of them are of your religious [persuasion.

Got to fly literally

david

 

[ReligionStudent]

JFisher, you are so shallow and just want Yes or No answers rather than depth and discernment and values.

As mentioned, sex should be for the mature and the loving rather than the young and the immature. A true union of hearts takes maturity and love and responsibility. It takes depth and brings on depth.

But YES, we should start a whole thread on the topic of why church morality concerning sexuality is NOT from the Lord but from Paul and his legalistic buddies.

Bruto should start off this discussion, but he has turned shallow on us, after his initial great break though TRUTH. We shall hereafter it deem it Bruto-nian Truth.

It being that Paul was not always writing in the Spirit, but gave his personal opinion sometimes which was not the LORD's LAW of LOVE.

Start a new thread, every time I do it gets deleted as I would win another argument or the heated up ones would cause it to get deleted.

Ahhh sex and heat, and the heat it causes the frustrated ones.

How do you judge mature and loving? That is completely cultural. The age we see marriage etc as being the norm in america is different accross the world and has even changed within America's recent history.

How do you know Paul was not writing with the spirit of YWHW (other than it not existing at all) You only appear to say this because you do not agree with it. That is not an actual supportable reason.

 

[Kochanski]

Yes. Kochanski for you this is not a discussion or a debate, it is just a sounding board for your rants against the Lord.

But if you lost your fear of discussing things openly , you might come out from behind your barriers and sheltered existence so that you could face these truths.

DJJ, I long ago analyzed and discarded your "lord". I have no fear, no barriers and I do not live a sheltered existence, unlike people who refuse to actually take the time to learn and understand about evolution through natural selection.

I do not rant against your "lord" for me that concept is a non-starter, completely meaningless. I have no need for an imaginary sky-daddy.

I broke down the barriers put up by religion long ago and discarded fear. I broke down the barriers long ago and discarded ignorance. I broke down the barriers long ago and embraced skepticism and doubt. I live a healthy & happy existence.

You make unsubstantiated assertions here. There is no proof that Jesus created sex. You have not supported that in any way. Remember words from a musty old book written by men are NOT proof.

Evolution on the other hand has much support. Much evidence provided by many sciences. Much evidence that shows that this is the best answer to how we got here from earlier life forms.

Sex existed before humans DJJ and if you had paid attention in class you would know that too. You however, do not want to acknowledge that because it might shake your faith. You are a coward. How weak is your faith that it will not stand up to examination.

 

[Hokulele]

So you want to know how sex could evolve? I think we should first start with the basics, and find out how much you already know. So, here is a simple quiz.

DJJ, please take this quiz so I can determine how best to address your question. I tried once earlier in this thread, but you demonstrated that you had no idea what I was talking about, so I want to make sure I don't go over your head again. Here we go:

1) Which chromosomal pair represents the human female gender, XX or XY?

2) Which of the following use sexual reproduction techniques:

Boa Constrictors
Tiger lilies
Humans
Puffball mushrooms
Ridley's sea turtles
Mildew
Portugese Man-O-War jellyfish
Maple trees
Very small rocks

3) How many sexes are represented in the natural world (1? 2? 3? More?)?

4) In the human reproductive cycle, which happens first, implantation or fertilization?

5) Which of the following exists mainly as a single-stranded molecule, RNA or DNA?

This isn't a complete quiz, but at least it gives me an idea of your level of understanding basic biology. I will address your evolution question once you have taken this quiz.

 

[strathmeyer]

I and others and all of us are required to help those that are in sincere need and want help. But if it is just pretense we are not responsible.

If you are pretending and mocking the Lord, you just condemn yourself further, Starth., and make things harder on yourself.

If you are sincere, just write me privately as others have done, and I will help you in private as your problems are not to be publicly discussed. Surely you know this.

Why would I want to contact you personally so that you can privately make fun of me and hide what a horrible person you are? Why are you assuming that I am pretending and mocking your Lord? Why do you assume so many things about me? I want to discuss this in public. This is why I am asking you questions. You didn't try to answer those questions in private or public. What's the use of you ignoring my questions that I ask you in private?

Why are you so mean and antagonistic towards me? Why won't you answer my questions? Why won't you help me? At the very least, stop making fun of me by making negative assumptions about me, please.