What the hell does God have against sex??
The Christian god, and then necessarily Christians, hates man and in what other way can you harm man to such a degree without attacking and destroy our sexuality?
What the hell does God have against sex??
Once I had a Wiccan girlfriend cry out "Jesus!"Rofl, a Christian friend once came to me and told me he saw a comedian ask a funny question and he said he thought of me; "What does an atheist cry out during climax?"
Of course my first question was, "Why are you contemplating my orgasms?" But my answer to the original question was,"I usually yell out, 'honey, wake up, I'm almost there."![]()
Once I had a Wiccan girlfriend cry out "Jesus!"
I told her "Don't you know you are not supposed to swear by other people's deities?"
She did not think it was very funny.
Paul Bethke chronology places mankind's creation at exactly 5770 years ago. So what?
Of course it's not. It's all about profit and power. It's not useful to anything except itself. On the contrary, it's quite harmful. Your take?
shadron said:radrook said:Why? There are practical social reasons. Sex outside wedlock produces children unprotected by the llaws of heredity. It encourages irresponsibility of those who only want a good time but are unwilling to answer for the consequences by mannng up. It increases the likelihood of STD incidences. It tends to disrupt family unity via the creation of jealosies.
Makes you wonder what we did for the preceding 198,000 years, without any sexual guidance, laws of heredity, and irresponsible guys not manning up, doesn't it? And STDs and jealousy, of course. Society has only our best interests at heart, isn't that so?
Biblical chronology places mankind's creation at approx 6000 years ago.
But it is still unargued that the laws "age" as society advances, and can often run afoul of their own good intentions as applied to unforeseen circumstance. What may have been appropriate for itinerant herders probably won't work for city dwellers. We do have the legal institutions to handle divorce (they even had that in the middle ages), and the medical to handle out-of-wedlock sex.That can happen and has happened. Yet laws or principles can't be judged on that basis alone. In fact, how humans misuse a good law for their own profit is totally irrelevant to that law's appropriateness or value top interpersonal and societal well-being.Yes, I agree that society is, on the main, a good thing. I also think that laws which may seem right and proper at the time tend to ossify with age, particularly when the law-maintainers loose sight of the reasons and just follow the forms, especially when the maintainers find they can advance themselves over the rabble by a little judicious over-stepping and rigidity.
Official? Who's official? I'm sure we can find a whole spectrum of opinions on that, within sociology. That fact that religion, in our society has to rant to regain a bunch of it's lost ground in civil (marital) affairs indicates to me its usefulness.The twain need not be mutually exclusive. As for uselessness, that's not the official sociological view of religion as an institution.But I am glad we're recognizing societal needs here and not appealing to the "needs" of a god or religion. Society is bad enough about useless traditions; religion makes it much worse.
Here's another one: it's ridiculous ******** made up by primitive men.
Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 65), a native of the East early last century, bore with some patience the misinterpretations of modern Westerners (he named Robert Ingersoll particularly) who read the Bible through their eyes and tastes and missed certain points about what was being said and done. The particular instance of John 21:20 represents a custom "in perfect harmony with Syrian customs. How often have I seen men friends in such an attitude. There is not the slightest infringement of the rules of propriety; the act was as natural to us all as shaking hands. The practice is especially indulged in when intimate friends are about to part from one another, as on the eve of a journey, or when about the face a dangerous undertaking. Then they sit with their heads leaning against each other, or the one's head resting upon the other's shoulder or breast."
By the same token, Easterners will use "terms of unbounded intimacy and unrestrained affection" to one another: "my soul," "my eyes," "my heart." Paul's holy kiss (Rom. 16:16, etc) is no more of a homosexual exchange.
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html
So not everyone agrees with your 180,000 year period of being without guidence.
Not my take.
Basic sociology teaches otherwise.
How can the author of the articler be a primitive man? Are you saying he is a throwback? LOL!
Here is an explanation to that passage:
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/Exodus42426.html
Here's another one: it's ridiculous ******** made up by primitive men.
So you have no problem with safe gay sex.
Oh-kay. Let's see the context...
It is fairly obvious that I was referring to another explanation of the bible passage, and not the article. Reading comprehension: FAIL.
I didn't see Radrook address this:
God hates entertainment. Anything that distracts you from talking about how great he is. Video games, dancing, music that's not about him, sex, masturbation, television and books that aren't about him, etc.
This is also, as I understand it, the Jewish attitude.
they all call out God and Jesus at some stage in their life, if not everytime!! maybe thats why they are so heavy on it tooOnce I had a Wiccan girlfriend cry out "Jesus!"
I told her "Don't you know you are not supposed to swear by other people's deities?"
She did not think it was very funny.