Why are religious guys such man shamers/pvssy beggers?

[Poonani Maker]

No, Paul said to avoid fornication let every man have a wife (1 Cor 7:2).

He also said it is better to marry than to burn (1 Cor 7:9).

He discouraged seeing "prostitutes" if one is not married and burning.
(1 Cor 6:16).

Paul, like most DJ's, will discourage guys from taking the easy-way out to get laid and use prostitutes. Most people on here probably agree, that prostitutes, not a good thing. But, hey, to each their own.

Paul is saying it's better to marry than to masturbate and look at porn.

I don't see anything wrong with this teaching.

If you aren't married though then that could lead to some serious issues on how you can interpret this text though.

St. Paul crammed so many alien concepts, and the late, really sick ones, into the mouth of Jesus that no one even discusses them.

There is no that Jesus advocated the sterility for all that was the cornerstone of Paul’s teachings. In fact, Jesus’ first recorded miracle took place when he blessed the Wedding at Cana.

But Paul specifically told all young Christian women that they should never marry or beget and should abstain as he had. Sex, Paul told all, was evil, and the only reason a woman should marry is the extreme case where she could not abstain:

“It is better to marry than to burn.” Whether he meant burn with passion or burn in Hell he did not specify.

It is impossible to make this famous doctrine of St. Paul jibe with the Jesus at Cana.

So naturally no one who is publishable or officially an expert is going to MENTION it. The Jesus who hated all mention of sex and equated women with evil could not have been married or have had normal sex. Yet when a novelists makes a case for Jesus being a normal male of his time and place, the Church’s reaction was not shock or denunciation, it was Silence.

We can only learn the important lessons when we listen to the silence rather than to the noise.

 

[corrector]

There is no that Jesus advocated the sterility for all that was the cornerstone of Paul’s teachings. In fact, Jesus’ first recorded miracle took place when he blessed the Wedding at Cana.

Paul said getting married is better than fornication. Are you married, Poonani Maker, or are you fornicating? Paul said, get married in 1 Cor 7:2.

Since you guys have an easy time seducing or fornicating with women, you have no excuse as far as this teaching is concerned as you can easily seduce and marry a woman as well so I don't get what the fuss is about.

Why pick on St. Paul?

He says the real Don Juan will marry rather than engage in futile endless conquests that won't produce any family or go with a prostitute. If you ask me, he knows what he is talking about.

But Paul specifically told all young Christian women that they should never marry or beget and should abstain as he had. Sex, Paul told all, was evil, and the only reason a woman should marry is the extreme case where she could not abstain:

He never said that. He said that divorced women who are divorced because they walk out on their husbands should not marry anyone else except their ex-husband again. 1 Cor 7:10.

This is an example of an alpha guy who stands up to this femi-nazi society. He is saying, don't put up with a woman's bullsh1t. Don't deal with a woman who screwed another guy by walking out or divorcing him. For other types of women he made no such prohibition.

Isn't it also taught here that a man must be in control and stand up to women? St. Paul says that a man is the head of the home and his wife should be submissive to him. Again, he teaches men not to be pvssy-whipped by women but to stand up to them as husband and wife -- and love them too.

“It is better to marry than to burn.” Whether he meant burn with passion or burn in Hell he did not specify.

If it is hell then it would appear that God is biased against single people and teenagers who has reached puberty and just has it in for them, or people who have a difficult time finding a girlfriend.

Probably passion. But then again, he discourages going to prostitutes to deal with this passion in 1 Cor 6:16. People have interpreted this to apply to porn or any lustful thought as being the same as seeing a prostitute. This is where things get tricky.

But getting married doesn't solve anything though. Did you know that most men who frequent prostitutes are actually married or have a girlfriend? It doesn't seem like single guys have a problem as much as married people with "burning in passion".

If you listen to most DJ advice it says the same thing. Don't go to prostitutes, learn to seduce a woman -- it's just the marrying part that is a contention here that people aren't getting.

It is impossible to make this famous doctrine of St. Paul jibe with the Jesus at Cana.

So naturally no one who is publishable or officially an expert is going to MENTION it. The Jesus who hated all mention of sex and equated women with evil could not have been married or have had normal sex. Yet when a novelists makes a case for Jesus being a normal male of his time and place, the Church’s reaction was not shock or denunciation, it was Silence.

We can only learn the important lessons when we listen to the silence rather than to the noise.

Turning water into wine is not sexual.

 

[corrector]

There is no that Jesus advocated the sterility for all that was the cornerstone of Paul’s teachings. In fact, Jesus’ first recorded miracle took place when he blessed the Wedding at Cana.

Paul said getting married is better than fornication. Are you married, Poonani Maker, or are you fornicating? Paul said, get married in 1 Cor 7:2.

Since you guys have an easy time seducing or fornicating with women, you have no excuse as far as this teaching is concerned as you can easily seduce and marry a woman as well so I don't get what the fuss is about.

Why pick on St. Paul?

He says the real Don Juan will marry rather than engage in futile endless conquests that won't produce any family or go with a prostitute. If you ask me, he knows what he is talking about.

But Paul specifically told all young Christian women that they should never marry or beget and should abstain as he had. Sex, Paul told all, was evil, and the only reason a woman should marry is the extreme case where she could not abstain:

He never said that. He said that divorced women who are divorced because they walk out on their husbands should not marry anyone else except their ex-husband again. 1 Cor 7:10.

This is an example of an alpha guy who stands up to this femi-nazi society. He is saying, don't put up with a woman's bullsh1t. Don't deal with a woman who screwed another guy by walking out or divorcing him. For other types of women he made no such prohibition.

Isn't it also taught here that a man must be in control and stand up to women? St. Paul says that a man is the head of the home and his wife should be submissive to him. Again, he teaches men not to be pvssy-whipped by women but to stand up to them as husband and wife -- and love them too.

“It is better to marry than to burn.” Whether he meant burn with passion or burn in Hell he did not specify.

If it is hell then it would appear that God is biased against single people and teenagers who has reached puberty and just has it in for them, or people who have a difficult time finding a girlfriend.

Probably passion. But then again, he discourages going to prostitutes to deal with this passion in 1 Cor 6:16. People have interpreted this to apply to porn or any lustful thought as being the same as seeing a prostitute. This is where things get tricky.

But getting married doesn't solve anything though. Did you know that most men who frequent prostitutes are actually married or have a girlfriend? It doesn't seem like single guys have a problem as much as married people with "burning in passion".

If you listen to most DJ advice it says the same thing. Don't go to prostitutes, learn to seduce a woman -- it's just the marrying part that is a contention here that people aren't getting.

It is impossible to make this famous doctrine of St. Paul jibe with the Jesus at Cana.

So naturally no one who is publishable or officially an expert is going to MENTION it. The Jesus who hated all mention of sex and equated women with evil could not have been married or have had normal sex. Yet when a novelists makes a case for Jesus being a normal male of his time and place, the Church’s reaction was not shock or denunciation, it was Silence.

We can only learn the important lessons when we listen to the silence rather than to the noise.

Turning water into wine is not sexual.

 

[backbreaker]

anyone trying to take anything in the bible from paul in regards to sexuality or marriage is not someone i can take seriously.


Paul, above all, thought sex, married or unmarried was the downfall of mankind and stressed to all to be pure/chastised as he believed that sexuality was the root of most evil.


however, being a pragmatist he believed that marriage was better than single people having sex and that sex in a controlled environment was better than sex in an uncontrolled environment. (first Corinthians, chapter 7 verse 7)


why the hell would you come to a DJ forum and preach the gospel of someone who doesn't believe in women lol


you guys are arguing over a biblical technicality basically. Paul never taught that you would go to hell if you weren't' sterile as PM pointed out, but he clearly did not believe in "women" lol and felt that the only way you can get close, or as close as possible to god is to steer clear from aLL temptations including women.

to put that in a non bibligcal standpoint, he's saying that the only way you can maximize your self worth is to steer clear of women. that's not something i agree with and that goes against my hard wired programming. I could care less what paul has to say honestly in this regard.

And PM is correct in the sense that if you take a broader look at it, Paul was just bat**** crazy in general.

while i don't have a problem bringing the bible to this forum, I kinda do have a problem bringing the teachings of a guy who was fanatical about not ****ing women lol.. that kinda defeats the purpose of this website.


lol, it's funny the conversation has turned to saint paul. saint paul is a microcosm of sosuave.

Saint paul in the eyes of Christians is the pillar or one of them of the christian church. not beucase he was a brilliant mind or beucase he actually contributed the most to from a progressive standpoint.. that was saint peter lol the church was not built on saint paul's rock... no.. but beucase he wrote 13 of the 27 books of the new testament.

lol, how is that not sosuave? you got 11 disciples out there, out there spreading the word about Jesus, mingling with Romans, jews, everyone trying to move things forward in the real world and you got one guy coming up with bat **** crazy ideas while sitting in his cellar writing for the majority of his life after Jesus died. Peter, Matthew, John, they said what the hell they had to say and that was it.. By the time he wrote revelations he had gone completely off the scale.

and as "important" as he is, they couldn't even give him one of the big 4 books in the new testament.. Matthew, mark, Luke, john in Jesus eyes are all more important than Paul was. yet Paul wrote half the freaking new testament.

If i were a christian, i'd stop at Matthew, mark, luke and john.

 

[corrector]

anyone trying to take anything in the bible from paul in regards to sexuality or marriage is not someone i can take seriously.

Then why are you replying to this crazy hijack?

Paul, above all, thought sex, married or unmarried was the downfall of mankind and stressed to all to be pure/chastised as he believed that sexuality was the root of most evil.

Why don't you quote the Bible where St. Paul or the Bible said that? Paul said that the love of money was the root of the most evil (1 Timothy 6:10), he never said sex.

however, being a pragmatist he believed that marriage was better than single people having sex and that sex in a controlled environment was better than sex in an uncontrolled environment. (first Corinthians, chapter 7 verse 7)

You mean 1 Cor 7:2, 9, and also 1 Cor 5:1. You have to also understand, that people who fornicate don't make it (1 Cor 6:9).

It's not simple pragmatism as you suggest. St. Paul really does say that the body (of the born-again Christian) who has the down-payment of their future resurrection -- I am a living temple of God. The sacrifice we are expected to make is to make our bodies a living sacrifice to God. (Rom 12:1-5).

For what it's worth, it seems any other sex apart from marital sex is "defiling" the temple. To put this on a level of pragmatism misses entirely a spiritual dynamic that Paul is talking about but you'd understand if you read the text.
I don't understand all of these spiritual dynamics myself.

Paul says we are in a middle of a spiritual war in Ephesians 6. He also talks to Timothy in his letter to Timothy as though he was a solider in an army. If you don't understand that we are in a spiritual war then you can not understand the context of Paul's writings.

For example, a solider is not going to fight if he's tied up at home and has other obligations. He'll be distracted and miss out on what he has to do.
If there was no spiritual war, no demons, etc... then Paul probably wouldn't say much about sex.

why the hell would you come to a DJ forum and preach the gospel of someone who doesn't believe in women lol

Because, I have absorbed this "board" and have also absorbed Paul's teachings to fuse a new entity together. I can see some parallels between what Paul says and what this board says on a lower level.

I have pointed out similarities. Does this board really believe in women? If you look at the negative threads, I may come to the same conclusion too...that it's good not to touch a woman. Need I bring up some examples of negative threads on here?

Again, I'm not preaching the gospel of anyone. I'm simply a mirror of this board and I'm reflecting this back on you.

you guys are arguing over a biblical technicality basically. Paul never taught that you would go to hell if you weren't' sterile as PM pointed out, but he clearly did not believe in "women" lol and felt that the only way you can get close, or as close as possible to god is to steer clear from aLL temptations including women.

Paul never said what you are saying. I quote Bible verses to back up what I say. What do you quote?

The church of Corinth had a problem with fornication (1 Cor 5:1). Paul is addressing this problem in 1 Cor 7. He was talking to this church. He said it's better for people to marry than to fornicate.

People on here like to have sex. Therefore they should marry. If they don't care about having sex, then they should stay celibate. This is what Paul is saying (1 Cor 7:2,9) Back up what YOU think Paul is saying.

while i don't have a problem bringing the bible to this forum, I kinda do have a probelm bringing the teachings of a guy who was fanatical about not ****ing women lol.. that kinda defeats the purpose of this website.

Again, you can't prove anything you are saying. Where did Paul say what you are saying?

 

[Bible_Belt]

I'm not a big Paul fan, either. I don't think most of his writings should have been included in the New Testament.

One thing that most people don't understand, though, is that Corinthians, which contains all the anti-sex stuff, was written to people who were participating in goddess worship. It was a competing religion of the time. The goddess temple was basically a wh0rehouse. You paid the priest an offering, which was your ticket into a big drunken orgy. I'm sure it was fun, but at the time there were no condoms or medical care for STDs, so avoiding "fornication" was pretty sound advice.

 

[backbreaker]

I'm not a big Paul fan, either. I don't think most of his writings should have been included in the New Testament.

One thing that most people don't understand, though, is that Corinthians, which contains all the anti-sex stuff, was written to people who were participating in goddess worship. It was a competing religion of the time. The goddess temple was basically a wh0rehouse. You paid the priest an offering, which was your ticket into a big drunken orgy. I'm sure it was fun, but at the time there were no condoms or medical care for STDs, so avoiding "fornication" was pretty sound advice.

now that's what 's up

 

[corrector]

I'm not a big Paul fan, either. I don't think most of his writings should have been included in the New Testament.

One thing that most people don't understand, though, is that Corinthians, which contains all the anti-sex stuff, was written to people who were participating in goddess worship. It was a competing religion of the time. The goddess temple was basically a wh0rehouse. You paid the priest an offering, which was your ticket into a big drunken orgy. I'm sure it was fun, but at the time there were no condoms or medical care for STDs, so avoiding "fornication" was pretty sound advice.

Yeah, but that only covers 1 Cor 6:16 at best. 1 Cor 7:2 (marry instead of fornicating) is dealing with 1 Cor 5 and 7. 1 Cor 6 deals with temple prostitutes.

I think the gist of 1 Cor 5:1 is that pre-maritial (i.e. fornication) sex was commonly occurring inside the church. That is not to say that some Christians inside the church may have secretly went with a temple prostitute. Also if it had a sex-lib culture, probably fornication crept inside the church as well.

The 7th chapter seems to be dealing with people inside the church itself. In that chapter it deals with it's better to marry than to fornicate -- not the 6th chapter. The 6th chapter says that, the way it's worded, that it's an abomination for a born-again Christian to go with a temple prostitute. To me that's a no-brainer. I wouldn't go into a Hindu temple, or any temple as a Christian whether there are prostitutes there or not as part of the worship..the idea of that is disgusting.

So, I do not how a temple prostitute is extrapolated to include all forms of pornography, nude women, masturbation, fornication or secular prostitutes so I have to concede the point. It would seem that a temple prostitute is black and white blatant. These other types of sexual sins that could be associated with this seems more greyish -- but the hyper-spiritual angle will see this as the worship of "lust" or some other spirit even if there is no idol present representing the spirit. The idea is that you are not giving glory to God by doing that but to some other entity, where, even if it is a secular context with no representation of a god or goddess, is still stealing the glory due to God.

Gods or goddesses are merely representations of demon spirits. The pagan society of old blatantly worshipped them. But, could a secular society also worship these pagan dieties without having an actual idol?

The Trinidad Carnival came from Bacchanalia...a Roman pagan festival that changed into a secular sexual dance and costume festival with drunkenness. A more interesting discussion is how is 1 Cor 6:16 extrapolated to implicate porn, nude women, and sexual thoughts because a temple prostitute sounds allot different than wacking off to a nude woman on the internet. Yet, there are interpretations out there that would link them to the same thing.

The idea that sex with another person is a spiritual union comes from 1 Cor 6.
If you marry a non-believer it's also similar to such a spiritual union (2 Cor 6:14). Paul takes a hard stand against fornication on 1 Cor 6:9, and Gal 5 and says people who indulge in flesh sins will go to hell.

That being said, Paul didn't talk about going to Roman bathhouses and masturbating to naked women there, or slave women resisting masters who demanded sex from them, or what he meant by it's better to marry than to burn (1 Cor 7:9) which leaves allot of loose ends, IMO, towards sexual fantasy.

 

[zekko]

He says the real Don Juan will marry rather than engage in futile endless conquests that won't produce any family or go with a prostitute.

I wasn't aware that St. Paul wrote about Don Juans. Maybe he was a poster here under a different name at one time. Has anyone seen St. Paul and Pook together at the same time?

I think Paul's an ok guy, although I agree he was kind of hung up on sex. He's probably right in that if you want to attain the highest possible spiritual state of closeness to God, maybe you're better off abstaining - aka "holding your chi" or avoiding the pleasures of the flesh. Curiously, the opposite may be true also.

Look at monks, not only do they abstain, they take vows of poverty as well. They basically make themselves nothing in the material world in order to devote themselves fully to the spirit. I'm sure most guys on this forum would just consider that a bunch of BS though.

I have pointed out similarities. Does this board really believe in women? If you look at the negative threads, I may come to the same conclusion too...that it's good not to touch a woman

Hard to argue with that lol.

 

[backbreaker]

I wasn't aware that St. Paul wrote about Don Juans. Maybe he was a poster here under a different name at one time. Has anyone seen St. Paul and Pook together at the same time?

I think Paul's an ok guy, although I agree he was kind of hung up on sex. He's probably right in that if you want to attain the highest possible spiritual state of closeness to God, maybe you're better off abstaining - aka "holding your chi" or avoiding the pleasures of the flesh. Curiously, the opposite may be true also.

Look at monks, not only do they abstain, they take vows of poverty as well. They basically make themselves nothing in the material world in order to devote themselves fully to the spirit. I'm sure most guys on this forum would just consider that a bunch of BS though.


Hard to argue with that lol.

in the beginning of every AA meeting there a reading of the 12 steps which are quite popular in culture. but what is less popular is the paragraph before they get to the 12 steps and in it, it reads "if you want what we have, and are willing to go to any length to get it then you are willing to take certain steps"

See, that's the hang up I have with Saint Paul. With Christianity as a whole to a lesser extent, but in this particular thread and in this particular matter, Saint Paul. I don't want what he has lol. I really don't. I don't care what he tells me in regards to sex or marriage or wealth or heaven or hell or gentiles, because, I don't want what saint paul has.


There are people that do. I'm not by any stretch militant. Hell I'm not even an athiest I believe in a god, but i"m not religious, I'm more spiritual than religious.. a deist if you will. I'm firmly convinced something is out there, I just don't think the bible is it. But you know, I'm not militant about it. If you believe that this floats your boat and you want what the 12 deiciples have, then by all mean, do what they say. But I like woman. i like ot have sex. I like to have kinky sex lol. I like sleeping with harlots when i'm single. I like to accumulate money. I very much enjoy worldly pleasures. I think overall I'm a pretty good guy, I help out, I donate my time and my money when need be to causes that I think are worthwhile to me and as a whole if i had to account for myself to someone I could do so with my head held high. If this makes me a evil person than I'm just an evil person.


The reason I use the AA analogy is beucase I personally see a times, people using the bible as another relationship buffer and it reminds me of someone cherry picking what steps they want to work beucase they don't like all of them. A lot of Christians are like that, they like the part about going to heaven and being faithful and not killing people but don't like the part where jesus says.. lol, out of his own mouth mind you, but woe onto the rich for you have received your consolation.. and i have no respect for those Christians in that sense beucase they are doing nothing but using the bible to back up whatever is their own personal moralities.

In other words, not only can the AFC beta male not get women, he doubles down and uses the bible to shun getting women outside of marriage, so he goes from wanting to get women and can't, to convincing himself that he doesn't want women and thumbing his nose down at the people who do, and the love that he has for the woman's flesh turns into hatred.

One of the best documentaries, if not the best i have ever seen in my life is called nietzsche and the nazis's. He has a very interesting theory that, and I mean he's true in a factual manner that, the bible is written more as a slave /inhabitant survival guide that cannot be applied to today's society.. telling a bunch of people who are slaves that it's better to be poor than to be rich is going to be a smash hit with the crowd and the promise of heaven to the poor is right up their alley, telling men to turn the other cheek when slapped by another man is a survival strategy not a moral necessity. It's why american slaves were so deep rooted in the bible.

I mean, in an age where you were sleeping with the wrong woman could get you stoned, no real form of contraception, and as BB so astutely quiolanly pointed out there was a competing religion that focused on out of marriage sex and it was a good idea to have a strong selling point against this practice, going around telling men not to sleep wtih women that you aren't married to or you are going to hell, or even taking it to that next level and saying, don't sleep with any women, is pretty smart if not pratcial advice. It's what i'd do or say 2000 years ago if I were in the same position. But it really doesn't, at least to me, hold it's weight in today's society.

If it does for you that's good for you, but it doesn't for me and i don't care where they say I'm gonna go beucase of it either.

you have to understand that from a.. from a control standpoint.. going to hell is pretty much all you could punish someone back then with.

 

[Down Low]

Look at monks, not only do they abstain, they take vows of poverty as well. They basically make themselves nothing in the material world in order to devote themselves fully to the spirit. I'm sure most guys on this forum would just consider that a bunch of BS though.

I wouldn't. After enough bvll sh1t is dumped on you, it makes you long for some place to retreat for quiet solitude and reflection. I didn't use to understand what motivated monks. Now I do.

I'm sure it was fun, but at the time there were no condoms or medical care for STDs, so avoiding "fornication" was pretty sound advice.

Gonorrhea and syphillis came from the New World. But yeah, I imagine the actual penalty for fvcking around was yeast infections and bacterial vaginitis.

 

[corrector]

See, that's the hang up I have with Saint Paul. With Christianity as a whole to a lesser extent, but in this particular thread and in this particular matter, Saint Paul. I don't want what he has lol. I really don't. I don't care what he tells me in regards to sex or marriage or wealth or heaven or hell or gentiles, because, I don't want what saint paul has.

St. Paul is writing to the Corinthian church. That's in Corinth, Greece by the way. There are ruins there, but it was a real place at one time.

When people want to engage a theological discussion, and misquote from him, then the facts should be made straight about what he said.

If you are not "saved", which clearly by your writings you are not, then you are right, it doesn't matter whether you obey or disobey Paul's writings because you are still in your sins.

That is why Jesus said that you must be born-again or you can't see the kingdom of God.

There are people that do. I'm not by any stretch militant. Hell I'm not even an athiest I believe in a god,

Friend, the devil believes in God too.

James 2:19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."


but i"m not religious, I'm more spiritual than religious.. a deist if you will. I'm firmly convinced something is out there, I just don't think the bible is it.
[/quote]

That's fine, but it still doesn't change the fact that you are still in your sins and if you died in your sins you would go to hell. It just makes you more comfortable on this side of the fence because ignorance is bliss. The other side is too late.

But you know, I'm not militant about it. If you believe that this floats your boat and you want what the 12 deiciples have, then by all mean, do what they say. But I like woman. i like ot have sex. I like to have kinky sex lol. I like sleeping with harlots when i'm single. I like to accumulate money. I very much enjoy worldly pleasures. I think overall I'm a pretty good guy, I help out, I donate my time and my money when need be to causes that I think are worthwhile to me and as a whole if i had to account for myself to someone I could do so with my head held high. If this makes me a evil person than I'm just an evil person.

According to the Bible, if you have hated someone without a cause then you are a murderer. If you have sex with women who is not your wife then you are an adulterer. If you have lied then you have born false witness. If you've looked at pirated movies then you are thief, etc....

God looks at every sin the same way because sin is sin and all sin deserves death. Even the good works you claim to do has the wrong motivations or is easing your conscience, and it is not anything God would accept.

All your good works are as filthy rags to God. (Is 64:6).

You see things your way. God sees things His way. You can not presume that how your see things in your self-willed life is the same way God will see you.

The reason I use the AA analogy is beucase I personally see a times, people using the bible as another relationship buffer and it reminds me of someone cherry picking what steps they want to work beucase they don't like all of them. A lot of Christians are like that, they like the part about going to heaven and being faithful and not killing people but don't like the part where jesus says.. lol, out of his own mouth mind you, but woe onto the rich for you have received your consolation.. and i have no respect for those Christians in that sense beucase they are doing nothing but using the bible to back up whatever is their own personal moralities.

But you just said you like accumulating money on your post. It sounds like you would also have a problem with this.

I don't use the Bible to back up my own personal moralities. I just broke up a perfect relationship with a girl I was going to marry because I listened to what Jesus said. I make tough decisions all the time based on what Jesus says and what Paul says.

In other words, not only can the AFC beta male not get women, he doubles down and uses the bible to shun getting women outside of marriage, so he goes from wanting to get women and can't, to convincing himself that he doesn't want women and thumbing his nose down at the people who do, and the love that he has for the woman's flesh turns into hatred.

I don't understand what the problem is. If you CAN get a woman, then what is preventing you from MARRYING a woman? It is simple to just marry a woman rather than fornicate or have illicit relationships with her.

Don't you see you are trying to twist the Bible into saying it says some extreme thing it doesn't really say so you can justify your sins? The Bible never said not to get a woman for marriage. Why do you think Eve was created for Adam?

We are talking about marriage. Not fornication, not adultery, not divorce and remarriage, but marriage. You need a woman to marry.

I'll repeat again...get a woman and marry her. Does not say no women. Just MARRY the woman.

I mean, in an age where you were sleeping with the wrong woman could get you stoned, no real form of contraception, and as BB so astutely quiolanly pointed out there was a competing religion that focused on out of marriage sex and it was a good idea to have a strong selling point against this practice, going around telling men not to sleep wtih women that you aren't married to or you are going to hell, or even taking it to that next level and saying, don't sleep with any women, is pretty smart if not pratcial advice. It's what i'd do or say 2000 years ago if I were in the same position. But it really doesn't, at least to me, hold it's weight in today's society.

If you sleep with a married woman or bethroed (Jewish engaged) woman then you could get stoned. If you sleep with any other woman, even a prostitute that was fine (although discouraged, but you wouldn't get stoned for that). The OT law is different from the NT. Heck, if you had no DJ skills and had to rely on brute force to rape a woman you would have a wife for life (Deut 22:28-29). In this society if you grope a woman you could go to jail. Doesn't ancient Israel sound allot nicer for men?

I actually like the OT law in terms of sexual relations because you could have mutltiple wives, concubines, fornicate, see prostitutes, look at porn and masturbate and divorce your wife for any reason, and you can also marry a divorced woman. I think you'd like the OT law too because you'd probably get no conviction about sleeping with women, unless she was engaged to be married or was already married to someone else. You said you only used harlots when you are single. We'd both agree that the OT sounds nice and there is no risk of any stoning death unless you only slept with married and engaged to be married women?

So again, you are wrong about people getting stoned for fornication. It's only fornication if it's with some one who was engaged to be married to someone else or it's not recognized as such.

If it does for you that's good for you, but it doesn't for me and i don't care where they say I'm gonna go beucase of it either.

you have to understand that from a.. from a control standpoint.. going to hell is pretty much all you could punish someone back then with.

There are enough NDE's about hell on youtube. Just because you don't believe there is a hell doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

What do you think about that?

 

[zekko]

I don't care what he tells me in regards to sex or marriage or wealth or heaven or hell or gentiles, because, I don't want what saint paul has.

I think what Paul was saying that if you want to be truly spiritually elite, it's better to get your mind off of material things (abstain). But if you aren't interested in being spiritually elite (like the monks), you can always get married. Which I find kind of ironic, because you are married. Whatever path you've taken to get there, you've arrived at the same place Paul said to be, lol.

I like sleeping with harlots when i'm single.

Harlots disgust me. Admittedly, I went through a period when I was younger when I was kind of fond of slvts, because hey, they were at least giving away the candy, right? But I got over that attitude fast. Like they say, a lock that is easily opened is worthless.

Just because you don't believe there is a hell doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

That's true enough. This isn't really the place for theological debate, but I should point out that nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about God burning people alive for all eternity. The wages of sin is death.
The only mention of anyone being tormented forever is the devil, the beast, and the false prophet in Revelation. Which is a supernatural evil trinity, one might argue.

 

[backbreaker]

I think what Paul was saying that if you want to be truly spiritually elite, it's better to get your mind off of material things (abstain). But if you aren't interested in being spiritually elite (like the monks), you can always get married. Which I find kind of ironic, because you are married. Whatever path you've taken to get there, you've arrived at the same place Paul said to be, lol.


Harlots disgust me. Admittedly, I went through a period when I was younger when I was kind of fond of slvts, because hey, they were at least giving away the candy, right? But I got over that attitude fast. Like they say, a lock that is easily opened is worthless.


That's true enough. This isn't really the place for theological debate, but I should point out that nowhere in the Bible does it saying anything about God burning people alive for all eternity. The wages of sin is death.
The only mention of anyone being tormented forever is the devil, the beast, and the false prophet in Revelation. Which is a supernatural evil trinity, one might argue.

The idea of hell as we know it today really comes from the Devine Comedy/ Dante's Inferno more than the bible. The original concept of hell, the bible's version really was just a disconnect from god and his grace Daunte took it to a whole new level though.

 

[corrector]

That's true enough. This isn't really the place for theological debate, but I should point out that nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about God burning people alive for all eternity. The wages of sin is death.
The only mention of anyone being tormented forever is the devil, the beast, and the false prophet in Revelation. Which is a supernatural evil trinity, one might argue.

Rev 20:14 describes a second death being in the lake of fire, or eternal separation from God. Jesus also introduces this in Matt 5.

The beast, and the false prophet are cast alive there. The rest join them after the Great White Thorn judgment. People who die in their sins go to a pre-trial custody area known as Hades before they go to the Great White Throne judgment, are judged for their sins, and are cast into the lake of fire.

I will take my personal civil war away from this board and will stop this discussion for now.

 

[Boilermaker]

It is year 2012 and people still believe a human like entity called "god", described by medieval literature, will punish Kazakh people till eternity because they believe in a different version of "god".

Laughing out loud, crying from within.

 

[Bible_Belt]

(This is a quote from corrector, but the original post was edited)
Christians who have a false sense of security that they can indulge some pet sins, secret sins, or live as they please and still believe they are saved because they said a prayer for Jesus to save them.

The theological debate is called "the scandal of grace." If Jesus will forgive your sins, then it must be ok to sin???

I don't have the answer. But it is a popular question.

 

[MatureDJ]

Everyone is quick to look at the 30 year old woman who is trying to find jesus and think that it's easy pickins for a life long AFC. Adn there is a lot of truth to that, however there is one thing that isn't touched up upon, and to me this is the biggest difference between Christan girls and non christian girls, assuming that all else being equal they are decent enough omen with normal morals, is that non christian women, are forced to face the music in regards to their actions and decisions in a way that christian women don't have to. A Christan woman can explain whatever **** up's she's committed to Satan or god's plan lol. nothing you can do about it? Had a gangbang when you were out of town? Satan was tempting me and I failed, but i asked for forgiveness now so it's all good come here and give me a kiss lol. Was a ***** for pretty much my entire life before i met you? i was out of touch with god, i'm not out of touch anymore so you can't hold that **** against me anymore. lol what the hell can you tell a christian single mom who is 27 and has a 6 year old when she says it was god's plan for me to have the baby.

I'm not saying that non christian woman are BETTER, but beucase they for the most part, don't have the faith that christian women have, they are at the very least, they have to answer some questions about how they played the part of their own behavior. they have to own up to it and at the very least admit they ****ed up, not satan or god's plan or anything like that.

Like my mom to this day, is ****ing selfish beyond belief. and she will say things ilke "well that's the devil working on me but I'm praying for help' and i'm like dammit that's YOU lol. You can stop being selfish whenever you feel like it. She doesn't have to own her actions.

This is the one thing that has always intrigued me about fundies is that they can be wicked as hell, but so long as hey confess it, everything is OK. Then the next week they can be evil again, and confess that away as well. Sometimes it makes me wonder if they really do try to not be evil.

 

[zekko]

Rev 20:14 describes a second death being in the lake of fire, or eternal separation from God. Jesus also introduces this in Matt 5.

The beast, and the false prophet are cast alive there. The rest join them after the Great White Thorn judgment. People who die in their sins go to a pre-trial custody area known as Hades before they go to the Great White Throne judgment, are judged for their sins, and are cast into the lake of fire.

Let me just say this. When seperating the wheat from the chaff, the chaff is cast into the fire to be disposed of, as trash. It isn't cast into the fire to be tormented eternally.