Save sex? (3 Viewers)

[azzie]

Just because you do or don't believe in a certain interpretation of something doesnt make it right nor does it make it wrong. I'm not Jewish or Muslim but I agree those religions have as much validity as Christianity. We're all trying to believe and have faith in something.... we believe in one religion or another- but we all have FAITH. that doesnt mean we can say one religion is right and the others wrong, it means we all see the world in a different way.

in the same way, different christians see different topics in different lights.
nobody is more right or more wrong than anyone else. religion, like ethics (for example) is not a black and white issue, its a series of greys.

 

[princess_ariel]

I think the whole point of saving yourself for marriage is a personal sacrifice to God, in deference to the sanctitiy of matrimony. It's analogous to religious practices such as fasting and meat abstinence. Since sexual relationships are supposed to be definitive of marriage, Christians defer any physical relationship until after being married. It doesn't matter if this is the 21st century and nobody's a virgin anymore - the most important thing is that you live up to your principles in life which you firmly believe in.

I am a Catholic, but it's not the reason I'm a virgin. It's just my staunch belief that something as personal and deep as sex should be done with a person you have every intention of spending the rest of your life with. None among my friends has ever had sex either. It's not really that difficult.

 

[Dougie]

I think the whole point of saving yourself for marriage is a personal sacrifice to God, in deference to the sanctitiy of matrimony. It's analogous to religious practices such as fasting and meat abstinence. Since sexual relationships are supposed to be definitive of marriage, Christians defer any physical relationship until after being married. It doesn't matter if this is the 21st century and nobody's a virgin anymore - the most important thing is that you live up to your principles in life which you firmly believe in.

I am a Catholic, but it's not the reason I'm a virgin. It's just my staunch belief that something as personal and deep as sex should be done with a person you have every intention of spending the rest of your life with. None among my friends has ever had sex either. It's not really that difficult.

i love how u imply the fact that it's a personal choice, who cares what other ppl say!

 

[BradCube]

Just because you do or don't believe in a certain interpretation of something doesnt make it right nor does it make it wrong. I'm not Jewish or Muslim but I agree those religions have as much validity as Christianity. We're all trying to believe and have faith in something.... we believe in one religion or another- but we all have FAITH. that doesnt mean we can say one religion is right and the others wrong, it means we all see the world in a different way.

in the same way, different christians see different topics in different lights.
nobody is more right or more wrong than anyone else. religion, like ethics (for example) is not a black and white issue, its a series of greys.

I'm not looking for an argument on whether abosolute morality can or cannot exist.

Rather I am looking for an explanation of how you interpret the bibles meaning in regard to sex before marriage.

You can say that everyone is right in their own beliefs and interpretations but in the end this is not what I am arguing (although I do have a different point of view on that matter).

Also on a seperate note, your comment about christianity having just as much validity as other religions does not make complete sense to me. Jesus said that there are no other ways to heaven but through him. So either christianity is valid and all other religions are incorrect. Or christianity is invalid and there is the possibility that other religions could be correct. I will assume that you simply meant that many of the values put forward in your two examples of muslim and jews are similar. If you take a look at other religions though, how would you justify that both religions are valid even if they have completely opposing values in some areas?

 

[azzie]

Also on a seperate note, your comment about christianity having just as much validity as other religions does not make complete sense to me. Jesus said that there are no other ways to heaven but through him. So either christianity is valid and all other religions are incorrect. Or christianity is invalid and there is the possibility that other religions could be correct. I will assume that you simply meant that many of the values put forward in your two examples of muslim and jews are similar. If you take a look at other religions though, how would you justify that both religions are valid even if they have completely opposing values in some areas?

I'm saying they're all as valid. That doesn't mean I believe in them, it means I respect them and try my best to understand them. I would never call a religion wrong because every one of them is about FAITH:

faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

 

[BradCube]

I'm saying they're all as valid.

But they cannot be all as valid if one says that the other is not valid.

Either the one saying that the other is invalid is valid (thereby making the other invalid) or, the one saying the other is invalid is infact invalid meaning that in both cases, neither can be just as valid.

(Unless you want to say they are both invalid-thereby giving both the same level of validity)

I'm still keen to hear the explanation of your interpretation regarding sex before marriage in the bible.

 

[azzie]

What's the point in trying to explain what i think to you when every time i explain something to you you skew it in a way to suit yourself and your arguements?

If you want to know then PM me and shiz, why argue here where you know nothing will happen except maybe 16 pages of drivvel where you tell me im wrong.

 

[BradCube]

What's the point in trying to explain what i think to you when every time i explain something to you you skew it in a way to suit yourself and your arguements?

If you want to know then PM me and shiz, why argue here where you know nothing will happen except maybe 16 pages of drivvel where you tell me im wrong.

Azzie, I'm not trying to skew what you say, I honestly just want to understand your views. Since you want to be PM'ed from here on in, that's what I will do.

 

[littlewing69]

I'm not looking for an argument on whether abosolute morality can or cannot exist.

Rather I am looking for an explanation of how you interpret the bibles meaning in regard to sex before marriage.

You can say that everyone is right in their own beliefs and interpretations but in the end this is not what I am arguing (although I do have a different point of view on that matter).

Also on a seperate note, your comment about christianity having just as much validity as other religions does not make complete sense to me. Jesus said that there are no other ways to heaven but through him. So either christianity is valid and all other religions are incorrect. Or christianity is invalid and there is the possibility that other religions could be correct. I will assume that you simply meant that many of the values put forward in your two examples of muslim and jews are similar. If you take a look at other religions though, how would you justify that both religions are valid even if they have completely opposing values in some areas?

Uh..what you mean to say is that the words of Jesus passed down to us, as recorded by some relatively unknown figures, make the exclusive claim you mention. Of course, not every religion can be literally and objectively "true", as they are mutually exclusive. On the other hand, when religious truth claims can never be tested, falsified, or proven, how can you claim one is right, while all others are wrong?

Surely you can see the common thread of spirituality and wisdom running through them all?

 

[BradCube]

Uh..what you mean to say is that the words of Jesus passed down to us, as recorded by some relatively unknown figures, make the exclusive claim you mention. Of course, not every religion can be literally and objectively "true", as they are mutually exclusive. On the other hand, when religious truth claims can never be tested, falsified, or proven, how can you claim one is right, while all others are wrong?

Surely you can see the common thread of spirituality and wisdom running through them all?

At the moment I am not arguing about the authority of the bible. All I am doing is pointing out that if the bible is counted as valid (ie authoritive) then other religious texts cannot be regarded as completely valid. The opposite also rings true in that, if other religious texts are valid, then the bible must not be authoritive/valid.

My point was simply to make the distinction that the bible and another religious text can not be both as valid since the bible conflicts with other texts.

 

[KeypadSDM]

Surely you can see the common thread of spirituality and wisdom running through them all?

I can see the common thread of "Don't have sex". I hate religion.

Love you God...

 

[littlewing69]

At the moment I am not arguing about the authority of the bible. All I am doing is pointing out that if the bible is counted as valid (ie authoritive) then other religious texts cannot be regarded as completely valid. The opposite also rings true in that, if other religious texts are valid, then the bible must not be authoritive/valid.

My point was simply to make the distinction that the bible and another religious text can not be both as valid since the bible conflicts with other texts.

Only if one accepts current Christian orthodoxy which holds that the Bible is the word of God. If you look at it like I do, as a bunch of books written by some smart guys about God, philosophy etc, then you can accept it as just one part of a millenia-long discourse that is represented in different ways according to culture and time in other traditions.

 

[BradCube]

Only if one accepts current Christian orthodoxy which holds that the Bible is the word of God. If you look at it like I do, as a bunch of books written by some smart guys about God, philosophy etc, then you can accept it as just one part of a millenia-long discourse that is represented in different ways according to culture and time in other traditions.

Yeah I can see how that would be fitting because none of them are perfectly valid in that case (or rather do not have authority as a text).

If this is the way you look at this issue, how do you decide which parts to take from each text? Is it just what you believe God should be like? If it is, then in a way, it would seem that by defination, you are creating an idol, or god that suits you. Its just a thought, and since you accept no authority from any text, you could have very well disregarded that law.

 

[littlewing69]

Yeah I can see how that would be fitting because none of them are perfectly valid in that case (or rather do not have authority as a text).

If this is the way you look at this issue, how do you decide which parts to take from each text? Is it just what you believe God should be like? If it is, then in a way, it would seem that by defination, you are creating an idol, or god that suits you. Its just a thought, and since you accept no authority from any text, you could have very well disregarded that law.

Valid point.

I would ask you the same question, though. How come you chose Christianity over the myriad other competing ideologies? Surely you are just picking what you like? And how do you pick what sort of Christian God you want? Vengeful OT YHWH, or all-loving, mellowed out NT Father? How do you pick how you interpret Jesus? At the end of the day, with no objective truth in such metaphysical arguments, we all choose what we believe based on intuition, philosophy and preference.

We both, essentially, pick what we "like", in the sense that we hold it to be true. I think I can philosophically justify, though not prove, the existence of God. I then deduce that such a God has certain characteristics, based on his creation, and I accept the wisdom of others who have written interesting material related to said God. I discard a lot of what Paul wrote, as I feel it corrupts the words of the man he claims to represent. I also read the words of Jesus as an account heavily coloured by the type of men who wrote it down.

I would suggest that we all "create" our own God as we wish, just my creative process is more open than yours. At the end of the day, I'm not convinced God, if God is indeed any sort of anthropomorphic concious force--another debate entirely--would really mind so much about what we choose to believe of him. Except for that Fred Phelps bloke. I'm thinking God would be pretty pissed at him

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Also on a seperate note, your comment about christianity having just as much validity as other religions does not make complete sense to me. Jesus said that there are no other ways to heaven but through him. So either christianity is valid and all other religions are incorrect. Or christianity is invalid and there is the possibility that other religions could be correct. I will assume that you simply meant that many of the values put forward in your two examples of muslim and jews are similar. If you take a look at other religions though, how would you justify that both religions are valid even if they have completely opposing values in some areas?

er... or they're all wrong and therefore all equally (in)valid.

Surely you can see the common thread of spirituality and wisdom running through them all?

I see the common thread of humanity stained over all religions, that's most likely why they're all rather similar.

I think I can philosophically justify, though not prove, the existence of God.

Then I can justify a belief in wizards, it's not that amazing an accomplishment.

I then deduce that such a God has certain characteristics, based on his creation,

By deduce you mean 'guess' right? It's not even a geuss based off of anything solid or testable, it's just a guess.

I accept the wisdom of others who have written interesting material related to said God.

As I do with wizards.

concious force

Well once you remove consciousness from God, you start to get to a definition of God that most people won't have a problem with. If you claim that God IS the natural processes all around us and only that, then sure, I believe in God... I just think it takes the definition so far to render it almost meaningless.

would really mind so much about what we choose to believe of him.

Really? Despite what the overwhelming majority of those 'wise men' wrote about God?

 

[Jeanelle]

Re: save sex

hey im a christian too but hun if u really love him go for it ...... u dnt noe wat ur missin out on lol seriously follow your heart he obviously loves u too if uve been together that long jst follow your gut of course its gona be scary the first time but if u love him its all worth it in the end

 

[BradCube]

er... or they're all wrong and therefore all equally (in)valid.

Yes, hence me saying previously:

(Unless you want to say they are both invalid-thereby giving both the same level of validity)

I want to point out again, that I am not arguing to whether there actually is any authority in religious texts but that if there is how it can be said that they are all as valid when they say contradictory things.

Like you and I have both pointed out, the only way this works is if they are all invalid thereby having the same level in validity - none.

Valid point.

I would ask you the same question, though. How come you chose Christianity over the myriad other competing ideologies? Surely you are just picking what you like? And how do you pick what sort of Christian God you want? Vengeful OT YHWH, or all-loving, mellowed out NT Father?

I think the key differential between christianity and other religions (which is what your essentially asking me right?) is the fact that christianity states that there in no way we can "earn" our way to heaven or God since we are all sinful. This makes the most logical sense to me as it seems thoughtless in thinking that I could ever through my own good deads exist on the same level as a perfect god. If I could, I would be god-like also.

There are many things christianity states that I do not like - eg the whole sex before marriage discussion we are having here. If I was simply crafting my own religion for what I like, there are many things which I would scrap. Since I cannot personally find, logical evidence to suggest I have a wrong interpretation, I choose instead to do what I do not naturally want to.

It would seem pointless to me to discount the Old Testament or the New Testament, doing so would invalidate my whole argument. Especially since both sections refer to each other as truth. It is with that, that you have my answer to which God of the bible I believe. I believe they are one and the same. To discount the areas of God shown in the old testament is just as logical as discounting the one in the new - ie not logical at all.

 

[BradCube]

Re: save sex

hey im a christian too but hun if u really love him go for it ...... u dnt noe wat ur missin out on lol seriously follow your heart he obviously loves u too if uve been together that long jst follow your gut of course its gona be scary the first time but if u love him its all worth it in the end

I would ask you too how you justify that interpretation of the bible.

 

[littlewing69]

I see the common thread of humanity stained over all religions, that's most likely why they're all rather similar.

I see that too. There's a lot of human stink in religion, but I also see some good material behind it at some level.

Then I can justify a belief in wizards, it's not that amazing an accomplishment.

There are wizards all over the place. Whether they have the powers they claim is a different matter, of course. I never claimed theism was an accomplishment, either. Is atheism an accomplishment?

I think the key differential between christianity and other religions (which is what your essentially asking me right?) is the fact that christianity states that there in no way we can "earn" our way to heaven or God since we are all sinful. This makes the most logical sense to me as it seems thoughtless in thinking that I could ever through my own good deads exist on the same level as a perfect god. If I could, I would be god-like also.

Jesus begs to differ. (Luke 10:25-8)

The easy-believism "accept Jesus into your heart" deal is all well and good, but its not a tradition drawn from Jesus' teachings.

It would seem pointless to me to discount the Old Testament or the New Testament, doing so would invalidate my whole argument. Especially since both sections refer to each other as truth. It is with that, that you have my answer to which God of the bible I believe. I believe they are one and the same. To discount the areas of God shown in the old testament is just as logical as discounting the one in the new - ie not logical at all.

Not logical at all would be equating the theology of the OT with that of the NT. There is simply so much disparity. The NT drips with Greek influence, and God is a cheerful bloke interested only in salvation for all. OT Bible-god is all about vengeance, fire, and Jews--and even they have to earn their way into his good books.

What's the deal? Did unchangeable God change, or was it just the Bible's authors?

 

[BradCube]

Jesus begs to differ. (Luke 10:25-8)

The easy-believism "accept Jesus into your heart" deal is all well and good, but its not a tradition drawn from Jesus' teachings.

I beg to differ, although understanding what I have said may be easy, actually believing and "accepting Jesus into your heart" is not so easy since it requires that you follow his commands (since he essentially was God). Just believing that Jesus exists is not the same as "accepting into your heart" as the latter requires a will to change your ways.

Maybe I have missed something but I fail to see how that verse disproves anything that I have said since Jesus claimed that he was God.

Not logical at all would be equating the theology of the OT with that of the NT. There is simply so much disparity. The NT drips with Greek influence, and God is a cheerful bloke interested only in salvation for all. OT Bible-god is all about vengeance, fire, and Jews--and even they have to earn their way into his good books.

What's the deal? Did unchangeable God change, or was it just the Bible's authors?

I would like to see justification that he (God) was only those things in each testament. Agreed, there was a change in covenant, which made radical changes to the way the relationship worked with God, but I don't think this shows that God has changed at all. I would also like explanation as to how the Jews had to earn their way into his good books. If it is because they made sacrificial offerings then I think there is definatley room for debate.