The "Religion" thread

[jacovw]

I see a lot of qoutes about sex being great, by what many women would consider mere boys... and i don't see many of those women on here going "right on, baby you rocked my world..." which is more likely why one night stands may seem fun to some "boys", never have to deal with her telling you it wasn't actually all that great!

As for sex and the bible, the same people the bow to statues and pray to saints have a very bad opinion on that. Who do you think made sex great, it was God! and he did not mean it for procreation only or he would not tell us to find pleasure in our new wives breasts. Please don't talk about the bible as if you know something about it, yet in your statement make it very clear how little you know! There is one whole book in the bible devoted to the erotic (one man and one woman!)

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 1 2009, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I see a lot of qoutes about sex being great, by what many women would consider mere boys... and i don't see many of those women on here going "right on, baby you rocked my world..." which is more likely why one night stands may seem fun to some "boys", never have to deal with her telling you it wasn't actually all that great!

As for sex and the bible, the same people the bow to statues and pray to saints have a very bad opinion on that. Who do you think made sex great, it was God! and he did not mean it for procreation only or he would not tell us to find pleasure in our new wives breasts. Please don't talk about the bible as if you know something about it, yet in your statement make it very clear how little you know! There is one whole book in the bible devoted to the erotic (one man and one woman!)[/b]

I've been considered 'boy' by a few much older women... hasn't got in the way. And I won't deny I've probably been **** with some chicks. But I don't really see how they're all going to come on a rugby forum and talk about how great/ **** I was in the sack. Really don't know what your point is tbh. Every single thing you say reeks of a lack of life experience. Grow up.

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 1 2009, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

As for sex and the bible, the same people the bow to statues and pray to saints have a very bad opinion on that.[/b]

Easy on the Catholic-bashing. Regardless or not of your fondness for all things Vatican, it was Christ who prayed that we (Christians) would be one as he and the Father are one.
In my opinion Christianity is too fragmented to even stand up for itself anymore. A house divided cannot stand. We have just as many internal attacks on our faith (protestants bashing catholics, evangelicas bashing baptists, etc...) as we do from people outside our faith. We've sort of made it easy for everyone else to just make an attack on the church. The problem is most Christians will just distance themselves. Someone criticizes the scandals with priests of recent and christians will just say "Oh, well those Catholics..." instead of dealing with the fact that the downfall represents us all. On the flipside people of more fundamental or orthodox belief try to distance themselves from the scandals of faith healers and television evangelists. To people outside the faith of Christianity, it's all Christians making mistakes and as Christ said we are supposed to be united. My point being that what the Pope says actually has relevance to your life as a christian regardless of you actually being a Catholic, because he is speaking on behalf of "The Church." Therefore working together in an ecuminical environment will actually help restore unity and resolve a lot of internal conflict so we can focus on real attacks from outside sources.

 

[darwin_23]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 05:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Some of you lads need to take basic science classes again and learn your termonology.
Theory & LAW.

Theory: (countable) (sciences) A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena.
There is now a well-developed theory of electrical charge.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory

Law: A well-established, observed physical characteristic or behavior of nature. Newton and Einstein understood the law of gravitation in very different ways
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/law

Therefore Gravity, unlike some have noted, is no longer a theory, it is a Law. Evolution, unlike some of you have noted, has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and is therefore a Theory.

The two terms are immense when discussing things of this nature. Evolution has not been proven to be a law. It is not a known absolute. It is a good way to explain findings in nature, but at this point is just an assumption (however logically or scientifically formed).
Creationism is the belief that for this natural world/universe to exist, something supernatural must have happened, because in nature chaos does not become orderly, order breaks down to chaos. Please check the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You treat us as if we don't go about things logically because we assume the divine or the supernatural, which just isn't right.[/b]

You misunderstand the difference between scientific laws and theories. Proving something does not change it from a theory to a law, as theories and laws are describe different things - a theory can never become a law, and likewise a law can never become a theory. Both scientific theories and laws describes a scientific fact - Scientific laws explain what nature does under certain conditions, while scientific theories explain how nature works.

Perhaps you should take basic science classes again and learn your termonology

 

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Nov 1 2009, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 1 2009, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As for sex and the bible, the same people the bow to statues and pray to saints have a very bad opinion on that.[/b]

Easy on the Catholic-bashing. Regardless or not of your fondness for all things Vatican, it was Christ who prayed that we (Christians) would be one as he and the Father are one.
In my opinion Christianity is too fragmented to even stand up for itself anymore. A house divided cannot stand. We have just as many internal attacks on our faith (protestants bashing catholics, evangelicas bashing baptists, etc...) as we do from people outside our faith. We've sort of made it easy for everyone else to just make an attack on the church. The problem is most Christians will just distance themselves. Someone criticizes the scandals with priests of recent and christians will just say "Oh, well those Catholics..." instead of dealing with the fact that the downfall represents us all. On the flipside people of more fundamental or orthodox belief try to distance themselves from the scandals of faith healers and television evangelists. To people outside the faith of Christianity, it's all Christians making mistakes and as Christ said we are supposed to be united. My point being that what the Pope says actually has relevance to your life as a christian regardless of you actually being a Catholic, because he is speaking on behalf of "The Church." Therefore working together in an ecuminical environment will actually help restore unity and resolve a lot of internal conflict so we can focus on real attacks from outside sources.
[/b][/quote]

Sorry, don't mean it in a "bashing" way. My beef is just that as for The church of Christ (as a unified body), we through out Seventh day adventists and a few others as Cults and Isms, and yet when it comes to the catholics we say they are just another part of Christ's body, yet they diverge from true biblical doctrinal foundations on many more levels than many of these cults! The pope kisses the Koran, Mary is revered somewhere between being equal to or greater than Christ, saints are called upon for good luck... their stance on many things are directly opposed to that of Christianity, I believe we are scared to admit this though because that would make us a minority religion, in other words we have learned nothing from all the "David vs Goliath" stories in the old testament! God is not intimidated by numbers and neither should we be. I've got no problem with a christian who does not believe in miracles or tongues or any such thing, but if there is one person that has the right to speak on behalf of the church, it is not the Pope, whose station for hundreds of years now have been religiously masked politics.

All Christians make mistakes, true but a man is not just a Christian because he says so! If we continue to include this falsehood in our faith we have no place but the stance of being ridiculed in any argument!

I have nothing against Catholics as people, but I stand firm against their teachings, same with Muslims, same with Buddhists, Same with any religion other than bible based Christianity!

 

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Nov 1 2009, 04:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 1 2009, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see a lot of qoutes about sex being great, by what many women would consider mere boys... and i don't see many of those women on here going "right on, baby you rocked my world..." which is more likely why one night stands may seem fun to some "boys", never have to deal with her telling you it wasn't actually all that great!

As for sex and the bible, the same people the bow to statues and pray to saints have a very bad opinion on that. Who do you think made sex great, it was God! and he did not mean it for procreation only or he would not tell us to find pleasure in our new wives breasts. Please don't talk about the bible as if you know something about it, yet in your statement make it very clear how little you know! There is one whole book in the bible devoted to the erotic (one man and one woman!)[/b]

I've been considered 'boy' by a few much older women... hasn't got in the way. And I won't deny I've probably been **** with some chicks. But I don't really see how they're all going to come on a rugby forum and talk about how great/ **** I was in the sack. Really don't know what your point is tbh. Every single thing you say reeks of a lack of life experience. Grow up.
[/b][/quote]

The argument made was pro sex before marriage and one night stands. My point explained: It's all fine and well for one party to say it is great but if the other disagrees that makes it a 50/50 split. My point that I continued making was that the bible promotes sex that is great for both parties, but this would probably not mean much to the evolutionary thinker... but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage!

in terms of life experience - Think what you may... I have no need to discuss my private life on a public forum...

Oh and i never said "i think the girls are avoiding the forum because...". My point there is that it's very easy to exaggerate and brag (not saying you are, not saying you're not) about all your conquests sitting on the other side of a screen... it's just on the internet we can find that kind of talk anywhere...

 

[Steve-o]

Wow. This is really something else.

 

[Juan VdS]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I have nothing against Catholics as people, but I stand firm against their teachings, same with Muslims, same with Buddhists, Same with any religion other than bible based Christianity![/b]

Interesting. I really saw that coming. That is the difference between some Christians and Atheists like us: we are open to new theories that *might* bestow us with another spectrum whereby we *might* get closer to the truth.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage![/b]

Marriage? Really? Hmm. To me, modern marriage is just a paper. A legal contract that puts an end to the very essence of love: renewed passion. I honestly can't believe how religious people, with all their morality and attachment to spiritualistic values, can end up succumbing to such a hypocritical snobism.

 

[Sir Speedy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage![/b]

Call me cynical but... 'a loving marriage'? Haha, see? I implied that such a thing does not exist. So clever and stuff.

Also, the marriage itself has absolutely nothing to do with the emotions two people feel for each other. You say two lovers can only achieve the maximum level of euphoria out of intercourse within the boundaries of marriage - pure nonsense. Being legally bound does not enhance the amount of love one feels for another.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

The argument made was pro sex before marriage and one night stands. My point explained: It's all fine and well for one party to say it is great but if the other disagrees that makes it a 50/50 split. My point that I continued making was that the bible promotes sex that is great for both parties, but this would probably not mean much to the evolutionary thinker... but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage![/b]

First time is a f***ing clumsy affair so even waiting for it in a 'loving marriage' would end up in the same result. Physical level would be pretty low to be honest. BTW, were 'god' and Mary in a loving marriage?

 

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Nov 2 2009, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

BTW, were 'god' and Mary in a loving marriage?[/b]

Or Pastor Ted and Mike Jones

Someone let me know if and when this comes back on topic.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Nov 2 2009, 12:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 1 2009, 05:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sex is weird - especially when you give the gspot a healthy rub. But then you pay for the pleasure. Can't afford the consequences? Not so much fun.

I guess if you're employed by the NHS then taxation makes a whole lot of sense. Personally, I prefer not to pay tax and not employ you nor pay for your ridiculous pension scheme. The NHS - looking after #1 ... and the Labour Party.

Apart from that, I'm being chased by taxation zombies whenever I pay for booze, tobacco, and fuel - 70% every time. The reason they don't let you have a gun in this c***ry is to stop you delivering a head shot to the flesh tearing monster of the state.

The Greater Good is a whole other religion, usually called communism. George Orwell sums it up nicely.[/b]

mate what are you on? What has paying for sex got to do with anything? And fine, we'll remove the NHS for shtove's benefit. We'll knock out the largest employer in Britain, just so we can divert the taxes into benefit money for the 1.3 million people in England who are newly unemployed. I presume you're then willing to divert more money into paying for extra police to cover the bump in crime that goes with a rise in unemployment?

Or shall we just get rid of any form of taxation? In which case, refer to Charles' source. Then, f*** off to Switzerland, Monaco and Dubai with all the other selfish c***s *Lewis Hamilton cough* who need to keep their greedy paws on every penny they get.
[/b][/quote]
What am I on? Private sector income! And I have to go ferreting about for my own pension, without guarantee.

Nurses regularly earn £50k plus. You know the deal with GPs. And it's not just the NHS. Figure came out today - BA cabin crew on £29k, and the fcukers want to strike over christmas. Know what the median wage in this country is? £25k. Average wage outside London probably £20k. I've seen the breakdown of what a single mother with three kids on full benefits gets - £29.5k.

Fantasy land.

Private sector workers can only keep up by borrowing, and now that's come crashing down. I come across ordinary Joes every week with £20-80k in credit card debt. And the government can only keep the game going for your 1.3 million by borrowing the country into bankruptcy. Too many people employed by NuLab or on benefits at too high a rate. Plus - right now the pension funding is unaffordable, and it's going to get worse.

There. I've gone completely off topic in my Jeremy Clarkson 4-wheel drive, all over your front lawn.

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 2 2009, 09:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

There. I've gone completely off topic in my Jeremy Clarkson 4-wheel drive, all over your front lawn.[/b]

And as Scorpion would say:

As for the debate on hand, I've got one gripe and one gripe only (and this goes for Christianity, Islam, etc)

Sectarianism: the massive aparteihd elephant sitting in our living rooms.

My Dad saw it first hand, of children born to one family under one church going to the same school as everyone else in their "tribe" and then the same secondary school and so on. He was revulsed by it and so am I.

You want to solve the world's problems? Then start by breaking the walls down, Jer1cho style.
</span>

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Nov 2 2009, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

As for the debate on hand, I've got one gripe and one gripe only (and this goes for Christianity, Islam, etc)

Sectarianism: the massive aparteihd elephant sitting in our living rooms.

My Dad saw it first hand, of children born to one family under one church going to the same school as everyone else in their "tribe" and then the same secondary school and so on. He was revulsed by it and so am I.

You want to solve the world's problems? Then start by breaking the walls down, Jer1cho style.
</span>[/b]

I think I addressed that above...but for you, I'll repost...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Nov 1 2009, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

...it was Christ who prayed that we (Christians) would be one as he and the Father are one.
In my opinion Christianity is too fragmented to even stand up for itself anymore. A house divided cannot stand. We have just as many internal attacks on our faith (protestants bashing catholics, evangelicas bashing baptists, etc...) as we do from people outside our faith. We've sort of made it easy for everyone else to just make an attack on the church. The problem is most Christians will just distance themselves. Someone criticizes the scandals with priests of recent and christians will just say "Oh, well those Catholics..." instead of dealing with the fact that the downfall represents us all. On the flipside people of more fundamental or orthodox belief try to distance themselves from the scandals of faith healers and television evangelists. To people outside the faith of Christianity, it's all Christians making mistakes and as Christ said we are supposed to be united. My point being that what the Pope says actually has relevance to your life as a christian regardless of you actually being a Catholic, because he is speaking on behalf of "The Church." Therefore working together in an ecuminical environment will actually help restore unity and resolve a lot of internal conflict so we can focus on real attacks from outside sources.[/b]

 

[BLR]

O'Roth, a question. Creationism is, as you said, the belief in a supernatural creator. Is it not possible this creator was the catalyst and all that came after was in line with Evolution, eg. various mutations to animals, particles etc. etc. to survive in their environment?

This is what I believe anyway, I find the theory of the big bang glosses over the original catalyst, of which surely must exist for the event to even occur. Hence where the creator comes in, although our minds probably can't comprehend what it actually was, all other attempts are simply following in line with the human made religious falsities such has been made in most of todays religions to suit their own makers political and social needs. (Don't make me go into examples of the beginning of the Roman and Islamic religions)

 

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Nov 2 2009, 04:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage![/b]

Call me cynical but... 'a loving marriage'? Haha, see? I implied that such a thing does not exist. So clever and stuff.

Also, the marriage itself has absolutely nothing to do with the emotions two people feel for each other. You say two lovers can only achieve the maximum level of euphoria out of intercourse within the boundaries of marriage - pure nonsense. Being legally bound does not enhance the amount of love one feels for another.
[/b][/quote]

No being legally bound does not, which is why you get legally, therefor holy in god's eyes, and the last one (hopefully) lovingly bound in marriage.

I think this argument is making a very good case as to why there are so many denying the existence a God. You see you can argue as much as you like about science and stuff, but i believe where the real reason God is denied is a Moral issue: "Don't tell me what to do, i don't like that, i'll do whatever i like!" I think the argument about sex before marriage goes a long way in exposing that! Many of the arguments "anti-God" so far has carried those exact undertones...

 

[St Helens RLFC]

I'm Catholic and totally reject the idea of no sex before marriage.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 3 2009, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Nov 2 2009, 04:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage![/b]

Call me cynical but... 'a loving marriage'? Haha, see? I implied that such a thing does not exist. So clever and stuff.

Also, the marriage itself has absolutely nothing to do with the emotions two people feel for each other. You say two lovers can only achieve the maximum level of euphoria out of intercourse within the boundaries of marriage - pure nonsense. Being legally bound does not enhance the amount of love one feels for another.
[/b][/quote]

No being legally bound does not, which is why you get legally, therefor holy in god's eyes, and the last one (hopefully) lovingly bound in marriage.

I think this argument is making a very good case as to why there are so many denying the existence a God. You see you can argue as much as you like about science and stuff, but i believe where the real reason God is denied is a Moral issue: "Don't tell me what to do, i don't like that, i'll do whatever i like!" I think the argument about sex before marriage goes a long way in exposing that! Many of the arguments "anti-God" so far has carried those exact undertones...
[/b][/quote]

I cannot believe you've just ignored 11 pages of people citing constructive reasons for being atheists, and you've decided that we're suddenly all anarchic just because we have sex.

Anyway, this raises an interesting point: you say we reject the idea of 'god' because we don't want to be told what to do. In fact, no 'god' is telling anyone anything. You are getting your values from other human beings who you deem to have authority. Priests, parents, teachers. None of them are 'god'. So let's just say we are all hypothetically religious... we're still being told by other humans, not 'god', what we can and can't do. Your 'god' has never spoken to you. Fact. If you deny this, then you are nutty. Alternatively, and I've suspected this for a while, you're a wind up merchant.

 

[Juan VdS]

I think we're not discerning the difference between Ethic and Moral. The Ethic man knows what's right and what's wrong, but decides to go for the former to vindicate himself as somebody who abides by the laws created by society; whereas the Moral man only does what's right.

Why am I saying this? Because the vast majority of people that decide to get legally married do it so that the society will look them with good eyes. Otherwise the pointless snobism will kick in, labelling them as "lovers", something the Church in its almighty wisdom chooses to impose to us as something that is wrong. If "God" needs a paper as proof to give credit to a spiritual bond among people, then I guess Jesus had the Twelve Apostles sign a fidelity contract prior to joining up with him.

The Truth, in my eyes, is that "The Church" has steered away from spiritualism and simplicity, which are crucial to the formation of a well formed society. It's mutated into an atmosphere of sheer and hypocritical understanding of the true values of mankind. There are of course many people who stay away from that corrosive movement and dedicate their lives to promoting true love and benevolence -- and those are the truly religious ones to me.

The Church is a clear example of The Bed of Procrustes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

No being legally bound does not, which is why you get legally, therefor holy in god's eyes, and the last one (hopefully) lovingly bound in marriage.[/b]

So our feelings are not holy in "God's eyes"? If I take my girlfriend and promise her eternal love, without a contract backing this up, I am committing some sort of moral misdemeanor? What about the millions of people that, despite being "legally married"; cheat on each other...?

 

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 3 2009, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

The Truth, in my eyes, is that "The Church" has steered away from spiritualism and simplicity, which are crucial to the formation of a well formed society. It's mutated into an atmosphere of sheer and hypocritical understanding of the true values of mankind. There are of course many people who stay away from that corrosive movement and dedicate their lives to promoting true love and benevolence -- and those are the truly religious ones to me.[/b]

You're dead right it had, for ages. But it's a work in progress, and like you said some are trying to get back to the basics of Christ's gospel.
Don't misunderstand me; I don't run up to people outside the church and point my own dirty fingers at every rotten spot i can see in them and shout : "Repent, and thou shalt be saaaaa-ved!" This is a forum and the topic is on the table and there would be no discussion, if there was not some of us putting the biblical/religious view out there as well. If I did not believe that the Biblical way is better I would truly be a hypocrite, because i would be arguing against myself. But let me assure you that it is not only the church acting inside this "hypocritical understanding of the true values of mankind" hypocrisy is not a Christian sin but a human one. The Christian who drinks and points fingers at drunks, is as guilty of it as the non-Christian who sees the church and says "you're judging me!" because he is making a judgement of his own!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 3 2009, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

No being legally bound does not, which is why you get legally, therefor holy in god's eyes, and the last one (hopefully) lovingly bound in marriage.[/b]

So our feelings are not holy in "God's eyes"? If I take my girlfriend and promise her eternal love, without a contract backing this up, I am committing some sort of moral misdemeanor? What about the millions of people that, despite being "legally married"; cheat on each other...?
[/b][/quote]

God commands us to obey the law of the land (except in the instance where it commands other than what he has made clear in the Bible), now if the law of the land says you are married when you confess your undying love, well then so be it but you're missing out on a great party if you just do that and have no reception
Our feelings get us in a lot of trouble sometimes, just ask everyone who find themselves with unloved/unwanted children or spouses because of feelings. Getting married legally is a sign of maturity and responsibility, no back door option. God knew this and that is why he commanded us to do it. Saying you are going to stay with someone forever is pretty useless considering all our track records with the truth (me included)

And where did I give you any Idea that being legally married makes cheating fine? And if that's not what you meant with that statement then what...

oh and gingergenius if i seem like i'm trying to wind you up... i'm sorry, not my intention. Guess i'm nuts then, heh?