Korskin

To me promiscuity is everything but marital-sex. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals are guilty of it, I don't deny that. I suppose it's perfectly possible for two homosexuals to enjoy a life together without spreading diseases or anything. However, by saying it's okay and normal, you will be encouraging more homosexuals to act out their homosexuality. This will lead to more diseases among humans. It's the same with promiscuous heterosexuals, you shouldn't encourage that either. If God (the Bible) says it's immoral I'll accept that and therefore say it's immoral. But as I believe it's immoral for a reason, I try to think of reasons why God doesn't want homosexuals to act out their homosexuality. If it would only spread among homosexual, it would still be terrible since homosexuals were diseased. Or is not a bad thing just because it only spreads among homosexuals? And you seem to be ignoring bisexuals. If there are bisexuals, they could possibly have sexual relationships with both men and women, resulting in spreading disease among all humans.

Yes, that's pretty much what I said. Don't strive to have a baby if you know it means more difficulties than you can handle. I somewhat agree, it's the promiscuity that hurts the society. But in general homosexual sex does more bad than it does good. Though I could just argue that the Bible says it's wrong and therefore it's immoral.

The logic works like this: More people having sex means more people having sex with more than one partner, resulting in spreading sexual diseases. I don't agree with the Vatican and I agree it's responsible for a lot of bad things. I believe we should be fruitful and multiply as written in the Bible. I didn't say that seeking pleasure was wrong. It can be, but it's not always wrong. I think a baby is always a good thing. I think it does damage society. For the reason I mentioned first in my post. The society shouldn't encourage homosexuality the way it does today. I don't know if you can make that comparison. Jesus didn't come to earth to save all animals from hell. I'm talking about what God intended for us humans. The Bible isn't written for animals, it's written for man. But then again if I should speculate I suppose animals odd behaviour could be a result of human's fall as well.

Homosexuals having sex contribute to increase the amount of sexually transmitted diseases. Not all of them but generally the more homosexuals having sex the more diseases. Could this be said about heterosexuals as well? Sure, why not unless they stick to the same partner their entire life. The difference is that heterosexual sex can lead to babies, which is a good thing. Homosexual sex doesn't do anything good except for temporary pleasure for those involved. Why do you find stealing, cheating, harming and raping immoral? On what grounds do you call it immoral. Homosexuality is considered immoral http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... _the_world in some countries. Homosexuality used to belong with stealing, raping etc. But lately things have changed and it's up for debate. Homosexuality is not a work of God. He didn't create homosexuality, we did. We didn't want to obey God and decided to try our own path. God hates sin, therefore he hates homosexual acts. However, homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals, we're all humans. What's wrong is to act out our homosexuality, the same way it's wrong to steal, rape or cheat. You can't really compare promiscuous heterosexuals with homosexuals that stays with one partner. Either you compare promiscuous heterosexuals with promiscuous homosexuals or heterosexuals and homosexuals that stay with one partner.

You pretty much said what I think and I also question if people dedicating their lives to animal rights are actually doing something good. Sure, the animals might end up with a slightly better life but it seems like an insignificant issue with all the human suffering in the world today. However, there is an argument I'm willing to listen to regarding meat eating. If everyone stopped eating meat, we would use a lot less of the earth's resources. So that it would actually be possible to feed the earth's entire population. Then again, I don't think that poverty or hunger issues would be solved by not eating meat. Since humans are greedy and would rather take more for themselves than share with those who don't have anything.

I would say that it's the other way around. The one thing that seems certain is that we're all selfish and egoistical. And there are those who believe that there is no such thing as altruism, since helping others is really just a way of making yourself feel better. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor by eliminating the Jews, perhaps he was just really devoted to help others?

Perhaps the comparison was a bit off. But tell me: Why do you think it's rubbish? Why should we help the sick and poor? And I'll also quote myself from another thread: It's like suddenly some christians decided to disregard what the Bible actually says and try to fit it in with the evolution theory. If you're going to react like: "oh but God used that..." every time a new theory comes along, you'll end up losing your credibility.

If we are created in his likeness does that mean that God was once a monkey? Anyway the whole idea of evolution is natural selection aka survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is probably the opposite of what the Bible teaches. The Bible says that we should help the sick and the poor. If survival of the fittest truly was the work of God, why does he want us to help those who obviously aren't fit enough to survive?

In what way is the Big Bang incompatible with christianity? I agree that evolution is incompatible but your arguments seem to be all about evolution and not really about the Big Bang. It might be wise not to put evolution and the Big Bang in the same bracket. I'm not an expert on the Big Bang but if it's is true, the universe has begun to exist and is not self-existent, which could be a start for arguing that there is a God (its originator).

How can something that is 8000 years old be 50 million years old at the same time? Or what do you mean by "look like" 50 million years old? I think that the "six days" listed in the Bible are just figures of speech. Since God is outside of time "six days" could equal millions of years. I think the writers of the Bible used the story of God creating everything in a week to relate to the human week. That's a valid theory but that doesn't mean the earth can be 8000 years old and 50 million years old at the same time. If the six days are figures of speech, then the earth is old. If it's six actual days, it's young. I don't think it's both. God is transcendent.

How can something that is 8000 years old be 50 million years old at the same time? Or what do you mean by "look like" 50 million years old?

The problem is the Bible doesn't really clearly state much at all and its vastly down to interpretation what people believe. That's why there are so many different sects all believing in a different version of the same thing. How can a book written by a divine god be so flawed as to not have a clear meaning? How do people know which bits to read into, which bits to take literally and which bits of the bible are good or evil? Which bits of the bible do we take our morals from? If we are able to scan through the bible accepting morals such as "thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) and yet rejecting passages such as "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof" (Genesis 19:8) where Lot actively offers his own daughters to be raped instead of his guest who was a male. Surely if we as humans are able to see certain parts of the bible as good and bad then morality is ingrained into human conscious and we've had it all along without the need for religion to tell us. If the only reason you don't go out murdering and raping is because the church says its bad and you don't want to go to hell then you are a very very sick person. I'd say the Bible clearly states what's important. Answers to questions such as: where do we come from? what's the meaning of life? what happens when we die? I also think it's pretty clear on what's right and wrong. You're saying that we can tell what's right and wrong, that is often true. However, there are things like abortion, premarital-sex, homosexuality that for some years ago were considered wrong and immoral. Nowadays, these things are up for debate and many people think that they're neither immoral nor wrong. If we only have ourselves to decide what's wrong or right, there can never be any absolute wrongs or rights as we can change our opinions. Why are people keep bringing up the story of Lot? I'll go to Lot for advice the next time two angels come to my house and a bunch of homosexuals want to rape them.

You have a good point. Christianity is all about faith. However, the Bible does contain historical facts that must be true for it to keep its credibility. If some parts of the Bible are proven false then it's not likely the words of God. The Bible doesn't say how old the earth is but it seems unlikely that he made rocks 50 million years old.

A couple of things that I do fairly often: - fart with my hands. - blow in my hands to either sound like an owl or to play different tones. - whistle very high-pitched.

I don't really want to have a debate about circular reasoning on this thread. I'll reply with this: http://www.needhim.org/1/bible/bible4.shtml I don't have a say in whether you go to heaven or hell. God will judge people I'll try not to.

Hockey. The intensity and the physicality is great. It's also impressive that they are playing on ice, which is a rather difficult surface to master. And yet they are able to move around so effortlessly. I also might be having a bit of a man crush on Nicklas Lidstr̮̦̉̉m at the moment. He's just amazing.

I almost feel obligated to reply. Suddenly I'm alright instead of a deluded fundamental christian. I'm aware that this might be off-topic but here goes: It's not really a circular argument. The Bible isn't right because it says so, it's right because it's God's words. Of course you have to believe in God for it to make any sense. If you don't believe in God then nothing can be his words, but if you do believe in God it's not impossible that he wanted to communicate with his creation. And therefore told/inspire people to write down his will (and stuff) in a book also know as the Bible. I believe in absolute moral, which means it derives from something absolute and that thing is God. God can't change his attributes, which means that if God says "killing is wrong" (immoral) 5000 years ago it would still be true today. Let's assume that these moral codes were constructed by a group of people and can change over time. I'm not sure if I understand it correctly but what if Hitler had won the WWII and became the ruler of the world. Would nazism be the right moral codes? If I didn't believe/assume that the Bible is correct, God's words and so on, then why would I care whether people were having premarital sex or not? We should try to just look at each other as a human beings and not christians, atheists, black or white etc. Sounds a bit clicḫ̩̉̉ but it's important.

Sounds amazing :) I envy you but I hope you'll have the time of your life.

(1) You didn't. I thought of removing it once I wrote it but I decided to point that out again. (2) See (1) (3) How does it automatically equal bad stuff? I could argue that living immorally is bad stuff and then it automatically leads to it. However, I can't say it automatically equals all that bad stuff, but I think chances of experiencing bad stuff caused by sex increase if you choose to have premarital sex. It's like if you've been given a map on how to get to a certain location, but instead of following the map you throw away the map and think that you can find the way on your own. You might find the way on your own but chances increase that you will have some problems getting there. So my views are being punished by the fact that humans are idiots incapable of following a set of morals? I don't want to interfere with peoples free will to do whatever they want. My goal is just to express that I believe that the world would be a better place without premarital sex.

Rapes do occur in marriages but they shouldn't if people stick to their vows. You have a point by saying I need to consider abortion if the mother's life is endangered. That's why I said I wouldn't answer the same today. But I don't really see that happening in the west world with the modern medicine we have. And by the way, saying who cares might not be very accurate considering you're replying to a 13 pages long thread.

Just because many christians aren't able to live life according to the Bible doesn't it's wrong or that we should disregard it. What you are proving is that not many christians actually live according to the Bible. Although the point of following the Bible is not to avoid nastiness, just look what happened to the only man who was without sin. He ended up dying on a cross. Maybe I just wish that for once there could be a black and white issue. It's like one time in my religious class. The question was whether you were for or against abortion and my answer was pretty much: "I don't need to have an opinion as I won't ever be facing a decision whether to make an abortion or not." A rather naive answer perhaps and today I wouldn't answer like that but it derives from my values. I thought that if I wouldn't have sex unless I was prepared to face the consequence of a baby, abortion would never be an issue.

That depends on where you live. In the US I believe it's illegal to kill animals such as deer unless they are in season. There are also hunting limits, and I'm pretty sure if you shoot your neighbor's dog for no reason, they could have a legitimate lawsuit (Destruction of their property, plus emotional distress, both come to mind). I hate the "animals don't matter" mindset. Sure, they may be lesser than humans, in several ways, but they still matter. They feel pain, you know. I'm not an expert on animal killing laws, but I'm pretty sure shooting rats and mice is not illegal. It's a different story if you shoot your neighbour's dog since it's someone else's property. The law is not about dog/animal killing, it's about destroying other people's property. I'm not saying that animals don't matter, but I think if you're an animal rights activist you have your priorities wrong. It should always be humans before animals. We're not equals.

..Why?? :| I understand if you eat them, but.. I don't get it.. The same people who oppose stealing, having premarital sex, abortion, same sex marriage.. Kill random innocent animals like mice, sheep... For fun, which they aren't even going to eat? If somebody seriously tortures animals/shoots them for entertainment, fine, but they should shut the hell up about opposing gay rights/abortion/whatever... Your opinion has no value if you murder for fun. Killing an animal isn't murder. Sure, it's stupid to shoot animals for fun, but it's not against the law if I'm not mistaking. Sounds a bit harsh to say that their opinions have no value.

I'm not sure if statistics can convince me that my opinions and moral values are wrong. With my statements come a lot of assumptions as you and others pointed out. If people waited with sex until marriage and took their wedding vows seriously, I don't think we would see much STD's, rapes, abortions, prostitution etc. However, I'm aware that it's not always the case. The high divorce rates might be because of people marrying to soon and perhaps for the wrong reasons. I don't think people (who's against premarital sex) marry primarily in order to have sex, but it could be a factor leading towards a premature marriage. Other than that I don't have much to say really, I suppose I could find statistics favoring the bible belt but I don't see the point. Maybe I'm being too hypothetical and perhaps not realistic but I believe that the Bible's stand on sexuality is the right one.

First off sorry for not replying but my router broke down. Masturbation is really a different topic. The Bible doesn't say much about it, but my stand is that it leads to other sins such as lust, porn etc and therefore should be avoided. Whether it's immoral aka a sin is debatable. We can take the Bible out of the equation. I'll make it very simple and very black and white: Premarital sex = single parents, orphans, abortion, prostitution, rape, STD's. Martial sex = babies in a loving family. I wasn't aware that people could get divorced, kids could get put up for adoption, parents could not get abortion, neither could hire a prostitute behind ones back, neither could rape the other one (when they weren't willing) and neither could get an STD just because they were married. Man marriage sure does give people a lot of super powers doesn't it? It's not marital sex if you hire a prostitute since your not married to the prostitute. You could rape the one you married but then you have broken your wedding vows. I'm assuming that you will try not to brake them. You could get an abortion but I don't see any reason for it unless the mother's life is endangered. I don't think STD's are a huge problem among married couples. And you = over-generalizing. Those conditions don't always happen, not everyone who has premarital sex has an unwanted baby (cough, cough, use condoms). Not everyone who has premarital sex gets an STD either. (cough, condoms, cough. Again. But I guess your church prohibits that.) Yes, I'm over-generalizing. But I'm thinking that premarital sex is most often the cause of it. That's a fairly strong over-generalisation. I think I can safely say that although idealistically we'd like to think that love is a purely mental concept, and one where we 'appreciate the person for their personality'. However, in the real world, the physical component is very readily a key factor of any relationship. How familiar and 'at ease' you are with your partner in terms of character compatibility plays a huge role in how well the relationship runs. Physical intimacy, however, does too. There's a direct correlation between how familiar and at ease two partners are physically and the healthiness of their relationship. If you're not physically at ease with a partner, then that would - obviously - translate into emotional/mental distress of some sort. This could then lead to further complications, ie., quiet unhappiness, unspoken insecurities, the whole bag of relationshipal issues. To me, the basic foundation of relationships then have two core areas: the physical intimacy and the emotional intimacy. Someone mentioned it earlier, but pre-marital sex helps weed out one problem of many - BEFORE persons have committed to marriage [which is both a social and legal institution]. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be an issue - but then in an ideal world, we wouldn't need marriages, because everything would be perfect and nothing would need to be set down in stone. Here, pre-marital sex acts as, to put it crudely, a testing ground. I am sure you can all agree that bad sex for the rest of your life is an infinitely daunting prospect. One that would negatively impact and undermine a relationship. Once again, I want to address this: "Premarital sex = single parents, orphans, abortion, prostitution, rape, STD's. Martial sex = babies in a loving family." In the contemporary world, marriage is less of a religious institution in so much as it is a legalised social institution. The legal definition [in Australia at least] is the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâthe union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others voltunarily entered into for lifeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ [Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)] Evidently, this is based on the former religious conceptions, but its evolved and broadened beyond those narrow fields. For most, marriage is only entered because of the benefits offered to a pair that has the intent - during the time - to remain with eachother indefinitely. So from this perspective - of marriage as a social and legal institution rather than religious - I'd have to say that pre-marital is okay, I'd even go as far as to say that its a fairly important 'criteria' of sorts prior to marriage. The single parents, orphans, abortion, prostitution [i have no idea where that comes from], rape [?] and STD's [?]. In light of my perspective, these are irrelevant. For me, marriage only occurs once both parties have sufficiently 'tried' eachother to the point that they know that that person is the one they want to live with. To me, pre-marital sex is one such determinant. If everyone were to marry before sex, then the issues of single parents, orphans, abortion and etc would be amplified. You would have financial and legal issues stacked on top, owing to the complex nature of divorcing a partner. The above issues only occur because most people have the foresight to 'test' each other out. I think testing each other sexually is not necessary. If you love each other in every other way and want to marry, I'm sure you will work out the sexual part of the relationship once you're married. I'm not saying that sex is an insignificant part of the relationship but I just don't believe in sexual incompatibility. Rape and prostitution is more likely premarital than marital sex. You probably don't rape the one your married to, neither do you a marry a prostitute and keep paying him/her money for sex. There is no guarantee of a happy and loving family but at least you have made a commitment and a promise to try.