Alright, I'm not a Christian. So I haven't read much of the Bible. But does it actually say why you can't have sex before marriage?

I asked my friend who's a hardcore Lutheran, and all she said was "God said so".

What if I don't want to get married? I suppose that means I'm fucked then? Virgin for the rest of my life?

What's your opinion on this "rule"?

Uhmm well if you aren't a christian why do you care? If you aren't a christian why do you even give a fuck what the bible says?

http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/1196920462416.jpg

Go ahead and have sex as many times possible.

oh fuck no!!
FUCK NO!!!
you have to have sex before you're married. you have to test the waters out, cause what if he sucks or she sucks. you are stuck with them for the rest of your life. you have to get down and dirty before you make the big plunge. not only that sex can often lead to one of the major factors you get married to that person anyways.

Really dumb "rule".

I support pre-marital sex, but this is just a really retarded reason for doing it. How can you build a relationship solely on your partner's sexual performance?

Goddamn horny, shortsighted teenagers.


*ObZ

Sorry mr. righteous, but sex is the relationship, evolutionary psychology says so.

I support pre-marital sex, but this is just a really retarded reason for doing it. How can you build a relationship solely on your partner's sexual performance?

Goddamn horny, shortsighted teenagers.


*ObZ

no. i said that you have to test the waters. meaning if you are serious about this person, even before you have had sex, you should at least have a test run, lol. it is just personal opinion. and has nothing to do with horniness.
also sex can just be a deciding factor. a virgin has no idea on how they much they are going to enjoy sex...so it can play a big role. i never said you build a relationship on that.

no. i said that you have to test the waters. meaning if you are serious about this person, even before you have had sex, you should at least have a test run, lol. it is just personal opinion. and has nothing to do with horniness.
also sex can just be a deciding factor. a virgin has no idea on how they much they are going to enjoy sex...so it can play a big role. i never said you build a relationship on that.

How old are you? This isn't an insult, I'm curious.

I didn't know some people still wait until marriage .

How old are you? This isn't an insult, I'm curious.
If I remember correctly she's seventeen.

Edit - Nevermind, she's nineteen according to her MySpace.

If I remember correctly she's seventeen.

Edit - Nevermind, she's nineteen according to her MySpace.

lol, I'm waaay younger than her and have more sense. Now THAT'S my insult. :D

Though I personally have not followed faithfully to my own set of standards, I do believe that premarital sex should be abstained. Ever sing I was younger I wanted to remain celibate until marriage but when I was 16 and I had sex with my girlfriend at the time and have done it again on different occasions. I do regret the decision. I feel that sex is a special thing and should only be shared with one person. My current girlfriend wants to wait and I find that very respectable and will do my best to help her out.
I really like the quote from 1 Timothy by the way, it's the last one quoted in the New Testament. That is a very good chapter about respect.

To answer the OP's question;
Taken from: http://www.new-life.net/premarital.htm

Old Testament

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well. Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares? Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers. May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer-- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love. Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife? For a man's ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all his paths.

New testament

Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am. But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to acquire a wife in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this manner no one should cheat his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Treat older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.

faze2- What does it say about people who don't want to get married? Does that mean I have to be a virgin my entire life?

Bible stuff

What a load of meaningless babble. When was the last time you stoned a non-virgin? And it's perfectly fine to marry someone if you just want sex? That means the "sanctity of marriage" is nothing but a formality.

And it still doesn't explain why premarital sex is immoral, aside from "God said so".


*ObZ

Well, I guess, yes you would have to be a virgin your whole life. The bible says that intercourse is an act to be shared by a man and woman in the unity of holy matrimony. But if you aren't Christian, I really wouldn't be to worried.

Well, I guess, yes you would have to be a virgin your whole life. The bible says that intercourse is an act to be shared by a man and woman in the unity of holy matrimony. But if you aren't Christian, I really wouldn't be to worried.

Well... I'm not a Christian, but I DO believe in God. I guess what I mean is - I want to be a Christian? But it just all seems so retarded! And all the Christians I've met have been annoying as hell. Why would I want to spend eternity in Heaven with them? lol. I'd rather spend eternity in Hell with people who are actually cool.

What a load of meaningless babble. When was the last time you stoned a non-virgin? And it's perfectly fine to marry someone if you just want sex? That means the "sanctity of marriage" is nothing but a formality.


And it still doesn't explain why premarital sex is immoral, aside from "God said so".


*ObZ


Many people will tell you different things. I take the bible as more of a set of guide lines. Society has changed a lot since it was written, if you believe in it and all that jazz. At least with the New Testament, again, if you believe, was written by people, "dictated" by God via the Holy Spirit. it could have been what was appropriate at the time being. This all is most likely An Inappropriate Appeal to Authority, I'm no Pope.

The reason it being immoral is because God intended intercourse to be an act preformed between a man and woman united in Holy Matrimony. If you are a Divine Command Theorist, which most religious people should ultimately be or possibly strive for, then this is a perfectly logical answer.

Well... I'm not a Christian, but I DO believe in God. I guess what I mean is - I want to be a Christian? But it just all seems so retarded! And all the Christians I've met have been annoying as hell. Why would I want to spend eternity in Heaven with them? lol. I'd rather spend eternity in Hell with people who are actually cool.

That is a pretty ignorant statement. There are millions of Christians, maybe you are meeting the wrong ones? What "sect" of Christianity are you reaching out to? I myself am Roman Catholic. There are a lot of Christians, Catholics included who are annoying and go about evangelizing in the wrong way, you just have to meet the right ones.

The reason I said that was an ignorant statement is because you haven't got a good concept of what the Christian afterlife is like. While no one can say what it is actually like, we have our beliefs in what Hell or heaven may be like. But you wouldn't be spending time in heaven with people you hate, and you wouldn't be spending time in Hell with people you think are cool, if that makes any sense to you.

Ok let me fill you all in before any more nonsense gets posted.
In the entire Bible there is NO direct commandment that says "thou shalt not bonk before marriage.

There are some verses which deal with sex before marriage as a crime or a tort.

That;s an important point and most Xians never get it.

They also miss the fact that the concept of marriage was totally different back then. Most Xians would be horrified if anyone suggested that marriage should return to what it was in the OT.

oops closed this by mistake!

This^^^ is almost more retarded than the Xian viewpoint.

You're really smart, so I'm going with your opinion. But if that's the case, why do so many "knowledgable" Christians these days wait until marriage to have sex, because "God said so" if he really didn't? Shouldn't they know better?

When was the last time you stoned a non-virgin?


I've gotten stoned with non-virgins...does that count?

im a Christian and i admit i dont know everything about the bible but i think this is what your lookin for jack

"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication" 1Th 4:3

thats pretty clear cut the will of God is to not do it outside marriage

You're really smart, so I'm going with your opinion. But if that's the case, why do so many "knowledgable" Christians these days wait until marriage to have sex, because "God said so" if he really didn't? Shouldn't they know better?

They should but that's Xians for you.

About 90% of what most mainstream Xians believe isn't in the Bible. The more honest ones will sometimes even admit that but they'll still believe the dogma over the bible.

Topically, did you know that the 3 Kings/Wisemen/ Magi visting the baby Jesus in the manger is a lot of dingo's kidneys?

But half the Xians you meet think the whole Adoration Of The Magi is in the bible. [actually the gospel says the Magi got to Bethlehem much later and found Jesus in a house].

im a Christian and i admit i dont know everything about the bible but i think this is what your lookin for jack

"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication" 1Th 4:3

thats pretty clear cut the will of God is to not do it outside marriage

And here Boys and Girls we have a typical Xian ie rips a bible verse out of context and then rapes it to fit dogma.

Try reading it in a decent translation and in context, its historical-critical context. Then do a comparative study and find out what 'fornication' meant then and not now.

Or you could do it the Xian way and pray that God will lead you to a correct understanding.

They should but that's Xians for you.

About 90% of what most mainstream Xians believe isn't in the Bible. The more honest ones will sometimes even admit that but they'll still believe the dogma over the bible.

Topically, did you know that the 3 Kings/Wisemen/ Magi visting the baby Jesus in the manger is a lot of dingo's kidneys?

But half the Xians you meet think the whole Adoration Of The Magi is in the bible. [actually the gospel says the Magi got to Bethlehem much later and found Jesus in a house].

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger

15And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

16And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

Luke 2:7-8, 11-12, 15-16

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger

15And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

16And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

Luke 2:7-8, 11-12, 15-16

Try actually reading 1. what I wrote , I was talking about the whole Wisemen thing and 2. what you copied/pasted...where does it mention the Magi, it's talking about Shepherds.

i did read what you wrote i was replying to your post before that and i dont see how its out of context i can post the entire chapter if youd like


ive never heard of the magi thing i assumed you meant the shepards

I'm in a good mood so I'll help you out here, seeing as you're 'Biblically Challenged'

and having come to the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and having fallen down they bowed to him, and having opened their treasures, they presented to him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh, Matt 2 v.11

I think it is an absolutely ridiculous idea. Sex is beautiful and natural. There's nothing wrong with enjoying your own body or someone else's whether you are married or not.

ok so you got me there but im not arguing that issue i never said they came at birth

Well if you read it in context you'll find:

3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4that each of you should learn to control his own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; 6and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.

which tells you he is talking about ADULTERY not premarital sex. And make no mistake, the bible is very clear on adultery being a major sin and also a civil crime.

Actually, and this isn't in bible but its part of the historical background, he was fighting against the sex-cult that existed in early Xian churches...there were lots of 'love-ins for christ' and all that kind of thin.


ps. I apologise for using the NIV, which is a terrible translation, I just can't be arsed to get up and get a decent one off the shelf.

ok so you got me there

Don't sweat it. You maybe don't know that I trained for the priesthood in my youth?

no i didnt im kinda new as you can tell and im 18 so anyobdy who thinks i know my stuff is crazy ill find more scripture

ill find more scripture

Knock yourself out, kiddo. :)

This is Basic Theology 101.

Knock yourself out, kiddo. :)

This is Basic Theology 101.

i will

so what do you personally believe?

i will

so what do you personally believe?

Oh I'm a Xian, if you define 'Xian' as believing that Jesus (or whatever the fuck his name was) was the rightful messiah....which is the biblical definition.

Okay so, to summarize Jackketch, sex before marriage = fine in the Christian world?

i still say no he knows its wrong just doesnt care

No, most Xians believe that sex before marriage is totally wrong. My point was to answer your question that it isn't in the bible.

No, most Xians believe that sex before marriage is totally wrong. My point was to answer your question that it isn't in the bible.

Then if it isn't in the bible, why is it wrong? Did you have sex before marriage? Do you regret it?

I don't know what to do! :'(

i still say no he knows its wrong just doesnt care

Ahhh didn't go to well with the scripture search I take it? Lol, been there too many times.

Is it wrong? Well as a professing Xian you probably believe that the Bible is the highest authority, as it is God's unfailing word or some such wank.

Show me in the Bible (we won't argue which one cos there are several) where is says that its wrong-wrong in the context of being a sin and not wrong in the sense of being a tort against the father?

Of course if you do believe its wrong then you do have to support a return to biblical marriage ie where the girl was a chattel (ie possesion) of her father and was sold like a slave to her husband without her consent.

Then if it isn't in the bible, why is it wrong? Did you have sex before marriage? Do you regret it?

I don't know what to do! :'(

Of course I had sex before marriage...very much a lot. But then again I have never considered it a sin. Do I regret it? Yes sometimes but that's nothing to do with my faith or the bible. There is a lot to be said for saving yourself for your spouse.

You do what you think is right, and the fact you don't know tells me you probably aren't ready to be having sex.

Of course I had sex before marriage...very much a lot. But then again I have never considered it a sin. Do I regret it? Yes sometimes but that's nothing to do with my faith or the bible. There is a lot to be said for saving yourself for your spouse.

You do what you think is right, and the fact you don't know tells me you probably aren't ready to be having sex.

I WANT to have sex - but I'm afraid I'll go to Hell or something, or be judged by God when I die. Then again, I know I DON'T want to get married. So wtf? Does it say in the bible that you HAVE to get married. Is there any harm if I just have sex with guys who AREN'T virgins? It's all too confusing... Probably one of the reasons a lot of people hate Christianity...

I WANT to have sex - but I'm afraid I'll go to Hell or something, or be judged by God when I die. Then again, I know I DON'T want to get married. So wtf? Does it say in the bible that you HAVE to get married. Is there any harm if I just have sex with guys who AREN'T virgins? It's all too confusing... Probably one of the reasons a lot of people hate Christianity...

Even God doesn't propose to judge us until the End Of Time so maybe you should do likewise and not judge yourself?

But at the moment I'd STRONGLY advise you not to have sex. Not because it is a sin or because God has nothing better to do than damn you for having some man meat in your cunny but because you've obviously been raised (indoctrinated) to believe He IS looking over your shoulder and you will get all messed up with guilt and fear if you do have sex.

It happens a lot, Xian girl decides to have premarital sex and then goes through such mental torments that she ends up with major psychological issues.

Nothing wrong with sex but guilt is a killer.

Even God doesn't propose to judge us until the End Of Time so maybe you should do likewise and not judge yourself?

But at the moment I'd STRONGLY advise you not to have sex. Not because it is a sin or because God has nothing better to do than damn you for having some man meat in your cunny but because you've obviously been raised (indoctrinated) to believe He IS looking over your shoulder and you will get all messed up with guilt and fear if you do have sex.

It happens a lot, Xian girl decides to have premarital sex and then goes through such mental torments that she ends up with major psychological issues.

Nothing wrong with sex but guilt is a killer.

Okay, thanks! That helps...

Tits or GTFO.

Tits or GTFO.

Totse never disappoints.

I WANT to have sex - but I'm afraid I'll go to Hell or something, or be judged by God when I die. Then again, I know I DON'T want to get married. So wtf? Does it say in the bible that you HAVE to get married. Is there any harm if I just have sex with guys who AREN'T virgins? It's all too confusing... Probably one of the reasons a lot of people hate Christianity...

Only idiots, pathetic anarchists and a few anrachists hate religion. I belive it helps people to lead fufilling lives, so whats wrong with that?
If you're not christian anyway all you have to figure out is what you think is morally right.

Jackketch, would you not agree with this? Christians believe that premarital sex is wrong. While the Bible may not directly say so. Looking at 1 Timothy Chapter 5 we can say that the Bible says that premarital sex, possibly, is wrong.

Treat older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
While it does not say not to have premarital sex but it says to treat younger women as sisters, with absolute purity. Would you have sex with your sister? In marriage or out of wed-lock? Also would you not respect women to let them, or help themselves to save their body for their spouse?
This is they way I interpret it, at least.

Does it say in the bible that you HAVE to get married.
No, you do not have to get married. Many people have different vocations that they choose. Your vocation could be to become a religious sister, your vocation could be to get married, or your vocation could be to stay single. I really don't think you should rule out marriage, you never know who you will meet. You might meet a guy one day that sweeps you off your feet, you may change your mind if you find the right person.

They way I see it, if you had a spouse how would it feel to know that they have slept with "A", "B", and "C"? How would it feel to know they they saved themselves for you and only you? Some people may not care either way, but I find the latter a lot more appealing and special. So if you view it the same way I do they having premarital sex could be morally wrong because you are hindering the opportunity from someone else, because while you may not want to marry this person, somebody else might.

Jackketch, would you not agree with this? Christians believe that premarital sex is wrong. While the Bible may not directly say so. Is pretty much what I said but I'd be careful with any claim that it indirectly says so as , as said, the whole biblical concept of marriage is alien to us (ie When the bible tends to condemn premarital sex then it is because it is 'theft' from the girl's father not immoral lewdness).

Would you have sex with your sister? I live in Norfolk.

Jackketch, would you not agree with this? Christians believe that premarital sex is wrong. While the Bible may not directly say so. Looking at 1 Timothy Chapter 5 we can say that the Bible says that premarital sex, possibly, is wrong.

While it does not say not to have premarital sex but it says to treat younger women as sisters, with absolute purity. Would you have sex with your sister? In marriage or out of wed-lock? Also would you not respect women to let them, or help themselves to save their body for their spouse?
This is they way I interpret it, at least.

No, you do not have to get married. Many people have different vocations that they choose. Your vocation could be to become a religious sister, your vocation could be to get married, or your vocation could be to stay single. I really don't think you should rule out marriage, you never know who you will meet. You might meet a guy one day that sweeps you off your feet, you may change your mind if you find the right person.

They way I see it, if you had a spouse how would it feel to know that they have slept with "A", "B", and "C"? How would it feel to know they they saved themselves for you and only you? Some people may not care either way, but I find the latter a lot more appealing and special. So if you view it the same way I do they having premarital sex could be morally wrong because you are hindering the opportunity from someone else, because while you may not want to marry this person, somebody else might.

You're right, but then again, if he really loved me, he wouldn't care if I had sex or not. And vise versa.

Sure, it's touching, and sweet that my future husband may have saved himself for me, but I don't think it's worth it for a few "awws" and stuff like that. There's other ways to get "awws" out of each other, lol.

then again, if he really loved me, he wouldn't care if I had sex or not. And vise versa.


This.Very much a lot.

Is pretty much what I said but I'd be careful with any claim that it indirectly says so as , as said, the whole biblical concept of marriage is alien to us (ie When the bible tends to condemn premarital sex then it is because it is 'theft' from the girl's father not immoral lewdness).

I live in Norfolk.

You say you studied pastor. Are you currently a Christian? What's your religion/beliefs? You don't have to say if you don't want to.

You say you studied pastor. Are you currently a Christian? What's your religion/beliefs? You don't have to say if you don't want to.

I've said today already, I'm a Xian in the biblical sense that I believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah and rightful King of Juda. But I reject most of common Xian doctrine and dogma. For example I don't believe in "Satan" as a entity of personified evil (cos it ain't in the bible), I don't believe in Heaven nor Hell- in the classical Xian view (Heaven is a relationship with God not a place and we make our own Hell). I believe in a bodily resurrection on a rejuvenated perfect Earth-a return to Eden.

I break no promises and I save no souls.

I've said today already, I'm a Xian in the biblical sense that I believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah and rightful King of Juda. But I reject most of common Xian doctrine and dogma. For example I don't believe in "Satan" as a entity of personified evil (cos it ain't in the bible), I don't believe in Heaven nor Hell- in the classical Xian view (Heaven is a relationship with God not a place and we make our own Hell). I believe in a bodily resurrection on a rejuvenated perfect Earth-a return to Eden.

I break no promises and I save no souls.

Oh, okay. I didn't know what you meant when you said Xian before. I've never heard of that. But I like the idea of no Heaven or Hell. My "friend" who is a very strong Christian said my grandparents were in Hell right now because they didn't believe in God. She wasn't trying to be mean, she was just saying the truth. It's one of the reasons Christians drive me insane.

Oh, okay. I didn't know what you meant when you said Xian before. I've never heard of that. But I like the idea of no Heaven or Hell. My "friend" who is a very strong Christian said my grandparents were in Hell right now because they didn't believe in God. She wasn't trying to be mean, she was just saying the truth. It's one of the reasons Christians drive me insane.

Xian= Christian, its just shorthand y'know? Like Xmas = Christmas.

There are 3 separate biblical ideas caught up in the usual Xian nonsense about heaven. When the bible speaks of 'heaven' then it can be 1.a relationship with God 2.The post revolutionary Theocracy in Judea or 3. The New Eden on earth.

Hell is....just turn on your TV.

My "friend" who is a very strong Christian said my grandparents were in Hell right now because they didn't believe in God. She wasn't trying to be mean, she was just saying the truth. It's one of the reasons Christians drive me insane.

No. I can tell you with 100% certainty that your grandparents are in sheol, which gets mistranslated as 'hell' but really just means the grave. They are dead and their bodies are rotting, that all. The whole idea of some kinda 'eternal soul' which leaves the body at death and goes to somewhere ain't in the bible neither.

Xian= Christian, its just shorthand y'know? Like Xmas = Christmas.

There are 3 separate biblical ideas caught up in the usual Xian nonsense about heaven. When the bible speaks of 'heaven' then it can be 1.a relationship with God 2.The post revolutionary Theocracy in Judea or 3. The New Eden on earth.

Hell is....just turn on your TV.

It's all too confusing for me. And the fact that the only reason I want to believe in the right thing so nothing bad happens to me in the afterlife makes the entire thing probably meaningless anyway.

I'm going to do some more research about religion. I think this thread is going off topic a bit. I might go to my local youth next week and see what everyone has to say there.

Honestly, everyone here is too young to start talking such nonsense. I would encourage you to experience as much in life as possible, restricted only by your innate morals reinforced by humanity, not supernaturally, and then make a "God Decision" at around the age of 60-65.

Otherwise just remain open to anything and everything and eventually your brain will learn to filter the BS and assimilate with the values and lessons.


You kind of sound like someone who is very responsive to how others judge you; why else would you want to believe in an all-seeing eye? Just live and observe and shut the hell up.

Jackketch, stop making it worse.

You kind of sound like someone who is very responsive to how others judge you; why else would you want to believe in an all-seeing eye? Just live and observe and shut the hell up.
.

I think I said something similar a few posts back.

I think I said something similar a few posts back.

Probably. I think you've been confusing her, though. Hence my comment.

I consider myself to be a Christian, but I don't go to church regularly like I should, and I haven't read the bible in its entirety - mainly because I don't have the time. I do think sex before marriage is alright if you have a real connection with the person and genuinely care about them, but if not then no.

Ahhh didn't go to well with the scripture search I take it? Lol, been there too many times..

i went to bed it was 4 i did ask someone about it though

ill give it to you in the sense that it doesnt have a thou shalt not do it before marriage but the way it was explained to me i still believe its wrong its a complicated subject

i went to bed it was 4 i did ask someone about it though

ill give it to you in the sense that it doesnt have a thou shalt not do it before marriage

Sooo if I've understood what you're a saying aright there boy, a God who otherwise manages to clearly forbid any form of sexual contact that he considers naughty, didn't think to have Moses jot down a simple one liner like "thou shalt not fuck before marriage"?

Strange that, when he expressly remembered to forbid homosexuality, bestiality, period sex, sleeping with close kin and not uncovering the nakedness of just about anyone anywhere...

It ain't complicated, or rather it only gets complicated when Xians try and rape scripture to fit their dogma.

How old are you? This isn't an insult, I'm curious.

im 19 and i wasn't meaning it as an insult. i was explaining myself.

lol, I'm waaay younger than her and have more sense. Now THAT'S my insult. :D

you sound like a douche

This^^^ is almost more retarded than the Xian viewpoint.

then why are you commenting on it.
people have different perspectives.

then why are you commenting on it.


Because that's my job?

I WANT to have sex - but I'm afraid I'll go to Hell or something, or be judged by God when I die. Then again, I know I DON'T want to get married. So wtf? Does it say in the bible that you HAVE to get married. Is there any harm if I just have sex with guys who AREN'T virgins? It's all too confusing... Probably one of the reasons a lot of people hate Christianity...

first of all if you say you are way younger than me and have much more sense then you just proved yourself wrong here. things change inevitably over time and with age. that will include your thoughts on marriage and if you truly want to go through with it. that happened to me, i never wanted to get married. as you mature the fear you have about judgment by god will change. and if you are in love with someone sometimes the only judgment you care about is your lovers', not god.
now i am not dissing your god, because that isn't what i am about, but you must have considered the fact that it might not be the judgment your afraid of, but the actual concept of sex itself. because like someone said before it is a natural part of life. sounds like you are sort of making an excuse to tell yourself it is wrong. maybe you just aren't ready mentally, and emotionally. now don't knock me because i am viewing this whole situation differently, and don't tell me about sense because i happen to believe throughout my life experiences my 'sense' has got me pretty far. i am just giving you a different perspective to a common question. in no way was i every trying to be insulting.

Because that's my job?

meh
perspectives that is all.

Sooo if I've understood what you're a saying aright there boy, a God who otherwise manages to clearly forbid any form of sexual contact that he considers naughty, didn't think to have Moses jot down a simple one liner like "thou shalt not fuck before marriage"?

Strange that, when he expressly remembered to forbid homosexuality, bestiality, period sex, sleeping with close kin and not uncovering the nakedness of just about anyone anywhere...

It ain't complicated, or rather it only gets complicated when Xians try and rape scripture to fit their dogma.

your entitled to your opinion and i dont know why He didnt put it in the 10 commandments i dont rape scripture just because it doesnt say somthing directly doesnt mean its ok to do it where does it say not to have sex with children? it doesnt but its still wrong

I didn't read most of the thread, but I wanted to remind everyone to use condoms.

If you want to argue religion, go to My God can Beat the Shit out of Your God. You'll find a lot of fun discussion.

Also, since someone quoted a bunch of Paul's writing, he was Roman, not a jew, and a total asshat. He never met Jesus or the Apostles, so anything he says is shit, mostly taken out of context since a lot of those writings were letters. The letters written to Paul aren't in the Bible. Also, he only mentions the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. He never mentions anything about his actual life and he never quotes jesus; you find that info in the gospels.

Using the bible for as a justification for or against anything is a total waste of time. Find a more relevant reason, like STIs suck balls so you will be picky about who you have sex with, or you don't want to get pregnant so you're abstaining from sex because birth control methods, even using both condoms and the pill, can fail, and you're against abortion.

Most of the issues that were being dealt with 2000-4000 years ago really don't apply anymore, so find a new book to base your life on. I suggest Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet.

Using the bible for as a justification for or against anything is a total waste of time. Find a more relevant reason, like STIs suck balls so you will be picky about who you have sex with, or you don't want to get pregnant so you're abstaining from sex because birth control methods, even using both condoms and the pill, can fail, and you're against abortion.
[/I].

this.

I skimmed a bunch of this because, no offense to many great posters here, you're all a bunch of whiny cunts running around like chickens with your heads cut off and you have no idea what the fuck you're saying (you especially jack, shame on you for being a fucking ignorant piece of shit).

The reason why it's wrong to have sex before marriage, as a Christian, is because your spirit and flesh unite with that person. The whole 1+1=1 property of Christian Marriage is that 2 souls unite into 1 flesh. If you go around having sex all the time with different people, you're pairing your soul up with other souls and you're lessening yourself for the person you are going to marry.

This is explicitly stated a few times. Jack, I don't know what hit you in the head during this thread but you're completely off your fucking rocker when you say Christians just think it's something that's moral. There is a spiritual reason behind many things in the Bible and just because you're dealing with ignorant Bible Thumpers doesn't mean the reasons are invalid or not there.

Also, since someone quoted a bunch of Paul's writing, he was Roman, not a jew, and a total asshat. He never met Jesus or the Apostles, so anything he says is shit, mostly taken out of context since a lot of those writings were letters. The letters written to Paul aren't in the Bible. Also, he only mentions the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. He never mentions anything about his actual life and he never quotes jesus; you find that info in the gospels.

Ya cause Paul helped start EVERY church with matthew, mark, luke, and peter... Oh! and Luke and Paul wrote Acts together (oh wait, you said Paul never met the apostles... fucking retard).

And his has one of the first visions of Jesus when he gets blinded as Saul.

Most of this is documented in Secular history and you're a fucking moron for thinking otherwise that Saul who is Paul never met with the Apostles. Good God, go read Acts you ignorant inbred hick.

Why has become such a big deal? IT IS FUCKING NATURAL. and who cares what the bible says, do what you feel is right. what you are emotionally, mentally, and physically ready for. if you are letting some story dictate how you should feel or live you are basically fucked anyway. follow the bible based on the greater message. which is BEING A GOOD FUCKING PERSON and that is it. sex is not a trivial subject. you have to decide when it is the right time. NOT THE BIBLE.

Yes well... you look like a moron.

This person asked, why, IN THE BIBLE, is it wrong for pre-marital sex.

This is why you are all a bunch of ignorant fuckers. You're too busy getting on your pedestal about why the Bible is wrong instead of answering the girl's questions. I'd hate to have any of you be a teacher in a college class. You'd be fucking horrendous.

YOU ARE JUST SOME SHITTY PERSON ON THIS GIGANTIC EARTH. Your pre-determined hatred for a sacred text that pre-dates anything you've ever done with your shitty life MEANS NOTHING. When someone has a question about something you don't like it's not really intelligent to start spewing your hatred on the subject. You're not going to win someone over with your hatred. You're just going to dilute and destroy any chance of understanding WHY something is done.

Now if you could kindly find your way to the nearest shotgun and off yourself, maybe this forum would be a little bit better in the morning.

Yes well... you look like a moron.

This person asked, why, IN THE BIBLE, is it wrong for pre-marital sex.

This is why you are all a bunch of ignorant fuckers. You're too busy getting on your pedestal about why the Bible is wrong instead of answering the girl's questions. I'd hate to have any of you be a teacher in a college class. You'd be fucking horrendous.

YOU ARE JUST SOME SHITTY PERSON ON THIS GIGANTIC EARTH. Your pre-determined hatred for a sacred text that pre-dates anything you've ever done with your shitty life MEANS NOTHING. When someone has a question about something you don't like it's not really intelligent to start spewing your hatred on the subject. You're not going to win someone over with your hatred. You're just going to dilute and destroy any chance of understanding WHY something is done.

Now if you could kindly find your way to the nearest shotgun and off yourself, maybe this forum would be a little bit better in the morning.

and like you are some fucking genius right? no. you are a fucking know it all. i never said the bible was wrong. i didn't go off on a tangent explaining the bibles faults did i?
and if you would take your head out of your ass and see that i was only making a statement based on what i view as something that shouldn't be blown out of proportion. but obviously your two cents should be the only one that matters right?
i don't hate the bible you negative piece of shit. i find it interesting and very enlightening in many aspects, but just because i don't embrace it in all my decisions does not make me a threat to the bible and its convictions. so get off you high horse and shove your shotgun comment up your own ass.
douche-bag.

and like you are some fucking genius right? no. you are a fucking know it all. i never said the bible was wrong. i didn't go off on a tangent explaining the bibles faults did i?
and if you would take your head out of your ass and see that i was only making a statement based on what i view as something that shouldn't be blown out of proportion. but obviously your two cents should be the only one that matters right?
i don't hate the bible you negative piece of shit. i find it interesting and very enlightening in many aspects, but just because i don't embrace it in all my decisions does not make me a threat to the bible and its convictions. so get off you high horse and shove your shotgun comment up your own ass.
douche-bag.

No really... there's sand in your vagina. Clean it out. You're a bible-hater. You're a waste of life because instead of answering a question, you push an agenda about how you think the Bible is meaningless... and you're well on your way to looking like a fucking idiot by blowing up on me with these posts. I suppose you want that shotgun now?

No really... there's sand in your vagina. Clean it out. You're a bible-hater. You're a waste of life because instead of answering a question, you push an agenda about how you think the Bible is meaningless... and you're well on your way to looking like a fucking idiot by blowing up on me with these posts. I suppose you want that shotgun now?

you are pathetic. don't talk to me like you know who i am. and i did answer the question, in previous posts you ignorant fuck. now go jack off on your beliefs.

[and regardless of how view a specific subject you have no right to tell me that i am wrong.]
unless you have something constructive to say don't respond. i don't like negative people...they are irritating.

And here Boys and Girls we have a typical Xian ie rips a bible verse out of context and then rapes it to fit dogma.

Try reading it in a decent translation and in context, its historical-critical context. Then do a comparative study and find out what 'fornication' meant then and not now.

Or you could do it the Xian way and pray that God will lead you to a correct understanding.

So true. If you go back to Greek words used fornication pretty much means being a total whore, which is a stupid thing to do anyway. Like most of what the Bible says there was very good reason for God's rules. Not eating pork was because of the larger chance of parasites, not being a whore prevented STD epidemics. If everyone was more careful about who they fucked we wouldn't have to worry much about AIDs today.

you are pathetic. don't talk to me like you know who i am. and i did answer the question, in previous posts you ignorant fuck. now go jack off on your beliefs.

[and regardless of how view a specific subject you have no right to tell me that i am wrong.]
unless you have something constructive to say don't respond. i don't like negative people...they are irritating.

Hey guess what...

YOU'RE WRONG.

Not because of your beliefs, but because you'd rather join this bandwagon of sleighting Christianity than actually answering the question.

You say you weren't trying to insult her beliefs, yet you tell her she's scared of sex? Who are you to say anything about her? If you're gonna tell me I can't say shit about you then you're being quite hypocritical... hold on I'm getting a phone call...

Oh it's the Pot... he says you're black.

Get off your high horse, dear. You'd hate to have to fall so far after your blow your brains out.

Hey guess what...

YOU'RE WRONG.

Not because of your beliefs, but because you'd rather join this bandwagon of sleighting Christianity than actually answering the question.

You say you weren't trying to insult her beliefs, yet you tell her she's scared of sex? Who are you to say anything about her? If you're gonna tell me I can't say shit about you then you're being quite hypocritical... hold on I'm getting a phone call...

Oh it's the Pot... he says you're black.

Get off your high horse, dear. You'd hate to have to fall so far after your blow your brains out.

no not constructive at all. but then again you can't get through a thick headed know it all who thinks that his insults are that of amazement.
i don't know how many times i have to tell you that i have nothing against her beliefs or christianity, because unlike yourself, i can admit that everyone has a different perspective on life. so open your eyes to the fact that i don't care if you are catholic, christian, or whatever you decide to believe.i will give opinion based on my own life. i talk from experience. as a girl to a girl.
why could it not have been because she is scared of sex? is that not a valid question? it never hurts to see something out of the box. stop making me out to be some fucking villain who does nothing but hate on beliefs because you are just proving the inevitable, which is your fucking ignorance.
i did answer the question. i answered how i wanted to answer it. if you don't like it then shut the fuck up. talk to someone you agree with.

no not constructive at all. but then again you can't get through a thick headed know it all who thinks that his insults are that of amazement.
i don't know how many times i have to tell you that i have nothing against her beliefs or christianity, because unlike yourself, i can admit that everyone has a different perspective on life. so open your eyes to the fact that i don't care if you are catholic, christian, or whatever you decide to believe.i will give opinion based on my own life. i talk from experience. as a girl to a girl.
why could it not have been because she is scared of sex? is that not a valid question? it never hurts to see something out of the box. stop making me out to be some fucking villain who does nothing but hate on beliefs because you are just proving the inevitable, which is your fucking ignorance.
i did answer the question. i answered how i wanted to answer it. if you don't like it then shut the fuck up. talk to someone you agree with.

Sorry I'm a girl.

And she asked a fucking question "why do Christians think pre-marital sex is bad?" She didn't ask "Is sex scary?".

Hmmm... given the knowledge just shown... why does thinking outside of the box have anything to do with it? At a Klan Rally do you ask "How do blacks make it when they have to suffer?" No. You don't. Because they don't give a shit about the topic at hand. She's asking why Christianity has this moral standard and you're asking her if she's scared of sex? Seriously... walk into a wall.

Ya cause Paul helped start EVERY church with matthew, mark, luke, and peter... Oh! and Luke and Paul wrote Acts together (oh wait, you said Paul never met the apostles... fucking retard).

And his has one of the first visions of Jesus when he gets blinded as Saul.

Most of this is documented in Secular history and you're a fucking moron for thinking otherwise that Saul who is Paul never met with the Apostles. Good God, go read Acts you ignorant inbred hick.

I had a vision too. In it, Jesus told me you're an idiot. Pretty sweet huh? My vision is just as valid as his, too, cause it's a vision from God.

What proof is there of Saul/Paul in SECULAR history? You claimed "most" of what you said is backed up in secular history, so list your sources.

What proof is there that he actually met the Apostles, other than his own stories? I can claim I met Elvis Presley, but I have no proof, and he died before I was born. Is that a valid claim, then? It's the same as Saul's claim.

Even so, why did he wait 30 years to write after Jesus died? He wrote in the 60s, CE. The gospels were written another 20-30 years after Saul/Paul wrote. The gospel writers would not have known Jesus, because they would have been 80+. Highly unlikely, considering all the Apostles but John were supposedly martyred much earlier on. The gospel writers were writing from the 80s, CE onward, 50 years after Jesus died.

If Paul knew the Apostles, why didn't he write about the birth and life of Jesus? He mentions nothing of this, and you didn't refute my claim.

If the Gospel writers were in fact Apostles, why the fuck didn't they know more about Jesus? In 3 years they never asked him what he was up to for all the time he was alive before he started preaching? The Gospels have a lot of stories with conflicting details. Why don't they mesh better if they all knew each other and saw the same shit?

Also, Luke wasn't an Apostle, dipshit. So your claim that Paul knew him and wrote Acts with him merely proves how worthless and irrelevant Acts is.

1. Peter: Renamed by Jesus, his original name was Simon (Mark 3:16); was a fisherman from the Bethsaida "of Galilee" (John 1:44, cf. John 12:21). Also known as Simon bar Jonah, Simon bar Jochanan (Aram.), Cephas (Aram.), and Simon Peter.
2. James, son of Zebedee: The brother of John.
3. John: The brother of James. Jesus named both of them Bo-aner'ges, which means "sons of thunder".(Mark 3:17)
4. Andrew: The brother of Simon/Peter, a Bethsaida fisherman, and a former disciple of John the Baptist.
5. Philip: From the Bethsaida of Galilee (John 1:44, John 12:21)
6. Bartholomew, son of Talemai: It has been suggested that he is the same person as Nathanael, who is mentioned in John 1:45-51.
7. Matthew: The tax collector. The similarity between Matthew 9:9-10, Mark 2:14-15 and Luke 5:27-29 may indicate that Matthew was also known as Levi.
8. Thomas: Also known as Judas Thomas Didymus - Aramaic T'oma' = twin, and Greek Didymous = twin.
9. James, son of Alphaeus: Generally identified with "James the Less", and also identified by Roman Catholics with "James the Just".[10]
10. Thaddeus: In some manuscripts of Matthew, the name "Lebbaeus" occurs in this place. Thaddeus is traditionally identified with Jude; see below.
11. Simon the Zealot: Some have identified him with Simeon of Jerusalem.[11]
12. Judas Iscariot: The disciple who later betrayed Jesus. (Mark 3:19) The name Iscariot may refer to the Judaean towns of Kerioth or to the sicarii (Jewish nationalist insurrectionists), or to Issachar. Also referred to as "Judas, the son of Simon" (John 6:71 and John 13:26). He was replaced by Matthias as an apostle shortly after Jesus' resurrection.

Why don't you read what Paul wrote and compare it to what Jesus said? None of it meshes. He subverted the church, added a bunch of woman hating, and basically twisted the message Jesus had originally espoused.

Sorry I'm a girl.

And she asked a fucking question "why do Christians think pre-marital sex is bad?" She didn't ask "Is sex scary?".

Hmmm... given the knowledge just shown... why does thinking outside of the box have anything to do with it? At a Klan Rally do you ask "How do blacks make it when they have to suffer?" No. You don't. Because they don't give a shit about the topic at hand. She's asking why Christianity has this moral standard and you're asking her if she's scared of sex? Seriously... walk into a wall.

can you stop arguing your same point. you keep saying the same exact things. i hate it when people argue like that the conversation goes no where, and there are no common solutions. i don't want to sit here and argue with you anymore because you are arrogant. and it is just too frustrating to talk to someone like you and have a logical well thought out debate.
you are just throwing insults around like it is your job.
look i don't give a shit about your beliefs. i don't care who you believe in. i don't care if i strayed from the original topic because people do it all the time on totse. and frankly i can care less about what you have to say because you don't listen, you aren't open to perspectives, you are a one tracked mind type of person. what is the point?

so unless you want to stop retorting with ridiculous comments then i suggest we both stop while we are ahead. i can admit we don't have the same views. i am okay with it. you aren't. who are you to shove your opinions and lame insults down my throat. and for that matter who am i?
the least you can do is respect the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you in everything. and you are just essentially making me feel like i need to believe in god or all is lost. i don't need a preacher. what i need is someone who can make a solid point. someone who has a valid point. someone who can talk with respect and not some one who says the same shit over and over.

I'm busy right now, so I don't feel like looking up the guy who had documentation of paul's existence. Ya know... there's google, you could always use it and not be a biased cunt and look for the information yourself. But you're a lazy piece of a shit, fanglekai, and it doesn't matter what I show you because you already made up your mind.

Btw... the gospels were written by four different people... you can ask four people to describe a car crash and they'll all have different POV's. Especially when John claims that he was the one whom Jesus loved most.

Luke was an apostle. Apostle = those who saw Jesus and were with Jesus during his life. Apparently the only qualification has been checked off... But I guess you don't wanna believe it, so it's not true. In that case, I don't believe you've met elvis. You didn't wanna believe it, so it must be okay for me to not wanna believe it.

Why can't you fucking idiots do your own research? And why can't you do unbiased research? It's not hard. Get over yourself. You're still a nobody who's done nothing on this gigantic earth and it'll always be that way because you're too self-centered and me-focused to look around outside of your own biased ignorance.

you act like you are some sort of second coming thinking youre telling people the facts. thinking you are really getting somewhere. but do you think if God was still here today he would want you to be defending his honor? don't think so. God would not want someone like you shoving you arrogant nonsense down someones throat. You have to find God on your own. it shouldn't be forced. that contradicts the entire purpose.

Unfortunately I don't have time right at the moment to answer you properly but you're absolutely right about the One Flesh aspect -infact if you check, it's one of my oft used quotes here. However you're giving it a spin that isn't found in scripture. Also as I said before , biblically speaking, the whole 'soul' thing is shaky (it came into Xianity way after Jesus).

Ok laters, people.

Oh and calling people 'ignorant pieces shit' actually weakens your argument in this sort of thing.

You made claims trying to refute my points, yet you provided no evidence. I asked for your sources. You did not provide them. This makes you the lazy piece of shit. I don't know what source you were talking about, and if you want to prove your point you should list it. Google will give me shittons of sites that I don't want. I want your exact source.

Four different people witnessing a single, shocking event that occured in a few seconds time is not the same as four people living together for 3 years, eating, shitting and bathing together, talking about tons of important stuff together. If you knew the messiah was right there, you'd be taking some fucking notes. They didn't. They fuck up on tons of details, and this fact is well-documented. Do not try to compare a car crash to 3 years of events, you only look stupid in doing so.

No, the Apostles were not the people who saw Jesus. Mark writes that on two separate occasions Jesus multiplied loaves and fish for thousands of people. Therefore saw him and were with him at some point during his life.

There are 13 Apostles. I listed the 12, and Matthias makes 13. Luke was therefore not an Apostle. I don't know where you're getting this idea that there are more than 13 Apostles, but it's incorrect. If you want to go changing the accepted definition of the term Apostle you need to mention that.

My source:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm
The word "Apostle", from the Greek apostello "to send forth", "to dispatch", has etymologically a very general sense. Apostolos (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched--in other words, who is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has, however, a stronger sense than the word messenger, and means as much as a delegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In the Greek version of the Old Testament it occurs once, in 1 Kings 14:6 (cf. 1 Kings 12:24). In the New Testament, on the contrary. it occurs, according to Bruder's Concordance, about eighty times, and denotes often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of them specially called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent of which was "Apostle". It seems to us that there is no reasonable doubt about the Aramaic word being seliah, by which also the later Jews, and probably already the Jews before Christ, denoted "those who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple service" (Lightfoot, "Galatians", London, 1896, p. 93). The word apostle would be an exact rendering of the root of the word seliah,= apostello.

The name Apostle denotes principally one of the twelve disciples who, on a solemn occasion, were called by Christ to a special mission. In the Gospels, however, those disciples are often designated by the expressions of mathetai (the disciples) or dodeka (the Twelve) and, after the treason and death of Judas, even of hendeka (the Eleven). In the Synoptics the name Apostle occurs but seldom with this meaning; only once in Matthew and Mark. But in other books of the New Testament, chiefly in the Epistles of St. Paul and in the Acts, this use of the word is current. Saul of Tarsus, being miraculously converted, and called to preach the Gospel to the heathens, claimed with much insistency this title and its rights.


I did my unbiased research. Where's your unbiased research? Where's any of your research at all, for that matter, if it's so easy to do, as you claimed it is?

You're a nobody as well, so your last paragraph is worthless.

You've added nothing to this discussion but name-calling, congratulations.

You made claims trying to refute my points, yet you provided no evidence. I asked for your sources. You did not provide them. This makes you the lazy piece of shit. I don't know what source you were talking about, and if you want to prove your point you should list it. Google will give me shittons of sites that I don't want. I want your exact source.

Four different people witnessing a single, shocking event that occured in a few seconds time is not the same as four people living together for 3 years, eating, shitting and bathing together, talking about tons of important stuff together. If you knew the messiah was right there, you'd be taking some fucking notes. They didn't. They fuck up on tons of details, and this fact is well-documented. Do not try to compare a car crash to 3 years of events, you only look stupid in doing so.

No, the Apostles were not the people who saw Jesus. Mark writes that on two separate occasions Jesus multiplied loaves and fish for thousands of people. Therefore saw him and were with him at some point during his life.

There are 13 Apostles. I listed the 12, and Matthias makes 13. Luke was therefore not an Apostle. I don't know where you're getting this idea that there are more than 13 Apostles, but it's incorrect. If you want to go changing the accepted definition of the term Apostle you need to mention that.

My source:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm
The word "Apostle", from the Greek apostello "to send forth", "to dispatch", has etymologically a very general sense. Apostolos (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched--in other words, who is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has, however, a stronger sense than the word messenger, and means as much as a delegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In the Greek version of the Old Testament it occurs once, in 1 Kings 14:6 (cf. 1 Kings 12:24). In the New Testament, on the contrary. it occurs, according to Bruder's Concordance, about eighty times, and denotes often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of them specially called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent of which was "Apostle". It seems to us that there is no reasonable doubt about the Aramaic word being seliah, by which also the later Jews, and probably already the Jews before Christ, denoted "those who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple service" (Lightfoot, "Galatians", London, 1896, p. 93). The word apostle would be an exact rendering of the root of the word seliah,= apostello.

The name Apostle denotes principally one of the twelve disciples who, on a solemn occasion, were called by Christ to a special mission. In the Gospels, however, those disciples are often designated by the expressions of mathetai (the disciples) or dodeka (the Twelve) and, after the treason and death of Judas, even of hendeka (the Eleven). In the Synoptics the name Apostle occurs but seldom with this meaning; only once in Matthew and Mark. But in other books of the New Testament, chiefly in the Epistles of St. Paul and in the Acts, this use of the word is current. Saul of Tarsus, being miraculously converted, and called to preach the Gospel to the heathens, claimed with much insistency this title and its rights.


I did my unbiased research. Where's your unbiased research? Where's any of your research at all, for that matter, if it's so easy to do, as you claimed it is?

You're a nobody as well, so your last paragraph is worthless.

You've added nothing to this discussion but name-calling, congratulations.

I'm sorry that I'm not going to waste my time to try and remember some ancient roman dude's name from a study that I took 2-3 years ago.

The most beautiful ones wait until marriage. The hot ones do it before marriage.

I don't think you should try to fuck everyone you meet, but if it's someone you love and you feel like you could marry them, then go for it. I wouldn't want to marry someone and then find out that we have no sexual chemistry.

Though I personally have not followed faithfully to my own set of standards, I do believe that premarital sex should be abstained. Ever sing I was younger I wanted to remain celibate until marriage but when I was 16 and I had sex with my girlfriend at the time and have done it again on different occasions. I do regret the decision. I feel that sex is a special thing and should only be shared with one person. My current girlfriend wants to wait and I find that very respectable and will do my best to help her out.
I really like the quote from 1 Timothy by the way, it's the last one quoted in the New Testament. That is a very good chapter about respect.

To answer the OP's question;
Taken from: http://www.new-life.net/premarital.htm

Old Testament




New testament

None of that says you shouldn't have sex before marriage. At most, it says that you should kill women that have sex before marriage and get married anyways.

So if you want to obey the bible, doesn't make much sense to just not have sex before marriage; doesn't care if you do it, it just wants you to bludgeon the girls that do it. The appropriate solution (if you think the bible is the work of god and should be followed etc) would be to work towards overthrowing the government and modifying society so that such stonings can take place.

you would have to be extremly hot for someone to marry you before you fuck tham, like 15/10 hot.....

I'm sorry that I'm not going to waste my time to try and remember some ancient roman dude's name from a study that I took 2-3 years ago.

Lol I win!

. Especially when John claims that he was the one whom Jesus loved most.

.

Ok it's been a long long time but as far as I can recall that's a misreading of the text. The one Jesus loved the most was Lazarus. Although some scholars think it was Judas Iscariot.

The Primacy of John is based not on Jesus' relationship to him but the fact that chunks of John are actually eye-witness accounts or based on such.

Ok it's been a long long time but as far as I can recall that's a misreading of the text. The one Jesus loved the most was Lazarus. Although some scholars think it was Judas Iscariot.

The Primacy of John is based not on Jesus' relationship to him but the fact that chunks of John are actually eye-witness accounts or based on such.

I went to a Christian school for 12 years. I've taken quite a few years of biblical studies. The Disciple whom Jesus loved most is John, as said by John, COUNTLESS TIMES, in the gospel of John. Namely... in the last chapter when Jesus reappears to them. John keeps calling himself that, while Jesus asks Peter if Peter loves him like a human would love their God, if Peter loves him like a brother, and lastly if peter even likes him as a friend. Then he tells Peter to feed his sheep.

I've had entire classes based on John being "The disciple whom Jesus loved most".

I went to a Christian school for 12 years. I've taken quite a few years of biblical studies. The Disciple whom Jesus loved most is John, as said by John, COUNTLESS TIMES, in the gospel of John. Namely... in the last chapter when Jesus reappears to them. John keeps calling himself that, while Jesus asks Peter if Peter loves him like a human would love their God, if Peter loves him like a brother, and lastly if peter even likes him as a friend. Then he tells Peter to feed his sheep.

I've had entire classes based on John being "The disciple whom Jesus loved most".

Well if you went to a Xian school then it sounds to me like you took Bibliology not theology. A common mistake.

Its late but free your mind from indoctrination, try to be unbiaased.

Just for a second consider that The Disciple Jesus Loved might have been Lazarus.

22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

Does that verse suddenly make sense? Do you now understand why the rumour spread that that disciple wouldn't die (ie was already immortal), because Jesus had already raised him from the dead.

Well if you went to a Xian school then it sounds to me like you took Bibliology not theology. A common mistake.

Its late but free your mind from indoctrination, try to be unbiaased.

Just for a second consider that The Disciple Jesus Loved might have been Lazarus.



Does that verse suddenly make sense? Do you now understand why the rumour spread that that disciple wouldn't die (ie was already immortal), because Jesus had already raised him from the dead.


Jack... this is me being nice... shut your fucking mouth. You are being ignorant.

Lazarus wasn't a disciple. When John Says Disciple, he saying apostle. If you're in fanglekai's line of thinking... Lazarus isn't in his list of apostles.

And Lazarus died later anyways.

EDIT: Besides... I'm not really what you'd think of when you think of a Christian. My beliefs are rather different than what a baptist school tried plugging in my head. I'm quite sure I don't believe in the institutionalism of religious spirituality. You're playing with fire if you think your short-handed excuse of Christian knowledge is worth pitting against me, old man.

I find it extremely difficult to deal with anyone who does not have a firm grasp on the English language. Stop using "Xian." It sounds like some crazy Scientology saying. C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. Spell it out. Also, Bible, not "bible."

The reason why it's wrong to have sex before marriage, as a Christian, is because your spirit and flesh unite with that person. The whole 1+1=1 property of Christian Marriage is that 2 souls unite into 1 flesh. If you go around having sex all the time with different people, you're pairing your soul up with other souls and you're lessening yourself for the person you are going to marry.

What!!! I don't like this! Is this true? :( I don't want to get married anyway, so...

I hate this. Why couldn't there be more than 10 commandments. They should have made the Bible more simple and had REASONS for not doing it!

"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vein".

Why? If nobody said "Jesus Christ!!!" I doubt Jesus would be as popular in the media, and I'm not kidding here. Imagine if instead, people said "Bhudda!!!!" when something bad happened. He would be more popular, wouldn't he?

The rules are so fucking stupid!

What!!! I don't like this! Is this true? :( I don't want to get married anyway, so...

I hate this. Why couldn't there be more than 10 commandments. They should have made the Bible more simple and had REASONS for not doing it!

"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vein".

Why? If nobody said "Jesus Christ!!!" I doubt Jesus would be as popular in the media, and I'm not kidding here. Imagine if instead, people said "Bhudda!!!!" when something bad happened. He would be more popular, wouldn't he?

The rules are so fucking stupid!


Well if we're going off Hebrew technicalities... I'm sure there are 671 laws... not just the 10 commandments.

And taking the Lord's name in vain is actually embellished a little bit to what it's true meaning was. It means to do things in God's name or under the guise of God's command w/o it actually being God-inspired. So... what Fanglekai did earlier where he was like "God gave me a vision" that was more of taking the Lord's name in Vain than saying "god damnit" when you stub your toe.

Well if we're going off Hebrew technicalities... I'm sure there are 671 laws... not just the 10 commandments.

And taking the Lord's name in vain is actually embellished a little bit to what it's true meaning was. It means to do things in God's name or under the guise of God's command w/o it actually being God-inspired. So... what Fanglekai did earlier where he was like "God gave me a vision" that was more of taking the Lord's name in Vain than saying "god damnit" when you stub your toe.

Well my Christian teacher's an idiot then. So does that mean it's okay to say "god damnit" and the such?

Well my Christian teacher's an idiot then. So does that mean it's okay to say "god damnit" and the such?

Is it okay to call someone a bitch? No... is it okay to tell someone to quit their bitching? Perhaps.

If you're going to use a religious book to tell you what is and isn't allowed to be said... you're probably not going to do real well searching for certain terms. Just speak with morality and you'll be fine.

Is it okay to call someone a bitch? No... is it okay to tell someone to quit their bitching? Perhaps.

If you're going to use a religious book to tell you what is and isn't allowed to be said... you're probably not going to do real well searching for certain terms. Just speak with morality and you'll be fine.

I don't want to die and be judged for all the bad things I've done though, that was said not to do in the Bible. I don't want to go to Hell... :(

I don't want to die and be judged for all the bad things I've done though, that was said not to do in the Bible. I don't want to go to Hell... :(

Well obviously you're not reading the new testament.

Jesus forgives... as long as you have a desire to be forgiven, and a will to change your actions.

It's kinda funny... you could almost say that some people can get away with murder because they'll truly have a desire to change their ways... but will want to get the murdering out of their system first.

its bullshit

Everyone has sex before marriage.

Do you know how much it would suck for both partners to be inexperienced at sex?

Religion is a joke, do you think that some eternal being actually gives a shit if you fornicate and doing what they programmed you to do (assuming intelligent design is correct which is more bullshit)?

its a tool used by those in positions of political and religious influence to control you and perpetuate an oppressive, patriarchal society

Jesus forgives... as long as you have a desire to be forgiven, and a will to change your actions.
.

thats the best thing said in this thread

I have made a new thread so this one won't get derailed and locked.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=10742973#post10742973

Jack... this is me being nice... shut your fucking mouth. You are being ignorant. You see, its this kind of thing which shows me and no doubt others that your knowledge of the bible is limited. You have no answers and fear of appearing ignorant makes you resort to insults.

Its very common among those who think their bibliology equates with knowledge.

You're playing with fire if you think your short-handed excuse of Christian knowledge is worth pitting against me, old man. So far your 'knowledge' has singularly failed to impress.

thats the best thing said in this thread

Actually it's about as ill informed as the rest of what he has said.

You see, its this kind of thing which shows me and no doubt others that your knowledge of the bible is limited. You have no answers and fear of appearing ignorant makes you resort to insults.

Its very common among those who think their bibliology equates with knowledge.

So far your 'knowledge' has singularly failed to impress.

Yes well... you're a rather old man who's admitted to being less than spectacular at parenting... impressing you isn't really high on my list of shit to do. I've had cramps to deal with all day and Cysts in my womanly that would put you to your knees, so I'm not really in the mood to be searching around for information.

But it apparent that you're lacking in knowledge when you think that Lazarus is a disciple, let alone the disciple whom Jesus loved most (case in point, John is the only gospel that uses that phrase, and he is always referring to himself since usually he will name the other person involved in the matter). Something as simple as that shouldn't be too hard on you, old man. But I guess Biblical Knowledge and Waving your E-Penis around are two different things, the latter of which is what you've apparently been doing.

EDIT: And God damnit, you've been in like 3 threads now where it's been stated I'm a girl. Can you stfu with his "he" shit? Seriously, damn.

Well if you went to a Xian school then it sounds to me like you took Bibliology not theology. A common mistake.

Its late but free your mind from indoctrination, try to be unbiaased.

Just for a second consider that The Disciple Jesus Loved might have been Lazarus.

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/disciple-whom-jesus-loved-faq.htm

http://www.gotquestions.org/disciple-whom-Jesus-loved.html

Just for a second consider that you're a crazy fool who can't even pay respect to Jesus Christ, the man, let alone the religion of others, because you have to use the Cross X everytime you mention it.

Even the Wikipedia about it says "people say it might be lazarus" but then goes on giant expose's about how it's john. If you'd use your eyes and read the Bible, instead of just meandering around and pretending to feign knowledge, you'd know what I previously stated, about how John was the ONLY book it was used in, authored by John, who happened to also pen Revelation.


Edit: Also for Fanglekai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus and http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/paul.html

Paul was a Jew, Mr. "I don't know shit about what I'm saying" and Paul did meet with the Apostles.

EDIT: And God damnit, you've been in like 3 threads now where it's been stated I'm a girl. Can you stfu with his "he" shit? Seriously, damn.

Yes, my bad. Sorry.

And as to the rest of what you said it's now unfortunately obvious , at least to me, that you are well up on your bibliology but not your theology. It is clear that you neither have historical-critical knowledge of the bible nor do you want it (which btw is fair enough). Just the way you assumed certainties(there are almost none in the bible) and the use of the rather typical Xian circular 'logic' (The bible must be true because it's god's word, and we know it is because he tells us) should have told me that from the start.

Thing is, twenty odd years ago, I was where you are now in knowledge terms. I knew my bible, or at least I thought I did. But I discovered that what I actually knew was the bible as interpreted by Xians. It wasn't til I studied theology that I realised how ignorant I was.

The fact you think the same John that wrote the Gospel also wrote the Apocalypse marks you down as not having the slightest clue about the origins of the NT. But I do know that that is still taught by a lot of churches so it's not your fault.

He was a Jew-hater.

Not a Hebrew Scholar; a Hellenist.

Saul (whose Roman cognomen was Paul; see Acts xiii. 9) was born of Jewish parents in the first decade of the common era at Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts ix. 11, xxi. 39, xxii. 3). The claim in Rom. xi. 1 and Phil. iii. 5 that he was of the tribe of Benjamin, suggested by the similarity of his name with that of the first Israelitish king, is, if the passages are genuine, a false one, no tribal lists or pedigrees of this kind having been in existence at that time (see Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." i. 7, 5; Pes. 62b; M. Sachs, "Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung," 1852, ii. 157). Nor is there any indication in Paul's writings or arguments that he had received the rabbinical training ascribed to him by Christian writers, ancient and modern; least of all could he have acted or written as he did had he been, as is alleged (Acts xxii. 3), the disciple of Gamaliel I., the mild Hillelite. His quotations from Scripture, which are all taken, directly or from memory, from the Greek version, betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text. The Hellenistic literature, such as the Book of Wisdom and other Apocrypha, as well as Philo (see Hausrath, "Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte," ii. 18-27; Siegfried, "Philo von Alexandria," 1875, pp. 304-310; Jowett, "Commentary on the Thessalonians and Galatians," i. 363-417), was the sole source for his eschatological and theological system. Notwithstanding the emphatic statement, in Phil. iii. 5, that he was "a Hebrew of the Hebrews"—a rather unusual term, which seems to refer to his nationalistic training and conduct (comp. Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2), since his Jewish birth is stated in the preceding words "of the stock of Israel"—he was, if any of the Epistles that bear his name are really his, entirely a Hellenist in thought and sentiment. As such he was imbued with the notion that "the whole creation groaneth" for liberation from "the prison-house of the body," from this earthly existence, which, because of its pollution by sin and death, is intrinsically evil (Gal. i. 4; Rom. v. 12, vii. 23-24, viii. 22; I Cor. vii. 31; II Cor. v. 2, 4; comp. Philo, "De Allegoriis Legum," iii. 75; idem, "De Vita Mosis," iii. 17; idem, "De Ebrietate," § 26; and Wisdom ii.24). As a Hellenist, also, he distinguished between an earthly and a heavenly Adam (I Cor. xv. 45-49; comp. Philo, "De Allegoriis Legum," i. 12), and, accordingly, between the lower psychic. life and the higher spiritual life attained only by asceticism (Rom. xii. 1; I Cor. vii. 1-31, ix. 27, xv. 50; comp. Philo, "De Profugis," § 17; and elsewhere). His whole state of mind shows the influence of the theosophic or Gnostic lore of Alexandria, especially the Hermes literature recently brought to light by Reizenstein in his important work "Poimandres," 1904 (see Index, s. v. "Paulus," "Briefe des Paulus," and "Philo"); hence his strange belief in supernatural powers (Reizenstein, l.c. pp. 77, 287), in fatalism, in "speaking in tongues" (I Cor. xii.-xiv.; comp. Reizenstein, l.c. p. 58; Dieterich, "Abraxas," pp. 5 et seq.; Weinel, "Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister," 1899, pp. 72 et seq.; I Cor. xv. 8; II Cor. xii. 1-6; Eph. iii. 3), and in mysteries or sacraments (Rom. xvi. 25; Col. i. 26, ii. 2, iv. 3; Eph. i. 9, iii. 4, vi. 19)—a term borrowed solely from heathen rites.

Anti-Jewish Attitude.

Whatever the physiological or psychological analysis of Paul's temperament may be, his conception of life was not Jewish. Nor can his unparalleled animosity and hostility to Judaism as voiced in the Epistles be accounted for except upon the assumption that, while born a Jew, he was never in sympathy or in touch with the doctrines of the rabbinical schools. For even his Jewish teachings came to him through Hellenistic channels, as is indicated by the great emphasis laid upon "the day of the divine wrath" (Rom. i. 18; ii. 5, 8; iii. 5; iv. 15; v. 9; ix. 22; xii. 19; I Thess. i. 10; Col. iii. 6; comp. Sibyllines, iii. 309 et seq., 332; iv. 159, 161 et seq.; and elsewhere), as well as by his ethical monitions, which are rather inconsistently taken over from Jewish codes of law for proselytes, the Didache and Didascalia. It is quite natural, then, that not only the Jews (Acts xxi. 21), but also the Judæo-Christians, regarded Paul as an "apostate from the Law" (see Eusebius, l.c. iii. 27; Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 26, 2; Origen, "Contra Celsum," v. 65; Clement of Rome, "Recognitiones," i. 70. 73).

Antinomianism and Jew-Hatred.

His antinomian theology is chiefly set forth in the Epistle to the Romans, many parts of which, however, are the product of the second-century Church with its fierce hatred of the Jew, e.g., such passages as ii. 21-24, charging the Jews with theft, adultery, sacrilege, and blasphemy, or ix. 22 and xi. 28 (comp. iii. 2). The underlying motive of Paul—the tearing down of the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile—is best expressed in Eph. ii. 14-22, where it is declared that the latter are no longer "gerim" and "toshabim" (A. V. "strangers" and "foreigners"), but "fellow citizens with the saints" of the Church and fully equal members "of the household of God." In order to accomplish his purpose, he argues that just as little as the heathen escapes the wrath of God, owing to the horrible sins he is urged to commit by his clinging to his idols, so little can the Jew escape by his Law, because "the law worketh sin and wrath" (Rom. iv. 15). Instead, indeed, of removing the germ of death brought into the world by Adam, the Law was given only to increase sin and to make all the greater the need of divine mercy which was to come through Christ, the new Adam (ib. v. 15-20). By further twisting the Biblical words taken from Gen. xv. 6, which he interprets as signifying that Abraham's faith became a saving power to him, and from Gen. xvii. 5, which he takes as signifying that Abraham was to be the father of the Gentiles instead of nations, he argues that the saving grace of God lies in faith (that is, blind belief) and not in the works of the Law. And so he declares faith in Jesus' atoning death to be the means of justification and salvation, and not the Law, which demands servitude, whereas the spirit of Christ makes men children of God (Rom. iv.-viii.). The Pauline Jew-hatred was ever more intensified (see ib. ix.-xi., and comp. ix. 31)—which is clear evidence of a later origin—and culminates in Gal. iii., where, besides the repetition of the argument from Gen. xv. 6 and xvii. 5, the Law is declared, with reference to Deut. xxviii. 26 and Hab. ii. 4 (comp. Rom. i. 17), to be a curse from which the crucified Christ—himself "a curse" according to the Law (Deut. xxi. 23; probably an argument taken up from controversies with the Jews)—was to redeem the believer. Another sophistic argument against the Law, furnished in Gal. iii. 19-24, and often repeated in the second century (Heb. ii. 2; Acts vii. 38, 53; Aristides, "Apologia," xiv. 4), is that the Law was received by Moses as mediator from the angels—a quaint notion based upon Deut. xxxiii. 2, LXX.; comp. Josephus, "Ant." xv. 5, § 3—and that it is not the law of God, which is a life-giving law of righteousness. Furthermore the laws of the Jews and the idolatrous practises of the heathen are placed equally low as mere servitude of" the weak and beggarly elements" (="planets"; Gal. iv. 8-11), whereas those that have put on Christ by baptism have risen above alldistinctions of race, of class, and of sex, and have become children of God and heirs of Abraham (ib. iii. 26-29; what is meant by the words" There shall be neither male nor female" in verse 28 may be learned from Gal. v. 12, where eunuchism is advised; see B. Weiss's note ad loc.).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=283

Try reading from unbiased sources.

Oh, and sex before marriage rocks.

eat this masero you preaching bastard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN-kX5ZTkzQ

although it is funny....i just want to throw it in your face, cause you are annoying.

Yes, my bad. Sorry.

And as to the rest of what you said it's now unfortunately obvious , at least to me, that you are well up on your bibliology but not your theology. It is clear that you neither have historical-critical knowledge of the bible nor do you want it (which btw is fair enough). Just the way you assumed certainties(there are almost none in the bible) and the use of the rather typical Xian circular 'logic' (The bible must be true because it's god's word, and we know it is because he tells us) should have told me that from the start.

Thing is, twenty odd years ago, I was where you are now in knowledge terms. I knew my bible, or at least I thought I did. But I discovered that what I actually knew was the bible as interpreted by Xians. It wasn't til I studied theology that I realised how ignorant I was.

The fact you think the same John that wrote the Gospel also wrote the Apocalypse marks you down as not having the slightest clue about the origins of the NT. But I do know that that is still taught by a lot of churches so it's not your fault.

I've been shown proof through non-Christian sources that john is the same for both. I don't have the resources readily available to me, nor do I remember the titles.

I never actually did any of that whole "bible is true, b/c God wrote it" skit either. I'm examining the Bible and explaining it to you. But this girl wasn't asking about the "theology" behind it... she wanted to know why Christians believed in it.

And anyways... there is the whole faith mechanism, it's a cop-out sometimes, sure, but if you're going to follow your religion, there might be some inconsistencies, it was put together with Human hands, after all.

And for the record, I do NOT believe God gives a shit about the individual, but rather the whole of humanity (possibly at least). Therefore I can see where He might want to "fix" errors... but he could always be a God that says "fuck it, let humans destroy themselves, the ones who care will be the ones who get it right".

So yes, I may sometimes teach the Bible as taught by the church... but really... if a person is deciding to put Christianity into their lives, if they really follow the rules of "Love God, Love others" and try to do what's best on a moral scope, then are you really certain they should be nickled and dimed for not having the actually 100% correct history down? Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson are prime examples of DOING IT WRONG. And I believe they're all going to burn in hell for all eternity because they are wicked evil men with ulterior intentions. But if someone really honestly tries to provide a better situation for others, loves their Christ, loves their God, and loves other people... do you really want to crucify this person for the little things?


EDIT:

eat this masero you preaching bastard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN-kX5ZTkzQ

although it is funny....i just want to throw it in your face, cause you are annoying.

I can make fun of religion with comedians too. George Carlin, Denis Leary, Bill Hicks.

And for the last god damn time, I'm a woman, not a man. If you can't keep up (not directed towards you jack, I know sometimes old people have alzheimers :D, but no seriously, I respect the hell out of you), Anastacia, then gtfo.

A few pages back, there was a small mention about the Biblical disapproval of period sex.

That's one-quarter of my life until I'm in my 50s. The one-quarter when I'm insatiably horny.


I would like to hear more.

Google it if you want to waste your time reading stupid rules that don't apply to you as a non-Jew.

I've been shown proof through non-Christian sources that john is the same for both. I don't have the resources readily available to me, nor do I remember the titles.

I do have some relatively reliable comments about it. Both are rather old, however. Asimov's Guide to the Bible: The New Testament was written in 1969. The other, even older, was written in 1920. However, they are both rather interesting.

From Asimov's Guide to the Bible:

Revelation

John

There are apocalyptic passages in several books of the Old Testament. Isaiah, for instance, contains a "little apocalypse" and the latter half of Daniel is apocalyptic. However, no book of the Old Testament is entirely apocalyptic, although one such book -- 2 Esdras -- is to be found in the Apocrypha.

During Domitian's time, however, there was written a particularly complex and richly symbolic apocalypse. Its author was a Christian and it was eventually accepted (despite some initial misgivings) as canonical. It now appears as the last book of the New Testament and is the only entirely apocalyptic book in the Bible.

Since "apocalypse" means "unveiling" or "revelation" (of matters, that is, which would otherwise remain forever hidden because they cannot be penetrated by the unaided reason of man) this final book can be called either "The Apocalypse" or "The Revelation." It is called the latter in the King James Version.

The author of Revelation names himself and makes no attempt to place the authorship upon some ancient sage (as is generally done in apocryphal writing):

Revelation 1:1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John . . .

That leaves us the question of who John might be. The most common tradition is that the fourth gospel, the three epistles of John, and Revelation are all written by the same person, and that this person is John the apostle; that is, John son of Zebedee. In the Catholic versions of the Bible, the book is accordingly entitled "The Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle."

It is true that the language of the book, while Greek, is filled with Semetic word order and idioms, and is rich in Old Testament allusion in almost every verse. One might almost consider this to prove that the author was a Palestinian Jew who thought in Hebrew or Aramaic and whose Greek had been learned late in life -- as one would expect of John the Apostle.

On the other hand, the language might prove nothing one way or the other. It might very well be a self-conscious imitation of the kind of apocalyptic language used by the Palestinian Jewish writers of the previous two centuries. (We have a modern example of this sort of thing in the Book of Mormon, which was written in self-conscious imitation of the style of the King James Version of the Bible.)

Arguing against John the Apostle as writer is the enormous difference in style, vocabulary, and thought between the fourth gospel and Revelation. The two could not be by the same author and if John the apostle wrote the fourth gospel, he could not have written Revelation. Moreover if the writer of Revelation identifies himself as John and is therefore clearly not trying to conceal his identity, why does he not say openly that he is John the apostle, or John the Beloved Disciple? The fact that he does not, makes it seem that he is another John.

The King James Version seems to display caution in this respect for it does not identify John as the apostle, in the name of the book, which it calls: "The Revelation of St. John the Divine." The Revised Standard Version is even more cautious and calls it "The Revelation to John," while the Jerusalem Bible says simply, "The Book of Revelation."

And the other one, which I've read part of:
http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/contents.htm

That one goes over the particular differences between the grammar of Revelation and the Gospel of John, as well as many other aspects. He says the same thing as Asimov -- that the grammar and diction are so different between the two books that they could not have been written by the same person.

Other conclusions that he comes to, which are not as certain, are that the Gospel of John and the three epistles ascribed to John are written by the same person. However, he does not say that they were necessarily written by John the apostle -- rather, that they may have been written by someone called "John the Elder." The author of Revelation he calls "John the seer" or "John the prophet." Lastly, he says that based on analysis of the texts, the Gospel of John and Revelation have been edited/revised at some point by different authors.

But anyway, whatever way you look at it, it's well-agreed by scholars that the Gospel of John and Revelation weren't written by the same person.

edit: meh, I shouldn't say that. I haven't checked up on what every scholar says. Interestingly, I found this on Religioustolerance.org:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb5b.htm
The belief in a common authorship between Revelation and the Gospel of John was challenged by many Christian heretics late in the 2nd century and by many orthodox Christian leaders in the early 3rd century. But the belief prevailed in the early church. If it were otherwise, the Revelation might not have made it into the official canon. Apostolic authorship was an important factor before books were accepted into the canon.

EDIT:



I can make fun of religion with comedians too. George Carlin, Denis Leary, Bill Hicks.

And for the last god damn time, I'm a woman, not a man. If you can't keep up (not directed towards you jack, I know sometimes old people have alzheimers :D, but no seriously, I respect the hell out of you), Anastacia, then gtfo.

youre dumb, and not once it the EAT THIS post i did said anything about you being a man. i said you were a bastard. i can call you any name i want. i just happened to choose that.
and ever since i found out that you were a girl i just expect more out of you. but you sound more and more pathetic each time you post.

But if Revelation was written later in his life, would it be impossible that his diction possibly changed? He was no longer recounting the story of Christ, rather he was writing down the direct vision that God was giving him at that time. I don't see how a different diction could say that he's not the same person. I wrote with completely different diction 3-4 years ago.

I can make fun of religion with comedians too. George Carlin, Denis Leary, Bill Hicks.

And for the last god damn time, I'm a woman, not a man. If you can't keep up (not directed towards you jack, I know sometimes old people have alzheimers :D, but no seriously, I respect the hell out of you), Anastacia, then gtfo

careful girl

you do NOT want to piss off a Russian, she might sic her pack of Huskies on you!

careful girl

you do NOT want to piss off a Russian, she might sic her pack of Huskies on you!

Yaaaaaaaa. Okay.

careful girl

you do NOT want to piss off a Russian, she might sic her pack of Huskies on you!

not russian. sorry

It wasn't just that the author of Revelation used different words / literary style, but his Greek grammar was apparently poor, whereas the Greek grammar of the author of the gospel and epistles was very good. From the religioustolerance.org page, Eusebius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea), a bishop from around 300 A.D., said:
"The phrasing itself also helps to differentiate between the Gospel and Epistle[s of John] on the one hand and the book of Revelation on the other. The first two are written not only without errors in the Greek, but also with real skill with respect to vocabulary, logic and coherence of meaning. You won't find any barbaric expression, grammatical flaw, or vulgar expression in them. ... I don't deny that this other author had revelations ... but I notice that in neither language nor in style does he write accurate Greek. He makes use of barbaric expressions and is sometimes guilty even of grammatical error ... I don't say this in order to accuse him (far from it!), but simply to demonstrate that the two books are not at all similar."

I'm guessing it's like the difference between someone who is fluent in English and a foreigner who knows the language, but doesn't have all the grammatical skill of a native speaker. I'll admit that I've seen people whose grammar has gone "downhill" so-to-speak, because of a change of locality, but I find the other scenario more likely. I've also read the suggestion that maybe he had a secretary do his earlier writings, but I doubt it.

There are other differences noted, such as the tone and theology itself of Revelation compared to the gospels and epistles -- it's rather violent in comparison. And like Paul, he only mentions Jesus in a symbolic fashion, which suggests he may have never seen Jesus personally. Also, John the apostle wasn't known to have been in Asia Minor, which is where the John who wrote Revelation had been before being exiled to Patmos.

edit: a lot of this I'm looking up on the spot, so correct me if I get any details wrong.

Gotta test drive the car before you buy it.

What!!! I don't like this! Is this true? :( I don't want to get married anyway, so...

I hate this. Why couldn't there be more than 10 commandments. They should have made the Bible more simple and had REASONS for not doing it!

"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vein".

Why? If nobody said "Jesus Christ!!!" I doubt Jesus would be as popular in the media, and I'm not kidding here. Imagine if instead, people said "Bhudda!!!!" when something bad happened. He would be more popular, wouldn't he?

The rules are so fucking stupid!

the media?

oh thats right judas and him got into a bitchfight over their xbox so he ratted him out to the romans. correct me if i'm wrong but i thought media was tv, radio, newspaper etc.

and more on topic, if you aren't christian why does it matter if a god you already don't believe in judges you??

the media?

oh thats right judas and him got into a bitchfight over their xbox so he ratted him out to the romans. correct me if i'm wrong but i thought media was tv, radio, newspaper etc.

and more on topic, if you aren't christian why does it matter if a god you already don't believe in judges you??

She was saying "If ppl weren't running around going JESUS CHRIST! I STUBBED MY TOE! then he wouldn't be as popular. That's fuzzy logic though, as until recently Christianity was the fastest spread religion.

She was saying "If ppl weren't running around going JESUS CHRIST! I STUBBED MY TOE! then he wouldn't be as popular. That's fuzzy logic though, as until recently Christianity was the fastest spread religion.

fuzzy logic is the best logic :D and i don't quite understand...how does using jesus as a curse make the man himself so popular? all the same her statement makes no sense

fuzzy logic is the best logic :D and i don't quite understand...how does using jesus as a curse make the man himself so popular? all the same her statement makes no sense

AHHHH Kelly Clarkson!

It was a stupid comment, but this thread is stupid. Sex is fun and healthy.

AHHHH Kelly Clarkson!

It was a stupid comment, but this thread is stupid. Sex is fun and healthy.

agreed.

AHHHH Kelly Clarkson!

It was a stupid comment, but this thread is stupid. Sex is fun and healthy.

i don't mean to bring the thread up again but what do you mean by kelly clarkson??

Well, I'm Catholic, and I think that it's an interpretation of the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery". I take it to mean that I can have sex with my girlfriend if I'm in a stable, loving relationship. Going against promiscuity in my eyes.

i don't mean to bring the thread up again but what do you mean by kelly clarkson??

They said Jesus is used as an insult or exclamation/interjection because of the media. I was showing the ridiculousness of the statement by bringing up the line "AHHHHHHH KELLY CLARKSON!!" from the movie "The 40 Year Old Virgin." The point was that just because something is presented in a movie/song/the news/etc. doesn't mean people will actually do it. People who saw the movie used the line for a while, but then it died off completely. Obviously it was a funny, unexpected line. However, no one actually uses it seriously in real life.

Using Jesus/God etc. in real life makes sense: you're angry at the being who is responsible for your misfortune. It's very logical, and the media really didn't make it popular. I know people who don't watch movies/tv (older people) and they still say it. The media really has no influence on the matter.

And to stay on topic, in Catholicism you aren't allowed to have premarital sex, skyclaw. You're currently in a state of mortal sin, and as such you cannot take communion. You need to either stop pretending that your lifestyle meshes with catholicism and end your evil ways, or ditch religion. You can't receive forgiveness when you know you're going to keep committing the same sin over and over. Stop being a hypocrite: pick a fucking side. You do not get to interpret the commandments, the bible, or anything else. Read your catechism where it's all spelled out for you.

However, I suggest you shift to the side of sex and no religion. It's far more fun.

The whole "no sex before marriage" concept is just some bullshit thought up to fulfill some archaic agenda a LONG time ago.

And to stay on topic, in Catholicism you aren't allowed to have premarital sex, skyclaw. You're currently in a state of mortal sin, and as such you cannot take communion. You need to either stop pretending that your lifestyle meshes with catholicism and end your evil ways, or ditch religion. You can't receive forgiveness when you know you're going to keep committing the same sin over and over. Stop being a hypocrite: pick a fucking side. You do not get to interpret the commandments, the bible, or anything else. Read your catechism where it's all spelled out for you.

However, I suggest you shift to the side of sex and no religion. It's far more fun.

Coming from a non-religious standpoint, I don't see any need for him to accept what the religious authorities say. He isn't hurting anyone by doing what he's currently doing. It looks to me like you're trying to force him into a dilemna where if he follows your advice he'll either be bitter about his religion or not follow it at all.

My own views are (im Christian but its been a while since I've been to church due to hangovers on sunday) sex before marriage is from the old testament i believe which means it would have made sense....at the time. At that point in time marriage would have been at a much younger age and so abstinence before marriage at this age would make sense for physical/mental health perspective. Now like a lot of the bible it is not relevant.

Coming from a non-religious standpoint, I don't see any need for him to accept what the religious authorities say. He isn't hurting anyone by doing what he's currently doing. It looks to me like you're trying to force him into a dilemna where if he follows your advice he'll either be bitter about his religion or not follow it at all.

Except his religion says no sex before marriage. There is no dilemma here. Either you practice your religion or you stop claiming to be a practitioner of it.

Except his religion says no sex before marriage. There is no dilemma here. Either you practice your religion or you stop claiming to be a practitioner of it.

He follows his own variant of Catholicism. Earlier you said that he needs to either accept the standard from the religious authorities, or abandon his religion altogether.

You need to either stop pretending that your lifestyle meshes with catholicism and end your evil ways, or ditch religion.

There is no need for either extreme. It may be that he cannot claim to follow standard Catholicism (I am not arguing about that), but there is no need to either abandon his religion or follow the standard.

Do you agree with that much?

A new arrival said something useful? +1 internets for you!

On topic: I agree with the above. Sex in those days usually lead to a baby and seeing as marriage took place at such a young age and women had no means of supporting themselves... she NEEDED marriage to support the baby which was a result of the sex... chain of events make sense?

Another thread bashing religion

Another thread bashing religion

That's about all that happens when certain users find their way around totse.

Earlier you said that he needs to either accept the standard from the religious authorities, or abandon his religion altogether.

Correct. If you are not practicing your religion, you're living in even more of a fairy-tale land than if you just practiced what you claim to believe in. If you claim to be Catholic, you must try your hardest to follow what Catholicism lays out. One of the tenets is that sex must be love-giving and life-giving. Contraception denies life-giving, so contraceptives are wrong. Sex before marriage is wrong because of that reason and a slew of the other reasons mentioned in this thread. In the Catechism, it lays out why premarital sex is wrong.

Therefore, it is wrong under Catholicism. It is more than wrong, it's a mortal sin, meaning you have willfully turned away from God. You cannot receive communion until you've gone to confession.

It does not mesh with the religion, and there is no such thing as 'his own variant' of catholicism. That's called heresy, and they used to burn people for it. You are not catholic if you make up your own rules, so you shouldn't call yourself what you so obviously are not.


There is no need for either extreme. It may be that he cannot claim to follow standard Catholicism (I am not arguing about that), but there is no need to either abandon his religion or follow the standard.

Do you agree with that much?

Why would I agree with such a ridiculous statement? You either follow the religion or you don't. There is no middle ground. If you don't like what Catholicism says, go pick another religion. It is absolutely retarded to pretend you're catholic when you aren't even following the religion. That's like saying you're Buddhist but you follow Mormonist practices. It makes no sense. If you're going to practice a religion, fucking pick one and stick to it. If you aren't going to practice the religion, then don't claim you practice one. Hypocrisy is fucking annoying.

Furthermore, his "religion" that he's following is not a real religion. There are two branches of Catholicism, that's it. If you don't follow them, you are not catholic. Catholicism does not allow for personal interpretation of the bible nor does it allow for people to say which actions are sins and which are not. He is not following the rules of the religion, so what the fuck is the point? Under Catholic dogma, he'll be going to hell for committing sins. You must repent and promise to not commit the same sins again.

So what middle ground is there? Laxly following a religion? Picking some things to follow but ignoring others? In that case quit claiming you follow the religion. Make up your own religion, call it something else, and do what you want.

Sure people can live in their own delusional worlds where somehow they're exempt from the rules of their religion. They're delusional.

You have two and only two choices:
1. Pick a religion and follow it, thus calling yourself a follower of said religion.

2. Don't claim to practice a particular religion or simply don't practice a religion at all.

He doesn't have change anything except what he calls himself. That's the hypocrisy Jesus warned about whenever he talked about the Pharisees.

I had a big long post, but I'm going to shorten it down.

He doesn't have change anything except what he calls himself.

Alright. I'm going to compare to what I was originally disputing.

And to stay on topic, in Catholicism you aren't allowed to have premarital sex, skyclaw. You're currently in a state of mortal sin, and as such you cannot take communion. You need to either stop pretending that your lifestyle meshes with catholicism and end your evil ways, or ditch religion. You can't receive forgiveness when you know you're going to keep committing the same sin over and over. Stop being a hypocrite: pick a fucking side. You do not get to interpret the commandments, the bible, or anything else. Read your catechism where it's all spelled out for you.

However, I suggest you shift to the side of sex and no religion. It's far more fun.

Particularly the part where you said he had two choices -- conform to standard Catholicism, or "ditch religion." When you said to ditch religion, I got the impression of either become an atheist or agnostic, or maybe just believing in God but stop caring about sin and forgiveness and all that other Christian stuff.

Anyway, I'll just assume that what you recently said is what you originally meant to come out of your... fingers.

Now, I'll go over the issue of having to identify himself as non-Catholic, since it implies being shunned and not taking part in community religious rituals.

The thing about whether his beliefs are Catholic or not -- well, to me it looks mainly like a matter of definition, and you are going by the Roman Catholic authorities' definition. However, in practice whether a person considers himself or herself "Catholic" is rather loosely based, from what I've seen. Many people who don't follow the rules or even believe it still call themselves Catholic, just because they grew up in the church. I'm not going to argue over what he "really" is, so if you want I can call it "skyclaw's beliefs based on Catholicism."

Now, assuming that he is a "heretic," I do not think it is necessary to make an issue of it in front of everyone else. Like I already said, I do not see how he is hurting anyone by doing what he is doing. I also do not think lying is intrinsically wrong -- it depends on the situation. For example, I pretend to be a Christian for my family and my friends at church, in order to prevent unneccessary conflict, and also so that they do not have to worry about me going to hell.

Clam:

Did you spend any time believing that God was a "clockwinder" in a way?

I have trouble believing that if God exists that he gives a damn about every single individual, but rather cares about humanity on a whole. Did you ever feel this way?

Heh, "Clam."

Well, I did look into Deism for a while. I'm... not sure if I looked into God's relation between humanity versus his relation to individuals. I probably still believed he cared about individuals up to the point that I concluded that God wouldn't be something human-like. My next idea was that God might be a sort of vast consciousness... I mean, where do consciousness and sensations arise from, anyway?

It does sound reasonable, but if God were real and he actually had human emotions and cared about things, I don't think it'd be impossible to care about a whole ton of people. I mean, if you look at nature itself, some things appear almost too extreme to be real, such as how old the earth and universe are, how large the universe itself is, or Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum physics.

But I suppose if he was real and didn't care about absolutely everyone, it would help explain why some people get screwed over while others are better off.

Heh, "Clam."

Well, I did look into Deism for a while. I'm... not sure if I looked into God's relation between humanity versus his relation to individuals. I probably still believed he cared about individuals up to the point that I concluded that God wouldn't be something human-like. My next idea was that God might be a sort of vast consciousness... I mean, where do consciousness and sensations arise from, anyway?

It does sound reasonable, but if God were real and he actually had human emotions and cared about things, I don't think it'd be impossible to care about a whole ton of people. I mean, if you look at nature itself, some things appear almost too extreme to be real, such as how old the earth and universe are, how large the universe itself is, or Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum physics.

But I suppose if he was real and didn't care about absolutely everyone, it would help explain why some people get screwed over while others are better off.

Holy shit I've been reading your name wrong for a long time.

My sincerest Apologies. Anyways, The collective unconscious was something else that tinkered around in my head. I wouldn't call it deism, because I still believe that Christ was sent as the propitiation, but sometimes I just think that God focused on a large scale, not a small scale.