I dunno, I fall into the category of one who thinks children should be exposed to sex at a young age, but I do mind public sex. I meant education should start sooner... I didn't mean children should physically be exposed to sex.
That's if you were targeting me haha.
Oh, no, I didn't mean physically exposed, that would just be wrong. However, I think it should be the child's (yes the child's, not the parents') choice, otherwise it would be desensitizing brain wash. If it's by choice it's not brain washing.
And are you talking about straight sex, gay sex, or both?
Well, everyone I know who read the Christian Bible, and I mean really read it, rather then have a pastor or whoever handfeed it to them, stopped believing in Christianity...
I guess to them it makes sense. I agree with you that the idea of pastors giving you their interpretation of a particular passage is very stupid, especially if the listener takes everything he or she says as the only interpretation. In any case, I remember when I was little that their pastor said frequently something along the lines of "don't take everything I say as the only thing to believe- read the text and make your own conclusions." There are, of course, a lot of pastors who would never do that, but in my parents' case, they go to a non-denominational church that only accepts the very basic main points of the bible as cannon, and everything else as open to personal interpretation. I haven't gone there in a while, though, so things might have changed.
Read the Bible. (And I mean read it, don't have a pastor handfeed it to you.)
I actually have, front to back, and have also read some books that are not included in the cannonitical bible, including the book of Mormon, and some Jewish texts that were not included.
(Also, I am sorry for the stupid/evil thing. It may of been too far, but it did make the point I was trying to make.)
Yeah, I see what you mean now under the context of what you explained in this post, and you could very well be right
Such as? Anyways, marital, and many other traditions (even traditional laws), are pretty much all heavely based on the principles of those religions, wich are all very much alike anyways.
Compare a Taoist and a New Ager, or a Christian and a Satanist, and you'd think very differently.
A Taoist and a New Ager both believe heavily in the spiritual, but a Taosit heavily stresses that nature, and nature alone, should be worshiped. After death, their spirit blends in with the overall life force of the world, and is reborn in nature ( a quazi-reincarnation belief- look deeper if you want to.)
However, a New Ager does not necessarily even have to take part in worship, which is what makes it an odd religion, and does not stress any worship of nature, thus (however there are those who believe in faeries and such that live in trees and the earth, but that's a different story.) It stresses communication with the dead and seeing in to the future, and has adapted a lot of facets of Eastern Meditation and Hinduism. The afterlife for them ranges from person to person- some believe that ghosts remain in the world, some believe that each person has their own version of a heaven, and there are also others. The concept of hell is not usually believed in, to my knowledge.
A Christian (the biblical, fundamentalist kind) believes that god is trying to reach the world's human inhabitants to save them from themselves, because Christianity maintains that humans are naturally evil and will seek to do things for selfish reasons. The selfishness is the contradiction of god's standards, and will taint the human's soul, making them unable to be in the presence of god (think of sin, even a little bit, as a pinch of cyanide- you wouldn't want to be anywhere near it.) It says that god tries to reach them through the sacrificial slaughter of his son, the second part of the divine godhead trinity. Then, on Easter Sunday, he supposedly rose from the dead, proving that he had beaten the power of death and sin, and so any human who believes that his death can take away their sins and devotes themselves to the Christian cause is then purified of this taint and allowed to be in the presence of god in heaven after death (otherwise they enter hell for eternity.)
A Satanist is sometimes someone who believes that Satan will triumph over the Christian god in the end time and be rewarded afterwards. The main stress of it is self indulgence at any cost. Most, however, just maintain the latter and don't believe in Satan- I've heard it's because they like to piss off Christians. The afterlife, again, is shaky. The former believe that Satan will rule heaven, and will thus live there, in glorified bodies, while the latter don't believe in an afterlife, usually. Some maintain that they will just exist in hell : /
They are all extremely different.
1. It is the last step and the most ultimate way to physically bond with your partner. If you use sex just for pleasure, and not for love, then you are misusing it. If you use sex for love, you'll feel so good about doing it for both you and your partner, however, it may hurt after a breakup to know you shared a bond like that with someone that probably won't be in your dating life anymore.
2. The way sex is portrayed in media is a bad influence. Media shows sex as pleasure appeal. They think, "If we could get a physically attractive girl to pose with our product, people will want it." And the reason they are intrigued is because of the pleasure-giving nature of sex. They link the product they are advertising with pleasure. Which is wrong.
tradition in most "advanced" countries are pretty much based on the exact same principles
And we know that nearly none of the "advanced" countries are Christian/Catholic/Jewish/Islamic. Therefore, you do not need those religions to have a cultivated marital tradition practice.
Islam also has marital traditions. However, Islam's roots are in the old-age Judiasm, when the split came between the promise son of god- I believe it was the thing between Jacob and Esau, and was further strengthened when Muhammed's prophetic writings were not accepted in to the current day Christian bible because they were not cannonitical with the rest of the Christian writings (at the time of the assemblance of the scriptures), but I might be mistaken, I studied about it a while ago...
Well, since they want to deny marital validity based on the concept the religion is a bunch of bunk and has no relevance, the only thing left to reason with is science and logic.
Actually, if the universe is still expanding, it cannot be infinite, and the current theory is that our universe is constantly expanding. And actually, I think it's not even a theory anymore.
No, theoretically, based on the "Big Bang" theory, eventually the matter will cease to expand and hits a barrier of sorts that no one has observed yet, and will then collapse, and then eventually expand, and so on and so forth.
The confusion that exists with all these random religion is one reason not to follow them, lol.
Tell me about it:rolleyes:
Well its about the tradition of getting married, yes? its all based on Catholicism, Judaism, whatevericism, everyone knows this.
No, the marital tradition has been around for thousands of years, and is prevalent in nearly every religion, in some form or another (I.E. harems.)
Thats confusing to me, infact i see it as a complete paradox. Reason is that "religion" (containing concepts like "sacred") are about "seeking spirituallity" wich in turn should not be about materiallity. Sex is a pure phyisical thing, sure, sex comes to use when "in love", but it does not HAVE to be. Infact, the most obvious reason from a religious point of view why sex and love could be mutually exclusive is the "love for god", priests dont fuck Jezus after "falling in love with Jezus" (or however you want to put it), yet they ARE married with Jezus (are forbidden to marry someone else as is written in guidelines of said religion). So if the fundaments of religion rather tell us that love and sex really are two seperate things, then why in the fuck should you view sex as "sacred", especially when religious? (seeing that when not then nothing is sacred anyways)
There goes silly Dopple not knowing anything about religions :rolleyes: Don't generalize them- you're talking about Catholics. They follow funny rules and traditions that aren't actually in the bible or over-hype things already in it. Catholicism is all about traditions, really.
Kind of inevitable in a thread called "The Sex Thread" : /
Oh, no, I didn't mean physically exposed, that would just be wrong. However, I think it should be the child's (yes the child's, not the parents') choice, otherwise it would be desensitizing brain wash. If it's by choice it's not brain washing.
And are you talking about straight sex, gay sex, or both?
@ Equinox: The pen is mightier than the sword!
So, all of you people who say that if kids are exposed to sex at a young age don't mind public sex, what about homosexual sex?
Just curious. And actually, this doesn't just have to be directed at the public sex people.
I guess to them it makes sense. I agree with you that the idea of pastors giving you their interpretation of a particular passage is very stupid, especially if the listener takes everything he or she says as the only interpretation. In any case, I remember when I was little that their pastor said frequently something along the lines of "don't take everything I say as the only thing to believe- read the text and make your own conclusions." There are, of course, a lot of pastors who would never do that, but in my parents' case, they go to a non-denominational church that only accepts the very basic main points of the bible as cannon, and everything else as open to personal interpretation. I haven't gone there in a while, though, so things might have changed.
I actually have, front to back, and have also read some books that are not included in the cannonitical bible, including the book of Mormon, and some Jewish texts that were not included.
Yeah, I see what you mean now under the context of what you explained in this post, and you could very well be right
Why wouldn't they be Christian for reading the CHRISTIAN bible? I don't really understand what you mean by that.
No, they read it because they want to and see personal conviction in it.
Why would they be stupid or evil?
My parents are and they do about twice every day.
A Taoist and a New Ager both believe heavily in the spiritual, but a Taosit heavily stresses that nature, and nature alone, should be worshiped. After death, their spirit blends in with the overall life force of the world, and is reborn in nature ( a quazi-reincarnation belief- look deeper if you want to.)
However, a New Ager does not necessarily even have to take part in worship, which is what makes it an odd religion, and does not stress any worship of nature, thus (however there are those who believe in faeries and such that live in trees and the earth, but that's a different story.) It stresses communication with the dead and seeing in to the future, and has adapted a lot of facets of Eastern Meditation and Hinduism. The afterlife for them ranges from person to person- some believe that ghosts remain in the world, some believe that each person has their own version of a heaven, and there are also others. The concept of hell is not usually believed in, to my knowledge.
A Christian (the biblical, fundamentalist kind) believes that god is trying to reach the world's human inhabitants to save them from themselves, because Christianity maintains that humans are naturally evil and will seek to do things for selfish reasons. The selfishness is the contradiction of god's standards, and will taint the human's soul, making them unable to be in the presence of god (think of sin, even a little bit, as a pinch of cyanide- you wouldn't want to be anywhere near it.) It says that god tries to reach them through the sacrificial slaughter of his son, the second part of the divine godhead trinity. Then, on Easter Sunday, he supposedly rose from the dead, proving that he had beaten the power of death and sin, and so any human who believes that his death can take away their sins and devotes themselves to the Christian cause is then purified of this taint and allowed to be in the presence of god in heaven after death (otherwise they enter hell for eternity.)
A Satanist is sometimes someone who believes that Satan will triumph over the Christian god in the end time and be rewarded afterwards. The main stress of it is self indulgence at any cost. Most, however, just maintain the latter and don't believe in Satan- I've heard it's because they like to piss off Christians. The afterlife, again, is shaky. The former believe that Satan will rule heaven, and will thus live there, in glorified bodies, while the latter don't believe in an afterlife, usually. Some maintain that they will just exist in hell : /
They are all extremely different.
Yeah, that's basically what I think.
And we know that nearly none of the "advanced" countries are Christian/Catholic/Jewish/Islamic. Therefore, you do not need those religions to have a cultivated marital tradition practice.
Islam also has marital traditions. However, Islam's roots are in the old-age Judiasm, when the split came between the promise son of god- I believe it was the thing between Jacob and Esau, and was further strengthened when Muhammed's prophetic writings were not accepted in to the current day Christian bible because they were not cannonitical with the rest of the Christian writings (at the time of the assemblance of the scriptures), but I might be mistaken, I studied about it a while ago...
No, theoretically, based on the "Big Bang" theory, eventually the matter will cease to expand and hits a barrier of sorts that no one has observed yet, and will then collapse, and then eventually expand, and so on and so forth.
Tell me about it:rolleyes:
No, the marital tradition has been around for thousands of years, and is prevalent in nearly every religion, in some form or another (I.E. harems.)
There goes silly Dopple not knowing anything about religions :rolleyes: Don't generalize them- you're talking about Catholics. They follow funny rules and traditions that aren't actually in the bible or over-hype things already in it. Catholicism is all about traditions, really.