Sex before marriage

There are also scriptures that when taken literally advocate the killing of homosexuals. In the ten commandments it says that any image or representation of god is a sin, catholics believe that jesus and god are one (lets not forget the holy ghost), so therefore having a cross with jesus on it is a sin. It also clearly says several times (and quite clearly) that women are inferior to men. dont want to make it seem like an attack but unless you start spouting that what god did to the sodomites was just and should be done again, then i have to say your not supporting your faith properly.

maani wrote: threefates: There are over 100 specific and direct proscriptions against "sex for sex' sake" in the Scriptures - and not one supporting it.  I'm not sure you're reading the same Scriptures or practicing the same faith as I am. Peace.

There are also scriptures that when taken literally advocate the killing of homosexuals. In the ten commandments it says that any image or representation of god is a sin, catholics believe that jesus and god are one (lets not forget the holy ghost), so therefore having a cross with jesus on it is a sin. It also clearly says several times (and quite clearly) that women are inferior to men. dont want to make it seem like an attack but unless you start spouting that what god did to the sodomites was just and should be done again, then i have to say your not supporting your faith properly.

If I am very progressist towards sex , women's lib and that whole bit (my previous posts in this thread to prove it), I also am for legalizing the right for the father to check out the child's ADN to check out if the kid is his or not. How many women have "cheated" (a bit harsh of a word but I cannot think of a more apt word at the time of writing this post) their husband this way?

There has been a study recently about how women choose their mates for life: there are two facts that pheromones overule the female "brains, heart and ovaries" (I say ovaries as opposed to the male Gut feeling , plus sexual attraction) .

First , women would rather be with a gentler less macho males for everyday life, some even choosing men that have more effeminate features (not wimps or gays but men that do not look like Neanderthal) so that they can control their husband or at least live an equal partnership.

Second, for having kids , they will likely be attracted to those macho more brutal men they shun , just because they are more sturdy, healthy and therefore the children produced will be more genetically healthy . As to avoid the meek inheriting the earth As Rush says in 2112.

Women are not doing this consciously: this is the animal part of human being (just like Alpha males in lions herd or wolf packs). But to think that most husbands are being cheated on as to the real nature of the kids they bring up , is outright outraging . But a certain percentage of all birth are not from the two (married or unmarried) partner in the couple. This, of course, implies female untrustworthyness in religious circles and was fought against with chastity belt in the middle ages, convents ,excision in parts of the world  and Burqas. This is why I think that religion should stay out of marital (and family) life, because women are always getting the short end of the stick. The purpose is to create large families with many new young disciples to increase the power of religions.

I hope I do not shock anyone with my opinion, and the people that are might want to think about the role of religion as a political force . In Europe , we have been fighting for centuries to separate religion from politics and this is healthy. There is still a long way to go in these matters before Mankind finally reach maturity/adulthood.

Peace.

If I am very progressist towards sex , women's lib and that whole bit (my previous posts in this thread to prove it), I also am for legalizing the right for the father to check out the child's ADN to check out if the kid is his or not. How many women have "cheated" (a bit harsh of a word but I cannot think of a more apt word at the time of writing this post) their husband this way?

There has been a study recently about how women choose their mates for life: there are two facts that pheromones overule the female "brains, heart and ovaries" (I say ovaries as opposed to the male Gut feeling , plus sexual attraction) .

First , women would rather be with a gentler less macho males for everyday life, some even choosing men that have more effeminate features (not wimps or gays but men that do not look like Neanderthal) so that they can control their husband or at least live an equal partnership.

Second, for having kids , they will likely be attracted to those macho more brutal men they shun , just because they are more sturdy, healthy and therefore the children produced will be more genetically healthy . As to avoid

the meek inheriting the earth As Rush says in 2112.

Women are not doing this consciously: this is the animal part of human being (just like Alpha males in lions herd or wolf packs). But to think that most husbands are being cheated on as to the real nature of the kids they bring up , is outright outraging . But a certain percentage of all birth are not from the two (married or unmarried) partner in the couple. This, of course, implies female untrustworthyness in religious circles and was fought against with chastity belt in the middle ages, convents ,excision in parts of the world  and Burqas. This is why I think that religion should stay out of marital (and family) life, because women are always getting the short end of the stick. The purpose is to create large families with many new young disciples to increase the power of religions.

I hope I do not shock anyone with my opinion, and the people that are might want to think about the role of religion as a political force . In Europe , we have been fighting for centuries to separate religion from politics and this is healthy. There is still a long way to go in these matters before Mankind finally reach maturity/adulthood.

Peace.

A little misoginy never killed anyone

A couple of observations.

First, as you happy hedonists go on about the joys of sex (anytime, anywhere), consider this simple fact: if the only people having sex were married (or even just strictly monogamous) couples, the following statistics would not exist:

-from 1981 to 2003, 20 million people died from AIDS
-by 2004, 37 million adults and 2 million children were living with HIV
-by 2003, 12 million children had been orphaned as a result of parents dying from AIDS
-in 2004, 5 million people became infected with HIV; 3.1 million died from AIDS
-by 2004, women accounted for 47% of all new HIV cases
-by 2003, young people (15-24) accounted for half of all new HIV cases
-although a small number of HIV cases are associated with drug use (i.e., dirty needles), the overwhelming majority - well over 95% - are associated with sex

This does not include statistics for other STDs, which would also die out very quickly - and have no place to go - if only monogamous couples were having sex.  And by the way, condoms - even used properly - are only 87% effective against transmission of the HIV virus.

When the HIV virus and AIDS were first discovered, one radical right-wing religious zealot called it "God's punishment against gays," since it started in the gay community.  He is only half wrong.  If anything, AIDS is God's punishment against promiscuity.

Tell me: how many of you, if you contracted HIV - and/or developed AIDS - would honestly look back and say, "Well, it was worth it because I really enjoyed sex for sex' sake?"

[...]

Which brings me to my final point.  Athough I know that the following concept may be difficult to understand (much less accept), it is a critical point that most of you seem to be missing.  That is that there is a difference between God's love for you and what He expects from you; i.e., how He feels about you during the 80-90 years that your spirit inhabits your temporal bodies, and what is "required" to "inherit the kingdom" - i.e., for that spirit to live its eternal life in heaven. Let me use the example of the adultress, since it fits perfectly.

Most people simply remember that Jesus told her accusers, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."  However, that is not where the story ends.  He then asks her, "Where are thy accusers?  Has no one condemned you?"  She replies, "No one, Lord."  Jesus answers, "Neither do I condemn you.  Go, and sin no more."

Note that: "Go, and sin no more."  He was not giving her "license" to continue in sin; indeed, He was giving her a command: "sin no more."  He was essentially saying, "Look, I have saved you from stoning, and I forgive you the sin that brought you here.  However, given how close you came to death, and that I might not be around next time to save you, do not continue being an adulteress."  In other words, he was letting her know that, if she continued in her sin, it would now be a conscious and deliberate choice, not simply a "failing."  In this way, Jesus showed love, compassion and forgiveness.  But He also made it clear that He did not expect her to continue in sin.

This is what you are missing.  God loves all of His children, despite sexual orientation, lifestyle, failings, etc.  However, He does not expect you to remain in sin once you are aware of it.  He expects you to stop sinning - or at very least make conscious efforts to minimize sin - since continuing to sin once you know you are doing so would be a conscious, deliberate choice, and not just a failing, and is thus "snubbing your nose" at God.

Yes, God loves all people, despite the fact that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."  And He loves you from the day you are born until the day you die.  However, if you consciously and deliberately remain in sin despite knowing you are doing wrong, then, yes, you will be "judged" when you "leave your mortal coil," and you will not inherit the kingdom.  Does that make God "mean" or "unloving?"  Or, does it make Him "just?"

Peace.