[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
No here is the question of the week.
Is this photoshopped? [/quote]
Thanks Derek, pretty sure I just sinned…[/quote]
Your welcome.
So knuckle babies are sinning?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am not saying “untrue”…more an acknowledgement that the Bible was still; written by MEN…so there is some bias and some statement of social issues at that time.
[/quote]
This is basically where I am coming from as well.
Look at how church doctrine has changed over time, at how churches have split based off difference, and look at the pure number of explanations for each passage of the bible. A lot of people disagree on a lot of what’s in the bible and these same people are the ones that wrote it.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
No here is the question of the week.
Is this photoshopped? [/quote]
Add a pair of legs and she could be a centaur.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
No here is the question of the week.
Is this photoshopped? [/quote]
Thanks Derek, pretty sure I just sinned…[/quote]
Your welcome.
So knuckle babies are sinning? [/quote]
Knuckle babies LOfuckingL
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Its not really that hard to rationalize. Sexual impurity is one of the more talked about sins in the Bible so there is plenty of verses against it in there. Most Christians try to rationalize why its ok, along with a lot of other things that go against Biblical teaching that are inconvenient to follow in today’s society.
I wish that I had been a virgin when I was married. I wish that I hadn’t had sex with my wife up to that point. Looking back, no sexual encounter I had really benefitted my life in any way except temporary pleasure and for me looking back, that seems kind of a hollow reason to sin against my God, my wife, and my own body.[/quote]
But this doesn’t explain how a man in this day and age is supposed to wait until marriage when most people don’t get married until their 30’s.
No offense, but the average man waiting until 30 to have sex isn’t just uncommon it defies our own biology.[/quote]
And being a Christian is not supposed to be easy. I mean as the human species we possess the self-control that is to be exercised to “defy our biology”. Paul stated that it was better for a man to marry if you couldn’t resist the temptation than to choose celibacy for religious purposes and fall into temptation. Peter said that Christians weren’t supposed to be average, that we are called to be “a peculiar people”.
So many people today want to discredit basic Biblical principals because the world has changed and things are uncomfortable. They fail to realize that God is not a conformist and we should not be either. We are supposed to be somewhat socially awkward because we are not like everyone else.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I do believe their is a difference in acknowledging someone’s beauty and imagining what it would be like to take them to bed. The latter is the sin.[/quote]
Real talk…in high school, how much did it take to get an erection?
Did you even have to “lust”?
[quote]
I think if you don’t believe everything in the Bible to be true then you can get into cherry picking situations where anything that you deem to difficult to adhere to is probably a translation error and this can lead you down a very dangerous path as a Christian. [/quote]
I am not saying “untrue”…more an acknowledgement that the Bible was still; written by MEN…so there is some bias and some statement of social issues at that time.
Did they really imagine a time where men would wait until marriage pass the age of 35? Probably not on a grand scale considering you were old if you weren’t married by 18 back then.
That isn’t saying what is written is a lie. It is that some may see it more as a moral “statement” or teaching device instead of “no man is really supposed to have sex until marriage”.
In this day and age, that would make someone out of touch with social issues…and likely not a good match anyway.[/quote]
In high school I “lusted” after every single chick that was probably a 5 or better so I am not the best one to ask there. I also watched a lot of porn. I was an extraordinarily sexually immoral person.
And as I said just a second ago, our whole religion is based off a man that was 32 and had never had sex. Paul actually frequently encouraged lifelong celibacy so that one could devote their entire life to the service of Christ. So yeah, I think they believed a man could make it to 30. And I really don’t think that this hyper sexualized society that we live in is the work of God setting us up to fail, I believe it is far more likely the result of Satan using the weakest point in many of our lives to set us up for failure.
As far as the Bible being written by men, yes it was but I believe that every word of it was given to those men by God so that the Bible is the words of God himself.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Peter said that Christians weren’t supposed to be average, that we are called to be “a peculiar people”.
We are supposed to be somewhat socially awkward because we are not like everyone else.[/quote]
This actually clears up a whole lot of things.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Peter said that Christians weren’t supposed to be average, that we are called to be “a peculiar people”.
We are supposed to be somewhat socially awkward because we are not like everyone else.[/quote]
This actually clears up a whole lot of things. [/quote]
I cant tell if you are making a joke or being serious. If serious I would like some elaboration just for my own curiosity.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Peter said that Christians weren’t supposed to be average, that we are called to be “a peculiar people”.
We are supposed to be somewhat socially awkward because we are not like everyone else.[/quote]
This actually clears up a whole lot of things. [/quote]
I would be worried that someone who waited until 40 today to have sex isn’t just “peculiar” but literally pathological on a social level.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
lol. The parental relationship was used as a metaphor. As such it’s imperfect. The flaw is that you’re will for your child isn’t perfect and all knowing. [/quote]
This does not explain how you know that porn treats women like shit.
It does not explain why you see porn as EVIL.
You used a metaphore that several people have now told you does NOT work.
Please explains how you know women are treated like shit and in what way porn is EVIL.[/quote]
How do you know that it is not? How do you know that war is evil?[/quote]
War isn’t “evil”. I never said it was. War can bring bad things, but war in itself is not “evil”.
How do I know that women are not treated like shit?
I don’t know that ALL women on the planet are not treated that way…but I surely DO know that there is too much porn being made in America with too many behind the scenes filming for anyone to say that is the general way porn goes in this country…unless filming in someone’s garage.[/quote]
Okay, how do you define evil?[/quote]
Something purely devoid of any goodness or possible beneficial long term outcome.[/quote]
For me, evil is defined the other way. Evil is diverting from the best good, instead of not any good at all. I agree by your definition, it isn’t evil. There certainly are and can be good things that happen in it/as a result of it.
I mean just because someone doesn’t have sex doesn’t mean that they don’t want to or that they weren’t tempted with it at some point. Maybe they are just better at fighting off that temptation than others. I think you thinking of 40 year old virgins as people who never had the opportunity for sex because of some social ineptitude, which is not always the case.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
As far as Matthew 5:28 goes, I do this every time I see a woman and it’s automatic…[/quote]
…which confounds the issue.
What is meant exactly by “lustfull intent”?
Doesn’t that happen biologically without us doing much?
How do you go to the beach and avoid this?[/quote]
I do believe their is a difference in acknowledging someone’s beauty and imagining what it would be like to take them to bed. The latter is the sin. I think if you don’t believe everything in the Bible to be true then you can get into cherry picking situations where anything that you deem to difficult to adhere to is probably a translation error and this can lead you down a very dangerous path as a Christian. [/quote]
I believe the way it’s understood (at least in Episcopal teaching) it requires intent.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Peter said that Christians weren’t supposed to be average, that we are called to be “a peculiar people”.
We are supposed to be somewhat socially awkward because we are not like everyone else.[/quote]
This actually clears up a whole lot of things. [/quote]
I cant tell if you are making a joke or being serious. If serious I would like some elaboration just for my own curiosity.[/quote]
In general, the “I don’t give a fuck” attitude that comes with faith. (Sorry for using childish language but I’m doing to many things to articulate it better.)
Most people actually do care, quite a bit, what others think of them. The people I’ve know that had true faith in God, just don’t really.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
For me, evil is defined the other way. Evil is diverting from the best good, instead of not any good at all. [/quote]
I consider that to be LIFE…we live in a balance of Yin and Yang, not all good or all bad. That is our reality.
There is no “best good” unless looking outside of our reality or looking at our species on a grand scale…which most of us avoid daily. In that concept God would be the “best good”.
It may be the “best good” for your daughter to be a lawyer…but hey, she wants to play soccer…so is it the “best good”? Does that make soccer EVIL?
That is how you came across before.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Peter said that Christians weren’t supposed to be average, that we are called to be “a peculiar people”.
We are supposed to be somewhat socially awkward because we are not like everyone else.[/quote]
This actually clears up a whole lot of things. [/quote]
I would be worried that someone who waited until 40 today to have sex isn’t just “peculiar” but literally pathological on a social level.[/quote]
Personally I don’t see how that is possible. I know I wouldn’t ever be able to have done that.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I mean just because someone doesn’t have sex doesn’t mean that they don’t want to or that they weren’t tempted with it at some point. Maybe they are just better at fighting off that temptation than others. I think you thinking of 40 year old virgins as people who never had the opportunity for sex because of some social ineptitude, which is not always the case.[/quote]
maybe not…but the idea of the 40 year old guy with a Star Trek t-shirt on who hasn’t been outside in a year but is AWESOME at WoW is what comes to mind.
Most guys who speak to women…probably won’t be waiting until 40 to get inside one.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I mean just because someone doesn’t have sex doesn’t mean that they don’t want to or that they weren’t tempted with it at some point. Maybe they are just better at fighting off that temptation than others. I think you thinking of 40 year old virgins as people who never had the opportunity for sex because of some social ineptitude, which is not always the case.[/quote]
maybe not…but the idea of the 40 year old guy with a Star Trek t-shirt on who hasn’t been outside in a year but is AWESOME at WoW is what comes to mind.
Most guys who speak to women…probably won’t be waiting until 40 to get inside one.[/quote]
FYI the last time that dude was out of the house was for a convention. Guaranteed he got laid.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I mean just because someone doesn’t have sex doesn’t mean that they don’t want to or that they weren’t tempted with it at some point. Maybe they are just better at fighting off that temptation than others. I think you thinking of 40 year old virgins as people who never had the opportunity for sex because of some social ineptitude, which is not always the case.[/quote]
maybe not…but the idea of the 40 year old guy with a Star Trek t-shirt on who hasn’t been outside in a year but is AWESOME at WoW is what comes to mind.
Most guys who speak to women…probably won’t be waiting until 40 to get inside one.[/quote]
I honestly can say that I have the same images because I struggle to balance being a Christian with falling into a secular mindset frequently. As someone who lost their virginity fairly young and has struggled (and lost) with sexual temptations frequently I don’t really have a very good grasp on the level of restraint that would take for a normal guy that actually had temptation present itself. I know two guys who made it to their mid 20’s as virgins before they were married and they were just regular guys. They actually employed an accountability system with one another when they felt temptation was getting the best of them they would call the other (kinda like an AA sponsor).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
For me, evil is defined the other way. Evil is diverting from the best good, instead of not any good at all. [/quote]
I consider that to be LIFE…we live in a balance of Yin and Yang, not all good or all bad. That is our reality.
There is no “best good” unless looking outside of our reality or looking at our species on a grand scale…which most of us avoid daily. In that concept God would be the “best good”.
It may be the “best good” for your daughter to be a lawyer…but hey, she wants to play soccer…so is it the “best good”? Does that make soccer EVIL?
That is how you came across before.
[/quote]
Well, certainly there are degrees. And yes I agree that the “best good” can be impossible to fully know or judge. But, to me, the degree of bad/evil is judged by distance from it either way. And while I can’t say for certain which exact actions are exactly in line with the best good, I can have a broader idea of general direction and I can certainly know things that are miles away from it.
And lawyers are evil.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
For me, evil is defined the other way. Evil is diverting from the best good, instead of not any good at all. [/quote]
I consider that to be LIFE…we live in a balance of Yin and Yang, not all good or all bad. That is our reality.
There is no “best good” unless looking outside of our reality or looking at our species on a grand scale…which most of us avoid daily. In that concept God would be the “best good”.
It may be the “best good” for your daughter to be a lawyer…but hey, she wants to play soccer…so is it the “best good”? Does that make soccer EVIL?
That is how you came across before.
[/quote]
Well, certainly there are degrees. And yes I agree that the “best good” can be impossible to fully know or judge. But, to me, the degree of bad/evil is judged by distance from it either way. And while I can’t say for certain which exact actions are exactly in line with the best good, I can have a broader idea of general direction and I can certainly know things that are miles away from it.
And lawyers are evil. [/quote]
Ok, I will say this…EXTREME PORN WATCHING is for people with a dysfunction or addiction. I think you can be exposed to it too much.
Soon, your Saturday night becomes sitting on the couch in front of a Hustler DVD instead of even trying to meet real people.
I do not agree in labeling all porn as “evil”. That strikes me as someone who has never actually watched any porn.
I think it can have POSITIVE uses even in relationships if for no other use than to expose the couple to different things they can try. I think it is a negative if the man in the relationship is watching porn OVER having sex with his woman. That may point to problems internally.
In short, I think your initial reaction is what I see most often…and is the most illogical and emotion driven.
No, I seriously doubt most women are treated like shit in porn today. Some of these ladies literally RULE the industry in their own way…something that would have never been seen in even the 60’s.
You may not like it, but to call it EVIL is irrational.