Why do people have sex (apart from for reproduction)?

[Mling]

Not a universal, timeless and ageless truth, like The Gospel and Scripture, but a truth just the same....

Your nit-pickiness and over-reaction demonstrates the truth of the song...

Lol...ok, fine. Setting an idea to music makes it true. Fine. I'll go write a song called, "Sex with multiple people can be fine, as long as there's good communication and consent." It'll be a snappy little number, and thus, true.

And if you claim otherwise, well...you're just overreacting, and that proves I'm right. I like this logic.

 

[Eudaimonist]

what does monogomous mean? anything to do with monopoly?

Yes, it means that each partner to the relationship has a monopoly on sexual activity with the other.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Larry Mondello]

Originally Posted by groups postings

Not a universal, timeless and ageless truth, like The Gospel and Scripture, but a truth just the same....

Your nit-pickiness and over-reaction demonstrates the truth of the song...
​

Lol...ok, fine. Setting an idea to music makes it true. Fine. I'll go write a song called, "Sex with multiple people can be fine, as long as there's good communication and consent." It'll be a snappy little number, and thus, true.

And if you claim otherwise, well...you're just overreacting, and that proves I'm right. I like this logic.

Then point out such a song.

On the contrary, there are more songs about former players changing their lives and falling for good girls, like.

Fooled Around and Fell in Love. Elvin Bishop.
Heard it in a Love Song. Marshall Tucker Band.
Stand Tall. Burton Cummings (formerly with the 1960s Guess Who).

All By Myself. Eric Carmen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLxd9DVnylg
-Deep regrets about being older, a player and alone...

When I was young, I never needed anyone.
Making love was just for fun.
Those days are gone.

Living alone I think of all the friends I've known.
But when I dial the telephone, nobody's home...

All by myself don't wanna be. All by myself, anymore...


Yet this third-party verification somehow rattles you, Mling.
Your posts demonstrate you, an acknowledged former Christian, can't understand these principles.

For many, casual sex is empty and unfulfilling.
For many others, it's wrong, and they know that.

 

[Gadarene]

Yet this third-party verification somehow rattles you.

Not the issue.

The issue is that singing about something isn't verification.

Not rocket science.

And as has been made abundantly clear multiple times - WE KNOW. We know that some people can't handle casual sex. That's fine.

Others can. That's also fine.

The only person rattled here is you, as you are treating one set of experiences as valid over another while claiming all the time that you aren't.

It's really quite amazing that you still - after several weeks of going over this - still don't get it.

 

[The Nihilist]

Not a universal, timeless and ageless truth, like The Gospel and Scripture, but a truth just the same....

Your nit-pickiness and over-reaction demonstrates the truth of the song...

That's dumb, on the grounds that if you mean the word truth in any kind of sense that the rest of us do, then you need to quit screwing around on the internet and get your [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] together for the battle of evermore.

Led Zeppelin The Battle of Evermore - YouTube

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not a universal, timeless and ageless truth, like The Gospel and Scripture, but a truth just the same....

Timeless, eh? So Leviticus 19:19, or 19:27, are examples of these Universal, Timeless, and Ageless Truths?

 

[Larry Mondello]

Timeless, eh? So Leviticus 19:19, or 19:27, are examples of these Universal, Timeless, and Ageless Truths?

Yup.
My initial assumptions why you nonbelievers get so rattled and take it personally whenever someone points-out the things I do are spot-on --- you're scared of the truth.

That's dumb, on the grounds that if you mean the word truth in any kind of sense that the rest of us do, then you need to quit screwing around on the internet and get your [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] together for the battle of evermore.

BTW, Nihlist,
You using expletive after expletive doesn't help your argument.
Maybe Mling, the atheistic authority on all things Christian, will point that out...:o

 

[selfinflikted]

you're scared of the truth.

Hardly. We just don't mistake poetry, creative writing, and myth as truth.

 

[Larry Mondello]

Hardly. We just don't mistake poetry, creative writing, and myth as truth.

Why do I get this feeling that if we were slaying evolution or some other irrational atheistic sacred cow, you guys would be dredging up the tiniest spec of evidence to support your case?

 

[Gadarene]

Why do I get this feeling that if we were slaying evolution or some other irrational atheistic sacred cow, you guys would be dredging up the tiniest spec of evidence to support your case?

There is far more evidence for evolution than there are for your bible claims.

The hilarious thing is, it's not even a sacred cow.

 

[GrumpGrump]

Then point out such a song.

Rufus Wainwright- Instant Pleasure.

"I don't want somebody to love me,
Just give me sex whenever I want it,
Because all I ask for is instant pleasure,
Instant pleasure, instant pleasure."

By the way, this whole "it's true because a song says so!" is pretty ridiculous. If you're not claiming that true means either universal (i.e., applies to everyone) or timeless, then it sounds like what you actually mean by true is, "it is a fact that someone has said this thing and has this opinion." So you don't mean metaphysical truth, you just means it's true that someone or some people believe something. In which case, "true" is not a quality of their beliefs, which are mere opinions, but is rather a quality of a description of their states of mind. Consequently, every inane opinion that has ever dribbled out of a moron's mouth could be called, "true" in the same way.

And of course, by your own "reasoning," any resistance to my argument will be taken as direct confirmation of its "truth." because putting your opponents in catch-22s is the best way to win arguments.

 

[Gadarene]

I kissed a girl by Katy perry?

Uh oh, this song logic has now validated the gays!!!!!!1

 

[Larry Mondello]

Originally Posted by groups postings

Why do I get this feeling that if we were slaying evolution or some other irrational atheistic sacred cow, you guys would be dredging up the tiniest spec of evidence to support your case?
​

There is far more evidence for evolution than there are for your bible claims.

The hilarious thing is, it's not even a sacred cow.

Not even close.

Notice the heckles and ridicule the arrogant evolution supporters spew out on their opponents simply for showing evidence to the contrary.
Even when their scientific peers present their findings.
No matter. Their blind allegiance to atheistic dogma trumps all.

You'd think the world has come to end judging by their emotional response to facts that show otherwise...

...Just like when someone here posts against casual or premarital sex.... they're tarred and feathered and all kinds of "evidence" is dredged up.
Guess "reason" only works one way to the blind atheists...

 

[The Nihilist]

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yup.

Really? So you carry stones in your pocket to summarily execute any gay men you happen to see (as per the Timeless Truth that is Lev 20:13)? You've never cut your hair (as per Lev 19:27)? You stick to Jewish dietary laws? You would have rape victims marry their rapists?

My initial assumptions why you nonbelievers get so rattled and take it personally whenever someone points-out the things I do are spot-on --- you're scared of the truth.

Your assumptions are wrong. The point is that the laws of the OT are hilariously irrelevant (like not eating shellfish), gruesome and violent (like killing gays), or, rarely, not that bad (like respecting the elderly). If you uphold the former two types of laws, that paints you as either a wicked person, or a good person forced into wickedness by religion.

I do so love it when Christians put on their persecution hats and pretend they know the deep dark reason for someone else's beliefs.

 

[Gadarene]

Not even close.

Notice the heckles and ridicule the arrogant evolution supporters spew out on their opponents simply for showing evidence to the contrary.
Even when their scientific peers present their findings.
No matter. Their blind allegiance to atheistic dogma trumps all.

You'd think the world has come to end judging by their emotional response to facts that show otherwise...

Except there is no evidence to the contrary that stands up to scrutiny. The most organised challengers have failed to present their evidence when given the opportunity to in court.

I also have no issue one way or the other if evolution ends up being wrong. Christians on the other hand are in a bit more trouble if their holy book's claims are wrong, and it sure isn't describing reality when it comes to the supposed harms of premarital sex.

...Just like when someone here posts against casual or premarital sex.... they're tarred and feathered and all kinds of "evidence" is dredged up.
Guess "reason" only works one way to the blind atheists...

Yeah, you really aren't even bothering to read people's posts anymore.

And again, the opposition to your statements has not been entirely from atheists, but we have to be the bad guys somehow.

No one has not acknowledged the fact that some people don't handle casual sex well. There are ways to show the magnitude of a problem though and cherrypicking song lyrics is not one of them. And yet for someone who has claimed that they are not rating one set of experiences over another you cannot handle any statement that makes the point that some people can handle casual sex and some can't (which your constant playing of the persecution card makes apparent). But you accuse people who accept both sets of experiences of not being able to handle one set, even though they evidently can and are.

In short, gp, you're projecting so hard we could point you at a wall and do PowerPoint presentations.

 

[selfinflikted]

Why do I get this feeling that if we were slaying evolution or some other irrational atheistic sacred cow, you guys would be dredging up the tiniest spec of evidence to support your case?

Evolution isn't atheistic. More Christians worldwide accept the theory than do not. Further, you couldn't slay evolution if you tried. It is probably one of the most well-evidenced theories, ever.

 

[Larry Mondello]

Really? So you carry stones in your pocket to summarily execute any gay men you happen to see (as per the Timeless Truth that is Lev 20:13)? You've never cut your hair (as per Lev 19:27)? You stick to Jewish dietary laws? You would have rape victims marry their rapists?


Your assumptions are wrong. The point is that the laws of the OT are hilariously irrelevant (like not eating shellfish), gruesome and violent (like killing gays), or, rarely, not that bad (like respecting the elderly). If you uphold the former two types of laws, that paints you as either a wicked person, or a good person forced into wickedness by religion.

I do so love it when Christians put on their persecution hats and pretend they know the deep dark reason for someone else's beliefs.

Sorry.
Accepting you as an authority on Scripture is like believing MS-DNC is a respectable and truly journalistic operation -- as it quotes one political party over another 10:1....

 

[Larry Mondello]

Evolution isn't atheistic. More Christians worldwide accept the theory than do not. Further, you couldn't slay evolution if you tried. It is probably one of the most well-evidenced theories, ever.

That's a reasonable response, Self.

For the record, I'm not one who trashes evolution proponents.
Tend to think both sides have merits and science can certainly point to new things.
Personally don't care for the vile and emotional reaction many evolution proponents use anytime in the media there's a story of an evolution conflict.
The "scientists," the ones abusing their authority in dominating the school system often sound like they want to ban other viewpoints out of textbooks. Smacks of the Middle Ages and the church vs. Galleleo....

Scripture isn't a science book, though it possesses scientific truths.
Science isn't the ultimate authority on things spiritual, though it too can show truths in the physical.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sorry.
Accepting you as an authority on Scripture is like believing MS-DNC is a respectable and truly journalistic operation -- as it quotes one political party over another 10:1....

Right... except those laws really do exist in the Bible. Look them up (I provided the chapter and verse). The Bible says to stone gays to death, which is wicked, and if you obey that law, you are thus either wicked or driven to wicked things. Which?

Notice you dodged your filthy language "argument."

My "filthy language argument"? What language? What argument?

And, how does one 'dodge' one's own argument?