Misogyny is disgusting

BNR32FAN said:

Well I think there’s a big difference between arguing about what actually took place in the past and condemning the actions of someone you believe to be a fictional character in an attempt to discredit that individual.

Click to expand...

My criticisms of christianity aren't generally used to discredit a person.

Mattin91 said:

Theology does impinge on science.

Click to expand...

No. Theology might provide a metaphysical framework for the insights which science gives. But science is interested only in what can be tested, and God - and by extension theology - is not in that category.

Mattin91 said:

Science is trying to define "meaning" for the average person.

Click to expand...

No. Science can make observations and provide models which attempt to explain those observations, but it cannot tell us what those observations or models "mean." That is outside the realm of science.

Zoii said:

Are you saying if a couple is having sex, NOT for the purpose of having children, that in your opinion is perverse or disgusting or wrong in some way?



Misuse - Are you saying sex is a "Misuse" if its not for the purpose of having children?

Click to expand...

Why the emotion words? Where did I write perverse, or disgusting? There will be times when sex produces children and other times when it does not. Again, sex in marriage is not "dirty." After years of so-called sex education, what is happening in the US today? An STD epidemic according to the CDC. How is that possible? Multiple sex partners.

Paidiske said:

No. Theology might provide a metaphysical framework for the insights which science gives. But science is interested only in what can be tested, and God - and by extension theology - is not in that category.



No. Science can make observations and provide models which attempt to explain those observations, but it cannot tell us what those observations or models "mean." That is outside the realm of science.

Click to expand...

That is not true. Science assigns meanings and draws conclusion that apply to individuals. Aren't scientists themselves affected by what they study? Or is truth contained only in science?

Mattin91 said:

That is not true. Science assigns meanings and draws conclusion that apply to individuals. Aren't scientists themselves affected by what they study? Or is truth contained only in science?

Click to expand...

I think perhaps you are confusing science as a discipline with how people then apply that science. Science can tell you that the earth goes around the sun; it cannot tell you what it means that the earth goes around the sun. Or science can tell you that colour-blindness is often an x-linked recessive genetic condition; it cannot tell you what it means that it is often an x-linked recessive genetic condition.

Questions of meaning lie beyond science as a discipline.

Alright. But it should be obvious that what it means to be a human being according to evolutionary psychology, an approach to humans that can hardly be called scientific, causes meaning/identity problems.

'Man is an animal' statements do not end there. Science can and is causing problems.

Mattin91 said:

Alright. But it should be obvious that what it means to be a human being according to evolutionary psychology, an approach to humans that can hardly be called scientific, causes meaning/identity problems.

Click to expand...

I would generally put evolutionary psychology in the "pseudoscience" bucket. It is speculative at best.

Mattin91 said:

'Man is an animal' statements do not end there. Science can and is causing problems.

Click to expand...

I would say it is the misappropriation of science, not science itself, which is causing problems.

You should read comments from people who abandon religion for science. That should provide some insight into what I'm referring to. Sometimes people abandon precise words and definitions, and make decisions based on fragments of understanding. This is then reinforced by a media that is generally hostile to religion and which sometimes promotes substitutes to it.

Mattin91 said:

You should read comments from people who abandon religion for science. That should provide some insight into what I'm referring to. Sometimes people abandon precise words and definitions, and make decisions based on fragments of understanding. This is then reinforced by a media that is generally hostile to religion and which sometimes promotes substitutes to it.

Click to expand...

Why would you assume I'm ignorant on this point?

If people make decisions based on ignorance, that would seem to me to be an argument for better education.

People are sometimes not 'plug and play' or educate and release. I hope this forum educates minus the attacks on religious thought.

I did not say you were ignorant about a certain point. I only pointed out that anti-religion in the media plays a role in people's choices.

I don't think the forum is for education at all..

yeshuaslavejeff said:

I don't think the forum is for education at all..

Click to expand...

Then what is it for?

Mattin91 said:

Then what is it for?

Click to expand...

Hard to tell.

No one needs vague here. Vague is never useful.

Mattin91 said:

Why the emotion words? Where did I write perverse, or disgusting? There will be times when sex produces children and other times when it does not. Again, sex in marriage is not "dirty." After years of so-called sex education, what is happening in the US today? An STD epidemic according to the CDC. How is that possible? Multiple sex partners.

Click to expand...

So if sex is not "dirty" as you put it, and if sex is not necessarily about the intent to produce children, then why do you think religions are so adverse to people choosing to have sex outside of the scope defined by religions as being correct and proper.


As for STI's, these have existed since recorded word though not acknowledged as such until 16th century.

So since you mentioned STIs in the context of our discussion - Is this your main reason for objecting to sex outside of the religiously allowed confines?

Mattin91 said:

No one needs vague here. Vague is never useful.

Click to expand...

Nice surprise >> best answer >>

Paidiske said:

The forum exists to make its owner money. Anything else that comes out of it is ancillary to that purpose.

Click to expand...

Mattin91 said:

After years of so-called sex education, what is happening in the US today? An STD epidemic according to the CDC.

Click to expand...

Also, can you clarify your argument - Are you saying the incidence of STIs is a result of sex education? Because my argument would be that it reduces STIs and accidental pregnancies.

Mattin91 said:

Again, what is your point? Or should I ask, why post here? To convince people that the Bible is untrue?

Click to expand...

I post here to put over my POV, and suggest people question their beliefs. There is no evidence to support most of the Bible stories, particularly the much less than credible ones.

Brightmoon said:

Virginity pledges and purity balls make a fetish out of something that truly doesn’t exist . When they use the term virgin for the other animals it just means the female hasn’t had a pregnancy yet . Since humans are animals I kinda prefer that since virginity in girls and women relies on something that doesn’t really exist . The vaginal corona aka the hymen HAS to have a hole in it otherwise menstrual blood, flesh and mucus becomes a dangerous bacteria laden ground for a serious life threatening infection. By having that hole in the corona already and also by being a useless remnant of fetal development, making this more important than a woman or girls emotional health or sometimes even her life, is disgusting! This whole concept is based on patriarchal ownership of women and pure fantasy. I agree with Kylie on that one.

Click to expand...

I agree if things go the extreme of controlling a women to the extent that the example given then that it not good. A relationship should be built on trust and it is better to earn the respect so that a person may listen to advice rather than forcing them to conform. It depends on the age as well as some young people do not understand the risks and consequences of underage sex. But at the end of the day a person will do what they will do and no one can stop them. In fact forcing them will only push them away.

But my point was more about the intentions behind the act of the rapper. Though extreme I think his intentions are good. There is evidence that those who are sexually active have more chance of physical diseases and have more emotional and psychological problems in not being able to handle the consequences of having sex too early in a relationship. There is also evidence that those who refrain from sex in their relationship have better relationships. So maybe the rapper needed to take a different approach and try to show the benefits rather than forcing his daughter to prove herself. But I can also understand that some dads are very protective of their daughters in today's world.

I am not really familiar with Virginity pledges and purity balls and I don't think you can make a ceremony out of something so personal and serious. Humans naturally want to bond and sex is the ultimate act of love which has many benefits. But I think this needs to happen in a committed relationship and the idea that young people want to aim for giving some respect to when they commit to having sex can only be a good thing in a world that treats having sex like its nothing because it give value to the relationship. Young people especially young women are being pressured into sex by males far to early only to be screwed up emotionally later which leads to depression, identity issues and broken relationships. In a world full of broken relationships putting more respect into sex act can only be a good thing.

Benefits in Delaying Sex Until Marriage
Happier Marriages, More Satisfying Sex Among the Perks, Study Finds
https://www.webmd.com/sex-relations...res-benefits-in-delaying-sex-until-marriage#1