Sex is popular

cabbitgrrrl · Sep 4, 2004

Lifesaver said:
Since we live in times when lust is a most proeminent sin, it is expectable that most threads will revolve around sexual matters, with members trying to change what was always believed regarding them.

can you name a time when lust WASN'T the most prominent sin?

Nietzsche · Sep 5, 2004

I noticed that a while ago i stoped posting on such threads because it seems to me to be some 13 year olds turn on to talk about foreplay

Kam_Islash · Sep 5, 2004

er....How is euthenasia lustful?

Euthenasia is Doctor assisted suicide....

///

cabbitgrrrl · Sep 5, 2004

Holly3278 said:
I belong to another group. I believe that if the Bible clearly makes a stand about something such as when it says homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuality is a sin and should be avoided by Christians.

I've noticed...

Holly3278 said:
But when the area is not clear cut like pre-marital sex, well, then it's up to me to make the decisions through prayer and Bible study.

that sounds like alot of work for a single decision

Nycky · Sep 5, 2004

Magisterium said:
To tell you the truth, it's every Christian's duty to live and proclaim the tenets of their faith. It's odd to me that people who shout in favor of "free speech" become oddly irate when a christian speaks in opposition of what they understand to be sinful behavior. For years, Christians have allowed non-Christians to disparage the faith and it's understandings quite patiently. However, when Christians now speak out and bring some much needed plurality to the discussion of morals, suddenly certain views need to be kept silent.

Speaking out for what is believed is just as much a right of Christians as non-Christians is it not? I can tell you that homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage are all intrinsically evil and sinful. Because you do not agree, doesn't diminish my right to proclaim it.

The issue is not speaking. Just ask the Fred Phelps of the world. He shows up at the funerals of folks who have died horrible deaths from AIDS and then shouts down their families and friends, saying that there loved ones are in hell, that G-d hates **** and that AIDS is G-d's punishment for homosexuality. Nobody argues his right to speak this bilious hatred.

I have no problem with your speech, I do have a problem when you try to legislate the lives of the "evil doers," based, not on what is best for the individual or the community but on the basis of your, in my opinion, flawed interpretation of Christianity.

Nyc

Nycky · Sep 5, 2004

Lifesaver said:
Yes, way more!
Even those who don't uphold violence as the solution to everything, as well as those who do, usually commit many lustful sins unashamedly.
Bigots and politically correct ones, both usually have no problem with anything sexual "as long as it is consensual".
From the ones who never seem to get enough and want always more, putting their comfort above God, to the hippies and marxists who despise property and those who have it, in all segments and political positions sexual immorality has become the norm.

Extra-marital sex, contraception, adultery, orgies. Little by little nothing is seen as wrong anymore.

I cannot imagine how one can put orgies and contraception in the same sentence about sin, but I guess that's what sets me apart as a Liberal.

Look, if G-d did not intend us to enjoy sex and our sexuality, G-d would have limited our sexual expression as G-d did with most other animals. For me, responsible sexuality is the ideal, not marital sexuality.

Nyc

Lifesaver · Sep 5, 2004

cabbitgrrrl said:
can you name a time when lust WASN'T the most prominent sin?

In the 19th century, at least that's we get from the study of history, lust didn't seem to be the most proeminent sin (though still present, as all sins are in all ages).

Also in the renaissance, following the counter-reform (before it lust was VERY proeminent) and in the Middle Ages, lust seems to have occupied a secondary place among sins.

Lifesaver · Sep 5, 2004

Nycky said:
[/b]
I cannot imagine how one can put orgies and contraception in the same sentence about sin, but I guess that's what sets me apart as a Liberal.

Indeed, both are sinful. And I don't think I'm wrong when I say both are mostly related to lust than any other.

Look, if G-d did not intend us to enjoy sex and our sexuality, G-d would have limited our sexual expression as G-d did with most other animals. For me, responsible sexuality is the ideal, not marital sexuality.

Ah, Nyc, but does a materially sinful action become not-sinful if you don't consider it so?
"For you", marital sexuality is not the ideal. Is it so "for God"?

Nycky · Sep 5, 2004

Lifesaver said:
In the 19th century, at least from the study of history, lust didn't seem to be the most proeminent (though present, as all sins are in all ages).

Also in the renaissance following the counter-reform (before it lust was VERY proeminent). And in the Middle Ages too, lust seems to have occupied a secondary place among sins.

What are you talking about?

Nyc

The Bellman · Sep 5, 2004

Lifesaver said:
In the 19th century, at least that's we get from the study of history, lust didn't seem to be the most proeminent sin (though still present, as all sins are in all ages).

Also in the renaissance, following the counter-reform (before it lust was VERY proeminent) and in the Middle Ages, lust seems to have occupied a secondary place among sins.

I'm wondering what sort of "history" you're reading that tells you how prominent "lust" was as a sin...

Lifesaver · Sep 5, 2004

Bellman, when reading, watching or listening to something, one shouldn't only record in their minds the information that is being delivered. Rather, it is also very useful to infer, from the informations gathered, conclusions, which were not present in the source.

The Bellman · Sep 6, 2004

Lifesaver said:
Bellman, when reading, watching or listening to something, one shouldn't only record in their minds the information that is being delivered. Rather, it is also very useful to infer, from the informations gathered, conclusions, which were not present in the source.

Great. Now please point me to the "history" that tells you the conclusions you have drawn about the prominence of "lust" as a sin throughout history.

Lifesaver · Sep 6, 2004

I shall cite one example:

Read the literature, or other forms of artistic expression, of the time in question. Was sex treated in the libertine manner of our and other times?
Were women valued according to how sexually attractive they were? Did sensuality pervade, or occupied an important place, in the relations of most men and women?
What was held in highest regard: chastity or sexual performance?

Rather than always go to some historian for information (though these too carry valuable data, generally more specific and accurate), seek for those documents produced in the time in question.

The Bellman · Sep 6, 2004

Lifesaver said:
I shall cite one example:

Read the literature, or other forms of artistic expression, of the time in question. Was sex treated in the libertine manner of our and other times?
Were women valued according to how sexually attractive they were? Did sensuality pervade, or occupied an important place, in the relations of most men and women?
What was held in highest regard: chastity or sexual performance?

Rather than always go to some historian for information (though these too carry valuable data, generally more specific and accurate), seek for those documents produced in the time in question.

Except that the literature and other forms of artistic expression shows nothing but what the literature and other forms of art featured at the time. It shows nothing about how common "lust" was.

Women have always, and will always, be valued according to how sexually attractive they are (not exclusively, of course). And sensuality has always pervaded and occupied an important place in the relations of most men and women, and I doubt very much that you can demonstrate otherwise.

Again, we have no way of knowing how valued "sexual performance" was...throughout history, female chastity has always been highly valued - but, of course, this says nothing about the prevalence of "lust" in any society. Certainly, a society with a high degree of female chastity is not necessarily one with a low "lust" level.

Lifesaver · Sep 6, 2004

Sure it does.

Unless you believe that it is impossible to know anything about the values and culture of the past.

The Bellman · Sep 6, 2004

Lifesaver said:
Sure it does.

Unless you believe that it is impossible to know anything about the values and culture of the past.

No, it doesn't, nor have you evidenced in the least that it does.

seebs · Sep 6, 2004

Overvaluing of female chastity strikes me as clearly being a form of lust; it is reducing women to property and objects, to be "possessed" sexually... Which is failing to treat them as people, and is thus a kind of lust.

cabbitgrrrl · Sep 6, 2004

seebs said:
Overvaluing of female chastity strikes me as clearly being a form of lust; it is reducing women to property and objects, to be "possessed" sexually... Which is failing to treat them as people, and is thus a kind of lust.

I agree, chastity is a pointless value, all it ever did was make people sexually frustrated, especially when it is targeted specifically to women

1GODALONE · Sep 6, 2004

Negative, chastity keeps clean the union between a man and a woman under the eyes of God. What you meant to say is that chastity is a pointless value to a person who does not believe in the Bible.

Kam_Islash · Sep 6, 2004

Anyone who says that refraining from all forms of sexual release has never had a prostate before.....

///

Sex is popular

Well-Known Member

Active Member

The Leet One

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Fides et Ratio

Fides et Ratio

Active Member

The Bellman

Guest

Fides et Ratio

The Bellman

Guest

Fides et Ratio

The Bellman

Guest

Fides et Ratio

The Bellman

Guest

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

Active Member

The Leet One

Similar threads