Wiccan_Child
Contributor
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Which begs the question: which functions are sinful?what i meant by the mouth analogy is that it can spew both love and hate, yet God's intended function is love is it not?
And the point of that is the body part in itself is not sin, but can be used in sinful ways.
Which begs the question: which functions are sinful?
So sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful. What of sexual acts in marriage?depends on your view, some believe that anything that is done without the intention of glorifying God is a sin. As far as biblically, i'd say off the top of my head that any of the basic commandments that involve the mouth, lying, blasphemy etc would all be considered sinful. As well as any sexual acts outside of marriage. I haven't really researched the sins of the mouth in particular so I can't really say any more on the subject.
excelent question
It's pitiful that so many are confused of the basic fact that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, that is not debatable or deniable. Whether or not you care it is a sin and abomination is up to you, but trying to use the tatics of the devil to justify it does not make it any less than what it is, God still requires change.
Of course it is debatable. That's why we have been debating it.It's pitiful that so many are confused of the basic fact that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, that is not debatable or deniable. Whether or not you care it is a sin and abomination is up to you, but trying to use the tatics of the devil to justify it does not make it any less than what it is, God still requires change.
That is your interpretation of what the Bible says -- doesn't mean it's right. God would not want us to change the way we are, and the way we feel.
That could easily be said about your interpretation too. What's your point?
We all know that, what's your point?I think the point is that human understandings of the Bible are ALL interpretation. No one can credibly claim that his or her particular interpretation of the Bible is God's word. It's just his or her belief about God's word. You believe that God condemns homosexuality based on your reading of the Bible. Other people believe that God does not condemn homosexuality based on their reading of the Bible. I believe God does not condemn homosexuality, and I don't base my belief on the Bible at all. What you see as God's word is just your beliefs.
We all know that, what's your point?
You have no point, all you are trying to do is make adhomenin attacks and reducing debates to rhetoric. The only reason why you dismiss other peoples peoples arguments is basically " it's your interpretation." That means nothing.Why, after people have made their point, do you repeatedly ask people, "What's your point?" I have made my point. It's in my post. If you want to dismiss my point, that's up to you. But my point is clear in my post. And I think the previous poster's point was clear in her post.
You have no point, all you are trying to do is make adhomenin attacks and reducing debates to rhetoric. The only reason why you dismiss other peoples peoples arguments is basically " it's your interpretation." That means nothing.
How could it last this long if there wasn't a clear cut truth in the text?
How could it last this long if there wasn't a clear cut truth in the text?
Oh, perhaps you mean how could the Bible last this long if there wasn't a clear cut truth in the text. Is that your question?If so, I would point out that other faiths have ancient scriptures that have been around a very long time also. The Vedic scriptures from India are an example. They are the foundation of Hinduism. The Koran is not as old as the Bible, dating to sometime in the 8th century, but that's still pretty old.I would also note that I think the Bible does contain truths in the sense of collective wisdom (human wisdom) and some historical truths. It is thus a valuable historical source. And the Bible has been of enormous significance in shaping the development of the religion with the biggest following in the world: Christianity. So I acknowledge the significance of the Bible and its value as a source of information, though it is a source we need to use carefully. My personal belief is that the Bible is not the word of God, and it is therefore not an authority for me. But that does not mean the Bible is entirely untrue or that it has no value.
So sex does have functions beyond mere procreation: it is used to bond the parents.Because prior to sexual procreation there is meant to be a loving commitment (i.e. marriage) to create a stable family bond for said product of this procreation (i.e. child) to be born into.
Rape obviously forces the sexual activity with no regard for a stable commitment, family bond or a desire to raise a child.
Yes: the latter does not force the woman.Is there a difference between someone using their superior strength/size/agression to force a woman to have sex and someone using their superior charm/intelligence/cunning to fool a woman into the same thing?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?