Intimacy

[Nadiine]

/sigh

I give up on this thread

And i give up on posting in this forum! The last thread i posted turned into a debate about polygamy

it just dawned on me what this thread was...

I totally forgot & wasn't paying any attn.
my apology

 

[one11]

Politics is what we were talking about. The Right Wing...

The right wing of what?

Poor, dGirl, now she wants to leave and I don't blame her.

Advice I would give is to make a list of the things you like in a man and the things you don't. Things you could live with and things that would cause you distress if you married such a man. Sometimes we think we are led by love to the one we chose as our mate but then find out it was just lust and we have nothing in common once desire dies down.

Also, making a list helps you get in touch with what is truly attractive to you in a potential spouse.

But do things together, dancing, shopping, do some of his guy things, etc. A relationship is so much more than sex.

Have some fun at this time in your life with your friends because once you're a Mommy you are a Mommy 24/7.

 

[LightHorseman]

I wasn't using that post to prove infallibility of scripture tho LH.
If I was, I would have to spend literal pages of posts to prove
infallibility (of which MOST people who reject the Bible as truth of
God don't even know what we mean by infallible/inerrant in the
first place. Which is why they use the fallacious comments:
"God isn't the Bible". If they u nderstood what the term meant,
that wouldn't be used as any argument).

There are entire books written to this topic of scripture authenticity
& authority - the one I have by Dr. Normal Geilser is a hardcover
with over 500 pages of detailed information on why our bible
is reliable, accurate & authentic.
There's no possible way to relay all of it in a forum venue like this -
I'm about positive that even if I did go to the time & effort that
most wouldn't bother reading it anyways.

The reason why is that many who deny scripture don't WANT to
bother studying real books from real scholars - they want little
sound points & fragments (as "one" mentioned in her post, the
little internet pages from who knows who) & they'll form their belief on that little bit of info -
& usually they'll only look up the skeptics info on why the bible should
be rejected.

They don't really want the truth (or what counters their preference);
if they did, they'de bother to get some proper study material &
take the time for in depth examination.

Until then, I simply reject most of the generic parroting I hear against scripture validity/truth - I see this as nothing but blind faith in self
created spirituality where man creates his own religious truths for himself based on feeling which is problematic since we have a sin nature
that's corrupted us & we're prone to rebel & wander from God.

I read your post Nadiine.

Is there any point in saying there are as many equally well authored and academically valid works that give in depth explanations about how what the modern Bible says (particularly the OT) is not literal history, and explains the whys and wherefors that led to us having the Bible that we have? You accuse others of not being interested in proper study of your sources because they don't want it to be true, can you honestly say that you are not guilty of the same dismissiveness of academe that produces conclusions that you don't want to hear? With respect, I sincerely doubt that you are interested in reading sources from both sides of this issue, but rather only those that reinforce your extant position.

 

[one11]

I read your post Nadiine.

Is there any point in saying there are as many equally well authored and academically valid works that give in depth explanations about how what the modern Bible says (particularly the OT) is not literal history, and explains the whys and wherefors that led to us having the Bible that we have? You accuse others of not being interested in proper study of your sources because they don't want it to be true, can you honestly say that you are not guilty of the same dismissiveness of academe that produces conclusions that you don't want to hear? With respect, I sincerely doubt that you are interested in reading sources from both sides of this issue, but rather only those that reinforce your extant position.

According to what and authored by who? The wikipedia?

Why don't you start a thread on just one you consider credible, but you are only supposed to copy and paste a little bit and then provide a link.

 

[LightHorseman]

According to what and authored by who? The wikipedia?

Why don't you start a thread on just one you consider credible, but you are only supposed to copy and paste a little bit and then provide a link.

There are many such threads all over this forum, and startiung that discussion is not my intent here. My intent is to point out that that some people are being a little "mote in thine eye"ish about accusing others of ignoring studies whos' outcomes they don't like. I suspect you are doing the same, as I can virtually here you scoff when you say "according to wikipedia?". Honestly, do you care to take imput from both sides of the discussion, or do you instantly discredit anything that doesn't automatically agree with your a priori position?

 

[Nadiine]

deleting in respect for OP.

=0)

 

[Nadiine]

* I only continued on that reply becuz I think DGirl won't be
coming back.
If she does I'll gladly delete that post & leave this thread in peace.

 

[LightHorseman]

No, and I tell you what LT, the FRUIT of those who adhere to such
nonsense about the Bible not being authoratative is all I need
to witness to KNOW it's a pile of crap.
The fruit speaks volumes in what is promoted as "good" by those
who reject scripture for their select reasons (most of which I claim
are becuz they want to continue living carnally - or allow everyone
to & think God winks at evil becuz we're so special & loveable).

Sure, I'd LOVE a religion that didn't cost me anything & where I could
live in my own depravity - but that isn't Christianity.
Those who choose it for such have chosen the wrong religion -
or are decieving themselves as to what it's about.

I always find it interesting how people pick Paul apart becuz of his
passages on moral sin - but they're sure welcoming of all his
GRACE teachings which relay that we are not under law but
grace - & all the blessings & goodies.
Everybody wants their cake, frosting & candles, but refuse to
pay any price for it.

The PRICE God demands is a living sacrifice (which is our reasonable service to Him) - dying to flesh/carrying our crosses & repenting.
It's real hard to repent when you think sin is good works.

I didn't really need the editorial, but thanks nonetheless. I accept this as admission that you are only interested in listening to people who already agree with you and that you don't believe you have anything new to learn from anyone who isn't going to tell you what you want to hear. You have every right to conduct yourself in such fashion, of course. Personally, I do my very best to try to listen to anyone with supported PsOV from all sides in a discussion, but hey, thats just me. Might be an "evidence based practice" nursing thing.

 

[elephunky]

Im visiting the thread guys in the hope that something relating to the original topic will be posted. But i refuse to respond to all the other rubbish

 

[Nadiine]

Im visiting the thread guys in the hope that something relating to the original topic will be posted. But i refuse to respond to all the other rubbish

oh good, glad you're back, I'll go remove my previous post
in hopes you get your thread back,
my apologies again.

& I still offer my earlier input in this thread when we were more
on topic, I was sincere about that.

God bless you,

 

[elephunky]

Meh, once the biblical debate dies teh thread will die. In the alst thread I made i asked them to take the polygamy discussino elsewhere and no one came back to the thread cos they all wanted to debate plygamy.

I give up.

 

[Nadiine]

Meh, once the biblical debate dies teh thread will die. In the alst thread I made i asked them to take the polygamy discussino elsewhere and no one came back to the thread cos they all wanted to debate plygamy.

I give up.

eh, don't give up.
I've had my own threads go off topic & some come back
& some don't.
You never know.

It's a good topic imo - esp when you can't discuss this in the
Singles forums (where I would think they should be allowed).

In my past experience, heavy making out led to all the other
stuff; it was just inevitable & then the further you go each time,
the more common it became to go that far the next time.

If I wasn't married right now, I'd probly have mixed feelings about
it all over again. Once you're out of the dating scene, it's a relief!
lol
(um. . not that marriage doesn't start up a whole different set of
issues to deal with) heh

 

[elephunky]

lol. I think its because your not aloud to debate in there, and it turns out as a debate, and yah i dunno lol.

I think as long as you keep your clothes on your good

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

lol. I think its because your not aloud to debate in there, and it turns out as a debate, and yah i dunno lol.

I think as long as you keep your clothes on your good

Here's my take, for it's worth. Sin can happen in a relationship (sexually) one of two ways. The first way is the most obvious, and that is a sexual act that is sinful. In this case, they Bible only expressly forbids intercourse. The second way that sin enters in is by glorifying your partner or your relationship above God. That's where the grey area comes in. If God is not glorified in it, then I wouldn't recommend it. Anything that brings you closer to the opportunity to commit a sinful act is not glorifying God, and that is why I think it is important to maintain strong boundaries that keep you far from the line, rather than going right up to the line before you stop. Additionally, in my experience, in a long-term relationship, there WILL be times when you cross the boundary that you have set for your relationship. So the question is, can you cross your boundaries without doing anything you will regret? That is why my wife and I set the boundary at kissing before we were married. It was hard, but it was well worth it. I have no doubt in my mind that we would not have made it to our wedding night otherwise.

 

[Zecryphon]

IOW you have no argument. If you don't like it, tough. I will continue to use fundamentalist to mean adherents of right wing Christian sects and that is that. Any objection you have to it is juvenile.

Just what is your problem? I mean really. I was trying to help you out here. If you want to use a word incorrectly that is certainly your right. If you want to look like you have no clue what you're talking about that's your right too. So carry on, TL. Carry on with the attitude, the chip on the shoulder, the avoiding of my direct questions to you about your demeanor, carry on with all of it. We all know you have no clue what you're talking about and live to put down anybody who is on the right as a gay-basher. You're a fundamentalist and a one issue poster. You have nothing of value to say and I don't know why I bothered to try and help you out. You certainly don't want it and are happy with your head jammed straight into the sand. Good luck with that.

 

[Zecryphon]

It sounds like you're kind of an idealist.

I recall in 10th grade, in response to a social studies teacher describing a Congressional Committee Chair whose aides had to prop him up, a naive rich girl spoke out incredulously, "A Congressman drinks?"

This post has nothing to do with this thread. No one cares what happened in your 10th grade social studies class.

 

[Zecryphon]

Actually, this sort of language sounds pretty juvenile. Why don't you just use the phrase 'right-wing Christian' instead of fundamentalist? Not all adherents of right wing Christian sects are fundamentalist.

Tissue, haven't you been reading her posts? She's gonna use Fundamentalist whether you or I like it or not.

 

[Texas Lynn]

No, I really don't. But you're the one so hung up on all these labels for people, so why don't you share another one of your prejudices and labels for people.

You must have a large collection of them. But I wonder if these bigoted labels have made you wise? That's what I wonder.

They're not mine. Maybe you are not American and are thus unaware of extremist groups organizing in churches as they do here. Is that it?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Right wing Christian? Isn't that a bit like saying "Hebraic Jew"?

Most definitely not. The right wing Christians are but a subset of Christianity.

Rather the left-wing Christians are the ones deviating from scripture.

There's no evidence of this.

And if you don't believe in Scripture, then what exactly makes you a Christian?

Believe in it, how? All believe it exists. There is nothing about it in the Nicene creed, for example.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Just what is your problem? I mean really. I was trying to help you out here. If you want to use a word incorrectly that is certainly your right. If you want to look like you have no clue what you're talking about that's your right too. So carry on, TL. Carry on with the attitude, the chip on the shoulder, the avoiding of my direct questions to you about your demeanor, carry on with all of it. We all know you have no clue what you're talking about and live to put down anybody who is on the right as a gay-basher. You're a fundamentalist and a one issue poster. You have nothing of value to say and I don't know why I bothered to try and help you out. You certainly don't want it and are happy with your head jammed straight into the sand. Good luck with that.

I'm comfortable with my use of the term as was done. If you are not saying so will not mask your lack of an argument.