I think it is wrong, but I am curious to hear the other principles people hold on this issue.

(Oh, and this is my 100th post)

Radioactive Toy wrote: I am a BAD boy

I'm not here to judge anyone, I'm simply curious.

Crimson Prince wrote: I think it is wrong, but I am curious to hear the other principles people hold on this issue. (Oh, and this is my 100th post)

I suppose I'll just go ahead and ask, not because I have a problem with your stance, but because I am curious what rationale supports your POV:

"Why, Crimson Prince, do you think it's wrong?"

bluetailfly wrote: Crimson Prince wrote: I think it is wrong, but I am curious to hear the other principles people hold on this issue. (Oh, and this is my 100th post) I suppose I'll just go ahead and ask, not because I have a problem with your stance, but because I am curious what rationale supports your POV: "Why, Crimson Prince, do you think it's wrong?"

Fair enough. I guess I think it is wrong because I see it as being unfaithful to whomever I DO end up marrying. It is like cheating on your future wife or husband. I see sex as the dedication of love to another person. I think sex is reserved for the person with who you spend the rest of your life. My religion really has nothing to do with it, it is just how I feel personally.

Sex was around way before marriage. I married a very sexual woman, but not because she was very open, but because she was such a kind and wonderful person. I don't believe marriage has anything to do with sex. I think marriage has more to do with trust and connection with eachother.

On a related note, I am offended by the notion of polygamy. I feel marriage is intended to be a one-on-one affair.

Crimson Prince wrote: bluetailfly wrote: Crimson Prince wrote: I think it is wrong, but I am curious to hear the other principles people hold on this issue. (Oh, and this is my 100th post) I suppose I'll just go ahead and ask, not because I have a problem with your stance, but because I am curious what rationale supports your POV: "Why, Crimson Prince, do you think it's wrong?" Fair enough. I guess I think it is wrong because I see it as being unfaithful to whomever I DO end up marrying. It is like cheating on your future wife or husband. I see sex as the dedication of love to another person. I think sex is reserved for the person with who you spend the rest of your life. My religion really has nothing to do with it, it is just how I feel personally.

In that case.. have you ever kissed anyone before?

Radioactive Toy wrote: Crimson Prince wrote: bluetailfly wrote: Crimson Prince wrote: I think it is wrong, but I am curious to hear the other principles people hold on this issue. (Oh, and this is my 100th post) I suppose I'll just go ahead and ask, not because I have a problem with your stance, but because I am curious what rationale supports your POV: "Why, Crimson Prince, do you think it's wrong?" Fair enough. I guess I think it is wrong because I see it as being unfaithful to whomever I DO end up marrying. It is like cheating on your future wife or husband. I see sex as the dedication of love to another person. I think sex is reserved for the person with who you spend the rest of your life. My religion really has nothing to do with it, it is just how I feel personally. In that case.. have you ever kissed anyone before?

I have kissed only one girl, my girlfriend from a few years back. I don't see that as cheating though because she was my girlfriend and kissing is much more casual than sex, anyway. Like I said, I like to think I want to reserve sex for marriage (and at 18 years old, it is still far away).

Oh, congratulations Crimson on your 100th posting. Ahh, I remember mine quite fondly...

Such an emotional tijme it was...

synthguy wrote: Sexual compatibility is a component of a sucessful marrige. I feel that the waters must be tested, at the very least. However I respect your views, and your self contro

Testing the waters is fine! I think if you know you are going to marry the person, you can sleep with them before you are married. I just don't think it's alright to sleep with someone if you don't think "they are the one"

I'm sorry, but I find that a little ridiculous. If anything, I think people should have sex before marriage, because there's such a thing as sexual incompatibility. Honestly, there are few things as dangerous to a marriage. Of course, a married couple can and should always work at improving their sex life, but there's really no substitute for bringing some practical experience with you (I just don't necessarily want to hear about her experiences too often ).

And since gays can't marry, I take it you also believe homosexuality is wrong?

Easy Livin wrote: How about sex after marriage, is it just me, or does that not happen these days?

With one's own spouse? please specify.

I'm all for it -- but be careful.

Sex, for me, is connected to actually caring about (if not "loving") the other person.

When single, I did not date ladies I did not first like as people, so I never had sex just for my own sake.

Much....

Sex is great.

Especially with another person.

emdiar wrote: Easy Livin wrote: How about sex after marriage, is it just me, or does that not happen these days? With one's own spouse? please specify.

If you've had sex and you still want to marry, there's got to be SOMETHING good there!

If you've then got married and you still want to have sex with each other - that's got to be as near perfect as you're going to get.

You're a bit stuck if you get married and find out that sex together is nowhere near as good as sex elsewhere...

HOWEVER

Let your HEART be the engine - but let your MIND do the driving...

And remember: Experience is the comb that Mother Nature gives us when we go bald...

danbo wrote: Sex is great.                       Especially with another person.

Exactly

Well, since I don't really believe in marriage... and I just adore sex... I guess you know my answer.

Plus, I don't believe that sex is meant to be limited like that... before marriage, in love, etc....

Sex is sex... you can enjoy it in many ways....  Now love and marriage they go together.. but sex is a whole matter all to itself....

James:

I must respectfully disagree with your comment that "If anything, I think people should have sex before marriage, because there's such a thing as sexual incompatibility."

I have a friend who was a "normal" girl through college; not a "sleep-around," but had a boyfriend or two, including sex.  She then "re-found" her faith, and chose to remain abstinent until marriage.  She found a boyfriend, and they got engaged, planning to be married a year later.  Note that they agreed not to have sex until after marriage.  (N.B.  I think most people equate abstinence with a complete lack of a physical relationship.  This is incorrect.  Holding hands, hugging and kissing are all permitted; it is only the touching and "engagement" of "private parts" that is forbidden.)

I ask her your exact question: What happens if, when you finally have sex, the sex is bad, or you are simply incompatible?  Her answer remains with me to this day: "Ian, if you build a relationship on all the right things - love, trust, honesty, mutual respect and admiration, common ground, etc. - how can the sex be anything but good?"

Although I cannot comment from experience on this, I would have to agree in principle.  Indeed, although most marriages that fail (6 out of 10 in the U.S.) do so for reasons having to do with money, I would posit that the second biggest reason is that many marriages are initially based on sex, and when the sex becomes "boring" or otherwise "rote," there is not enough of a true "foundation" - love, trust, honesty, etc. - to sustain the relationship.

Note that this is separate and apart from my beliefs as a Christian.

Peace.

[P.S. to threefates: As one who professes to be a Christian, how do you square your "sex is sex and can be enjoyed in many ways" with the Scripture?"]

maani wrote: James: II ask her your exact question: What happens if, when you finally have sex, the sex is bad, or you are simply incompatible?  Her answer remains with me to this day: "Ian, if you build a relationship on all the right things - love, trust, honesty, mutual respect and admiration, common ground, etc. - how can the sex be anything but good?"

 Easy.  There are many things that make up a good sexual relationship vs. a good relationship.  They are separate animals. We can have all sorts of great relationships with friends that are non-sexual. Great Sexual relationships take time, patience and communication.  Some people aren't aroused unless they get specific things that sometimes they don't even know about satisfied. (There have been women I have been with that absolutely swear they will never do something and then turn to find out that is exactly what they wanted)  Some people don't know how to talk to their partner.  This is when things break down and people are unsatisfied and stray. You could get this information about each other if we were honest enough with a potential partner that this is what we like.  Christians especially are subject to this sex is bad condition or anything other than the missionary style “wham bam thank you mam” kind of sex is taboo.  If a pastor can get up and tell people sex outside of marriage is wrong, if adultery is wrong if immorality is wrong he better be able to tell them what is right. He can say as Paul did “The marriage bed is undefiled” and mean it.  What that says is that you can be different you can try new things and enjoy each other in new ways and you should be open to it if your partner wants to. 50% divorce rates are staggering in this day and age and most of them are about this very subject

maani wrote: [P.S. to threefates: As one who professes to be a Christian, how do you square your "sex is sex and can be enjoyed in many ways" with the Scripture?"]

Because its just sex... when you're not in love.  If I was in love with one and having sex with another... or even professing love with one and having sex with another... then I would be wrong... but sex for sex's sake... its just a little pleasure in this world where pleasure is far and few between...  a connection, a moment of release...

I see sex as medicinal, which is why I think my boss needs to get laid.  I think it would improve her disposition 100%...

Garion:

I'm curious: While it is true that Christians believe that sex outside of (or prior to) marriage is wrong, what makes you say that Christians are not supposed to have anything other than "missionary style" sex?  I know of no Scripture, teaching, Papal bull or any other thing that says this.  A married Christian couple is permitted to "explore" just as much as a non-Christian married couple.  The idea that we are limited to "missionary style" is a myth.

Peace.

threefates:

There are over 100 specific and direct proscriptions against "sex for sex' sake" in the Scriptures - and not one supporting it.  I'm not sure you're reading the same Scriptures or practicing the same faith as I am.

Peace.

What Maani is saying, Linda, is people with questionable lifestyles, such as us , are basicly sinning sexual degenerates.

James Lee wrote: I'm sorry, but I find that a little ridiculous. If anything, I think people should have sex before marriage, because there's such a thing as sexual incompatibility. Honestly, there are few things as dangerous to a marriage. Of course, a married couple can and should always work at improving their sex life, but there's really no substitute for bringing some practical experience with you (I just don't necessarily want to hear about her experiences too often ). And since gays can't marry, I take it you also believe homosexuality is wrong?

Gays CAN marry! oh wait a moment.. I live in sinful holland ofcourse!

You'd better have sex before marriage , because women do not have sex readily after marriage unless for procreation. And they do a lot more things before marriage in order to get married but stop doing those once married.

Nothing wrong at all with sex before marrying (I am 42 , still single , and loving every single second of LIVING IN SIN , getting laid as much as I can) , since this marriage thing is yet another ploy to hold us on psychological leash, stopping us from having fun. This is one of the many reason why I de-christened myself and live completely happily as an atheist and feast like a pagan

maani wrote: threefates: There are over 100 specific and direct proscriptions against "sex for sex' sake" in the Scriptures - and not one supporting it.  I'm not sure you're reading the same Scriptures or practicing the same faith as I am. Peace.

Let's face it, sex for the sake of it can be fun , medicinal , healthy, and avoids a part of sex crimes (there would be even more rapes if women had not been liberated by the pill) . A good deal of this debate is about women's right to reappropriate their bodies. This goes against religion's will to use the female body other than for reproduction's needs.

This forbidding of sex before marriage is mostly about male misplaced honour and to make sure that the bride is virgin, that their kids are theirs , that their wives is a Lady (and a whore only in their bed), etc..... this debate is the first step leading to the Taliban's Burqas.

Scriptures if you choose to believe in them should be interpreted loosely and certainly not in an integrist way. Christian scriptures were written for the first time  over four centuries after JC's crucification , changed by the Vatican so many times they lost the count themselves and to fit their needs (conquering the world in god's name). I am not sure i would want to follow the philosophy of a guy who let himself crucify and ask for his torturer's forgiveness.

No personal attack , Maani. Just my personal opinion but that I wish would be more widespread, but I am not willing to make a religion of my beliefs.

Just as you always point out so well: PEACE.

Sean Trane wrote: maani wrote: threefates: There are over 100 specific and direct proscriptions against "sex for sex' sake" in the Scriptures - and not one supporting it.  I'm not sure you're reading the same Scriptures or practicing the same faith as I am. Peace. Let's face it, sex for the sake of it can be fun , medicinal , healthy, and avoids a part of sex crimes (there would be even more rapes if women had not been liberated by the pill) . A good deal of this debate is about women's right to reappropriate their bodies. This goes against religion's will to use the female body other than for reproduction's needs. This forbidding of sex before marriage is mostly about male misplaced honour and to make sure that the bride is virgin, that their kids are theirs , that their wives is a Lady (and a whore only in their bed), etc..... this debate is the first step leading to the Taliban's Burqas. Scriptures if you choose to believe in them should be interpreted loosely and certainly not in an integrist way. Christian scriptures were written for the first time  over four centuries after JC's crucification , changed by the Vatican so many times they lost the count themselves and to fit their needs (conquering the world in god's name). I am not sure i would want to follow the philosophy of a guy who let himself crucify and ask for his torturer's forgiveness. No personal attack , Maani. Just my personal opinion but that I wish would be more widespread, but I am not willing to make a religion of my beliefs. Just as you always point out so well: PEACE.

Bravo! Intelligence and actual historical knowledge is very rare and it's very gratifying to come across it.Because it is true that marriage was instigated by men as a means of controlling women,to make sure that they didn't "stray" and had sex with other men. It was a way for men to be sure that their children were their own and that they hadn't been cuckolded. In other words: Marriage was invented by men to ensure their genetic investment,pure and simple. Love had nothing to do with it,it was simply a practical and pragmatic measure to control women. It's taken on other aspects along the way,but the origins were pure fallocentric egotism and patriarchal bullying,of which all of this planet's woes can be attributed,incidentally.

And as for the christians among us: Why do you insist on making life so complicated? It's not necessary,you know. You don't need a long list of rules or thick books to tell you what's right and wrong. You only need to keep one thing in mind: Treat the people you meet on your way through life with kindness. Be nice to people. That's it. It really is that simple. If you always keep that in mind,you can't do anything that's truly wrong. Only if having lots of sex with many people hurt the people around you,is it wrong. If it doesn't,it's fine. It certainly is no business of some long dead prophet,whether his name was Jesus,Mohmmad or Buddha. It's only a matter between you and the people in your life. And please keep in mind: Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's true. Whether the book is The Bible,The Koran or The Shining. Be critical,don't just blindly accept. If any theory or thought doesn't tally with reality,it's obviously incorrect. Saying that sex before marriage is wrong would only be correct if reality,the actual lives that actual men and women live,supported it. Well,it doesn't. It's quite the opposite,in fact. Most men and women enjoy sex. That's it. Before,during,or after marriage,in many ways and with many people. That is a fact. What Paul or any biblical author might have had to say about it,or any other issue for that matter, counts for nothing if it isn't in accordance with the way people actually live their lives. You can't create a set of rules that have nothing,or very little,with the way people actually live their lives.You can't create standards that are impossible to live up to. If people really like something and it doesn't hurt anyone,then it's not wrong. Simple as that. That's precisely what's wrong with religion,trying to impose rules and regulations on a life that naturally resists such restrictions. Let people do what ever they want,as long they don't hurt anybody. What I do with the people in my life is nobody's business as long as I don't mistreat them. Life really is that simple. Why do you treat life as if it's an obstacle course? It doesn't have to be.

^ Pixel is so smart. I hope he gets to have as much sex as he wants.

Anyway...

maani: point taken. I think that two people can discover a unique and lasting joy in knowing that no other has ever been where they go (so to speak), and it is that 'perfect union' that is the ideal of marriage. Your quote from the girl is well worth keeping in mind...but I don't believe that it is always true; even when everything else in a relationship is fine, the sex can very well be bad (or as bad as sex ever is- remember the pizza metaphor ).

And vice versa; good (i.e., meaningful) sex can happen with a stranger, too. Sometimes the connections we make to another person are too powerful to survive imposing a relationship on them. Sometimes you just need a reminder that the beast in us can be as divine as the angel in us. With sex, even casual sex, even nasty dirty depraved sex, one can approach elements of infinity that prayer and reflection fail to illuminate.

I think the various cultural taboos against sex before marriage developed as a warning against the troubles that often come from youthful promiscuity. Most cultural attitudes towards sex are rarely about sex itself, but rather the consequences of sex. And I don't know if there's a trustworthy way to measure the regrets of the chaste against the regrets of the wanton.  

threefates wrote: I agree with Sean, Pixel and James evidently... Sex has been used as a control device over women since the beginning.

How do you mean? I'm not arguing, just asking for elaboration.

Since all the major religions were started by men,religion has always had a lot to do with men's control issues,it's laughably obvious if you have some grasp of the male psyche. A lot of it has to do with the love/hate,madonna/whore relationship men have always had with women,most men's feelings towards women are tainted with misygony to some extent and in religion this has played a major part since a lot of the major religious movements,especially Islam but also Christianity,has been about establishing and maintaining patriarchal tyranny. Men,eh? Nature's biggest mistake.

Pixel pretty much sums it up above.  Sean also hits it on the head with "men's misplaced honor".  And it started right from the beginning. 

We're led to believe by the Scriptures that women suffer in childbirth due to our eternal punishment for taking the first bite of knowledge.  Now there's one hell of a guilt trip if ever there was one....

Women were considered whores if they slept with more than one man.  Men could have several wives and comcubines...

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that women were created to be submissive to the whims of men.  After all, it was women who had that first bite of knowledge....

What about the fact that historically men are often seen as slaves to their desires for women, often making monumental decisions based on sexual attraction (Anthony, for example)? That would seem to give women inordinate power over men, at least in a very specific realm. And there's that old saying "Behind every great man..."

Again, I'm not arguing. Just raising ideas for discussion.

threefates wrote: Pixel pretty much sums it up above.  Sean also hits it on the head with "men's misplaced honor".  And it started right from the beginning.  We're led to believe by the Scriptures that women suffer in childbirth due to our eternal punishment for taking the first bite of knowledge.  Now there's one hell of a guilt trip if ever there was one.... Women were considered whores if they slept with more than one man.  Men could have several wives and comcubines... Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that women were created to be submissive to the whims of men.  After all, it was women who had that first bite of knowledge....

Actually Three Fates , before the coming of monotheism , there were many societies that were believed to be matrimonial and in some rare case, the polygamism for women existed (and still does in some tribes nowadays) in Polynesia and in Papou lands.

 I really think that this misplaced honour in most males about women (especially in the Muslim world) is because men cannot act correctly with other sibblings(this would mean that they would try to sleep with their brother's wives if they had a chance to????) . Why should the woman be covered from head to toe because she must stay modest ? Why can it not be that men restrain their impulses better (murder, violence , rape/lust and greed).

We, the men, are usually guided by our own references which is our own mothers that we idolize , idealize , cherish for the love they gave us. What do we know of the real live of our mothers outside the motherhood they provided us. if we were to know more on their outside (but well concealed) endeavours/adventures we might just be in for a shock. Most of them were hardly perfect but since it is the only mother we had , we cannot really compare.

You should also know that women are also often the keeper of the tradition. It is women who forces their little girls into excision (cutting of the clitoris and sowing of the vagina) in parts of Africa, keep the girls at home in Arabia etc... This male supremacy is also maintained by women content to behave like their mother in the very traditional role they were shown.

maani wrote: Garion: I'm curious: While it is true that Christians believe that sex outside of (or prior to) marriage is wrong, what makes you say that Christians are not supposed to have anything other than "missionary style" sex?  I know of no Scripture, teaching, Papal bull or any other thing that says this.  A married Christian couple is permitted to "explore" just as much as a non-Christian married couple.  The idea that we are limited to "missionary style" is a myth. Peace. threefates: There are over 100 specific and direct proscriptions against "sex for sex' sake" in the Scriptures - and not one supporting it.  I'm not sure you're reading the same Scriptures or practicing the same faith as I am. Peace.

The point is that sex itself has been vilified in so many churches although somewhat that attitude changed slightly. (For sure in my parents generation and most of the way through mine.  It is one of the institutions the countercoultre of the late 60's and 70's attacked.)  But as almost as an aside have preachers said but it's ok in marriage.  People usually don't work that way Maani.  People do take it to heart and preachers in the past forget if you keep telling people something is bad and they trust you eventually they believe it. I grew up under the strictest teaching imaginable and it warped my view of sex for years. I know quite a few others that have had the same experience.

ThreeFates touches on an interesting issue.  One other thing that needs to be noted is that a lot of the New Testament beliefs and laws came from Paul's letters to the churches.  Paul was himself a Pharisee and it is easy to see in his writings the struggle he had of telling people the freedom and relief salvation brings and on the other hand smash people over the head with the Law of Moses.  Paul had a problem with sex and it is obvious when you read his letters.   He did not take a wife for whatever reason. In my mind the church should rethink its position on this subject with a more enlightened look of his writings. The church has adopted these feelings of Paul as their own doctrine.

Why is it that a man who gets loads of sex is a stud whilst a woman who does the same is a sl*g? Because of religion.The 3 major religions of the world seem to have taken great delight over the centuries in subjugating women.The Catholic Church venerates The Virgin Mary (against one of the Commandments as far as I can see) yet wont even consider the idea of women priests!!!

Sex is sex,lets just have loads of it as often as possible-with a few provisors:

1. If you are married only have sex with your partner-nobody forces you to get married so either make the commitment or dont marry.

2.Dont put yourself in a position where you can catch something nasty.

3.Sex should always be consensual.

4.Great sex does not have to be with another person (I like to look in the mirror)

5.If you get sent to jail,NEVER PICK THE SOAP UP OFF THE FLOOR!

6.Never listen to advice from obnoxious,smuggy Brits.

maani wrote: threefates: There are over 100 specific and direct proscriptions against "sex for sex' sake" in the Scriptures - and not one supporting it.  I'm not sure you're reading the same Scriptures or practicing the same faith as I am. Peace.

There are also scriptures that when taken literally advocate the killing of homosexuals. In the ten commandments it says that any image or representation of god is a sin, catholics believe that jesus and god are one (lets not forget the holy ghost), so therefore having a cross with jesus on it is a sin. It also clearly says several times (and quite clearly) that women are inferior to men. dont want to make it seem like an attack but unless you start spouting that what god did to the sodomites was just and should be done again, then i have to say your not supporting your faith properly.

Reed Lover wrote: Why is it that a man who gets loads of sex is a stud whilst a woman who does the same is a sl*g? Because of religion.The 3 major religions of the world seem to have taken great delight over the centuries in subjugating women.The Catholic Church venerates The Virgin Mary (against one of the Commandments as far as I can see) yet wont even consider the idea of women priests!!! Sex is sex,lets just have loads of it as often as possible-with a few provisors: 1. If you are married only have sex with your partner-nobody forces you to get married so either make the commitment or dont marry. 2.Dont put yourself in a position where you can catch something nasty. 3.Sex should always be consensual. 4.Great sex does not have to be with another person (I like to look in the mirror) 5.If you get sent to jail,NEVER PICK THE SOAP UP OFF THE FLOOR! 6.Never listen to advice from obnoxious,smuggy Brits.

In reponse for #4:

Yep, even in the days of the old South and slaves... some slaves were loved more than others by their masters... but that made them no less controlled ... and no less slaves!

If I am very progressist towards sex , women's lib and that whole bit (my previous posts in this thread to prove it), I also am for legalizing the right for the father to check out the child's ADN to check out if the kid is his or not. How many women have "cheated" (a bit harsh of a word but I cannot think of a more apt word at the time of writing this post) their husband this way?

There has been a study recently about how women choose their mates for life: there are two facts that pheromones overule the female "brains, heart and ovaries" (I say ovaries as opposed to the male Gut feeling , plus sexual attraction) .

First , women would rather be with a gentler less macho males for everyday life, some even choosing men that have more effeminate features (not wimps or gays but men that do not look like Neanderthal) so that they can control their husband or at least live an equal partnership.

Second, for having kids , they will likely be attracted to those macho more brutal men they shun , just because they are more sturdy, healthy and therefore the children produced will be more genetically healthy . As to avoid the meek inheriting the earth As Rush says in 2112.

Women are not doing this consciously: this is the animal part of human being (just like Alpha males in lions herd or wolf packs). But to think that most husbands are being cheated on as to the real nature of the kids they bring up , is outright outraging . But a certain percentage of all birth are not from the two (married or unmarried) partner in the couple. This, of course, implies female untrustworthyness in religious circles and was fought against with chastity belt in the middle ages, convents ,excision in parts of the world  and Burqas. This is why I think that religion should stay out of marital (and family) life, because women are always getting the short end of the stick. The purpose is to create large families with many new young disciples to increase the power of religions.

I hope I do not shock anyone with my opinion, and the people that are might want to think about the role of religion as a political force . In Europe , we have been fighting for centuries to separate religion from politics and this is healthy. There is still a long way to go in these matters before Mankind finally reach maturity/adulthood.

Peace.

  Sean Trane

 James Naughty Lee

Pixel Pirate wrote: [QUOTE=Sean Trane] If I am very progressist towards sex , women's lib and that whole bit (my previous posts in this thread to prove it), I also am for legalizing the right for the father to check out the child's ADN to check out if the kid is his or not. How many women have "cheated" (a bit harsh of a word but I cannot think of a more apt word at the time of writing this post) their husband this way? There has been a study recently about how women choose their mates for life: there are two facts that pheromones overule the female "brains, heart and ovaries" (I say ovaries as opposed to the male Gut feeling , plus sexual attraction) . First , women would rather be with a gentler less macho males for everyday life, some even choosing men that have more effeminate features (not wimps or gays but men that do not look like Neanderthal) so that they can control their husband or at least live an equal partnership. Second, for having kids , they will likely be attracted to those macho more brutal men they shun , just because they are more sturdy, healthy and therefore the children produced will be more genetically healthy . As to avoid the meek inheriting the earth As Rush says in 2112. Women are not doing this consciously: this is the animal part of human being (just like Alpha males in lions herd or wolf packs). But to think that most husbands are being cheated on as to the real nature of the kids they bring up , is outright outraging . But a certain percentage of all birth are not from the two (married or unmarried) partner in the couple. This, of course, implies female untrustworthyness in religious circles and was fought against with chastity belt in the middle ages, convents ,excision in parts of the world  and Burqas. This is why I think that religion should stay out of marital (and family) life, because women are always getting the short end of the stick. The purpose is to create large families with many new young disciples to increase the power of religions. I hope I do not shock anyone with my opinion, and the people that are might want to think about the role of religion as a political force . In Europe , we have been fighting for centuries to separate religion from politics and this is healthy. There is still a long way to go in these matters before Mankind finally reach maturity/adulthood. Peace.

Some take the bible
For what it's worth
When it says that the meek
Shall inherit the Earth
Well, I heard that some sheik
Has bought New Jersey last week
'N you suckers ain't gettin' nothin'
Is Hare Rama really wrong
If you wander around
With a napkin on
With a bell on a stick
An' your hair is all gone...
(The geek shall inherit nothin')

You say yer life's a bum deal
'N yer up against the wall...
Well, people, you ain't even got no
Deal at all
'Cause what they do
In Washington
They just takes care
of NUMBER ONE
An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU
You ain't even NUMBER TWO

Those Jesus Freaks
Well, they're friendly but
The sh*t they believe
Has got their minds all shut
An' they don't even care
When the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much
nothin'
(So whaddya do)
Eat that pork
Eat that ham
Laugh till ya choke
On Billy Graham
Moses, Aaron 'n Abraham...
They're all a waste of time
'N it's yer ass that's on the line
(IT'S YER ASS THAT'S ON THE LINE)

Do what you wanna
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill
'N when you pay the bill
Kindly leave a little tip
And help the next poor sucker
On his one way trip...
SOME TAKE THE BIBLE...
(Aw gimme half a dozen for the hotel
room!)

The meek shall inherit the Earth !!!!!

(if that's ok with everybody else).

James Lee wrote: then again, being taught to regard sex as shameful has only added to the fun. Thank you, Puritans!

100% correct JL, yet the tide's been a- turning for some time now! I only wish I could get off on a "glimpse of stocking", as my victorian forefathers could. Overkill porn has somewhat taken the edge off, these days. Shame!

emdiar wrote: James Lee wrote: then again, being taught to regard sex as shameful has only added to the fun. Thank you, Puritans!  100% correct JL, yet the tide's been a- turning for some time now! I only wish I could get off on a "glimpse of stocking", as my victorian forefathers could. Overkill porn has somewhat taken the edge off, these days. Shame!

Actually , I get off more on women with ankle-long skirts and quick glimpse of the leg in the cut-out than all of those war-painted-faced tarts in mini-skirts showing very imperfect legs.

Trane philosophy says that women with perfect legs hide them in order to get a little peace from the males. Only the ones with shabby legs feel like showing them off.

A little misoginy never killed anyone

A couple of observations.

First, as you happy hedonists go on about the joys of sex (anytime, anywhere), consider this simple fact: if the only people having sex were married (or even just strictly monogamous) couples, the following statistics would not exist:

-from 1981 to 2003, 20 million people died from AIDS
-by 2004, 37 million adults and 2 million children were living with HIV
-by 2003, 12 million children had been orphaned as a result of parents dying from AIDS
-in 2004, 5 million people became infected with HIV; 3.1 million died from AIDS
-by 2004, women accounted for 47% of all new HIV cases
-by 2003, young people (15-24) accounted for half of all new HIV cases
-although a small number of HIV cases are associated with drug use (i.e., dirty needles), the overwhelming majority - well over 95% - are associated with sex

This does not include statistics for other STDs, which would also die out very quickly - and have no place to go - if only monogamous couples were having sex.  And by the way, condoms - even used properly - are only 87% effective against transmission of the HIV virus.

When the HIV virus and AIDS were first discovered, one radical right-wing religious zealot called it "God's punishment against gays," since it started in the gay community.  He is only half wrong.  If anything, AIDS is God's punishment against promiscuity.

Tell me: how many of you, if you contracted HIV - and/or developed AIDS - would honestly look back and say, "Well, it was worth it because I really enjoyed sex for sex' sake?"

Second, with regard to the dating and "accuracy" of New Testament Scripture, the last book to be written (and not just because it is the last to appear) was The Revelation to John, which was written, by all scholarly accounts, somewhere between 90 and 100 A.D.  This means that the four Gospels were all written earlier - somewhere between 60 and 80 A.D.  They were written by two apostles (Matthew and John) and two disciples (Luke and Mark).

Now consider the following hypothetical situation.  You and four friends spend three years together at college.  You are the de facto "leader" of your little band, and you are virtually inseparable during that time.  Now, 40, 50 or 60 years later, someone comes to your four friends - now separated by time and distance - and asks them to write accounts of those three years.  What will happen?  Simple.  Those things that were "most important" will be remembered by all or most, but each one will also remember other specific things that stood out for them.  However, the details of the order of events, time and place may be different because of the time lapsed since their occurrence: the "faulty memory" concept.  This does not mean those events did not occur; simply that each person remembered the details - time, place, order - slightly differently.

This is how we know that the Gospels are authentic: because this is exactly how they read: the major events were remembered by all, though not always in the correct order or in the details; and each one remembered other events which stood out for him specifically, or which might not have been witnessed by another.  And it is the very fact that the details of time, place and order do not always coincide that adds to the authenticity of the writings.  Indeed, had all the Gospels been exactly the same - in every detail - that would have been enormously suspicious.  Yet that is not what we find.  What we find is what we would expect to find given my hypothetical situation.

Third, some of you do exactly as the so-called "Religious Right" does: taking Scripture out of context to support narrow views, and adopting an "Old Testament" position in a New Testament world.

For example, pointing to OT Scripture calling for the stoning of homosexuals, adulterers, etc. is moot.  Although it is true that Christianity "came out of" Judaism, and that Christians believe in both the OT and the NT, it is the NT that takes precedence in any given situation; i.e., it is the life and ministry of Christ that is paramount, not what the OT might say.  After all, as has been pointed out, the OT calls for stoning prostitutes, homosexuals, etc.  Yet Jesus - who was better versed in the OT than anyone of his day (or any one of us...) - makes it clear that that is not the case; indeed, He steps in and stops the people from stoning the adultress despite what the OT says.  Does this mean Jesus was "not following Scripture?"  That He was "picking and choosing" what He thought people should or should not believe vis-a-vis the OT?  I think not.

Which brings me to my final point.  Athough I know that the following concept may be difficult to understand (much less accept), it is a critical point that most of you seem to be missing.  That is that there is a difference between God's love for you and what He expects from you; i.e., how He feels about you during the 80-90 years that your spirit inhabits your temporal bodies, and what is "required" to "inherit the kingdom" - i.e., for that spirit to live its eternal life in heaven. Let me use the example of the adultress, since it fits perfectly.

Most people simply remember that Jesus told her accusers, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."  However, that is not where the story ends.  He then asks her, "Where are thy accusers?  Has no one condemned you?"  She replies, "No one, Lord."  Jesus answers, "Neither do I condemn you.  Go, and sin no more."

Note that: "Go, and sin no more."  He was not giving her "license" to continue in sin; indeed, He was giving her a command: "sin no more."  He was essentially saying, "Look, I have saved you from stoning, and I forgive you the sin that brought you here.  However, given how close you came to death, and that I might not be around next time to save you, do not continue being an adulteress."  In other words, he was letting her know that, if she continued in her sin, it would now be a conscious and deliberate choice, not simply a "failing."  In this way, Jesus showed love, compassion and forgiveness.  But He also made it clear that He did not expect her to continue in sin.

This is what you are missing.  God loves all of His children, despite sexual orientation, lifestyle, failings, etc.  However, He does not expect you to remain in sin once you are aware of it.  He expects you to stop sinning - or at very least make conscious efforts to minimize sin - since continuing to sin once you know you are doing so would be a conscious, deliberate choice, and not just a failing, and is thus "snubbing your nose" at God.

Yes, God loves all people, despite the fact that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."  And He loves you from the day you are born until the day you die.  However, if you consciously and deliberately remain in sin despite knowing you are doing wrong, then, yes, you will be "judged" when you "leave your mortal coil," and you will not inherit the kingdom.  Does that make God "mean" or "unloving?"  Or, does it make Him "just?"

Peace.

mirco wrote: Sean Trane wrote: A little misoginy never killed anyone So you're with me when I state that any woman that doesn´t pay attention to me is a lesbian?

mirco,

I qualify as a lesbian.

Only sleep with women.

maani wrote: A couple of observations. First, as you happy hedonists go on about the joys of sex (anytime, anywhere), consider this simple fact: if the only people having sex were married (or even just strictly monogamous) couples, the following statistics would not exist: -from 1981 to 2003, 20 million people died from AIDS -by 2004, 37 million adults and 2 million children were living with HIV -by 2003, 12 million children had been orphaned as a result of parents dying from AIDS -in 2004, 5 million people became infected with HIV; 3.1 million died from AIDS -by 2004, women accounted for 47% of all new HIV cases -by 2003, young people (15-24) accounted for half of all new HIV cases -although a small number of HIV cases are associated with drug use (i.e., dirty needles), the overwhelming majority - well over 95% - are associated with sex This does not include statistics for other STDs, which would also die out very quickly - and have no place to go - if only monogamous couples were having sex.  And by the way, condoms - even used properly - are only 87% effective against transmission of the HIV virus. When the HIV virus and AIDS were first discovered, one radical right-wing religious zealot called it "God's punishment against gays," since it started in the gay community.  He is only half wrong.  If anything, AIDS is God's punishment against promiscuity. Tell me: how many of you, if you contracted HIV - and/or developed AIDS - would honestly look back and say, "Well, it was worth it because I really enjoyed sex for sex' sake?" [...] Which brings me to my final point.  Athough I know that the following concept may be difficult to understand (much less accept), it is a critical point that most of you seem to be missing.  That is that there is a difference between God's love for you and what He expects from you; i.e., how He feels about you during the 80-90 years that your spirit inhabits your temporal bodies, and what is "required" to "inherit the kingdom" - i.e., for that spirit to live its eternal life in heaven. Let me use the example of the adultress, since it fits perfectly. Most people simply remember that Jesus told her accusers, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."  However, that is not where the story ends.  He then asks her, "Where are thy accusers?  Has no one condemned you?"  She replies, "No one, Lord."  Jesus answers, "Neither do I condemn you.  Go, and sin no more." Note that: "Go, and sin no more."  He was not giving her "license" to continue in sin; indeed, He was giving her a command: "sin no more."  He was essentially saying, "Look, I have saved you from stoning, and I forgive you the sin that brought you here.  However, given how close you came to death, and that I might not be around next time to save you, do not continue being an adulteress."  In other words, he was letting her know that, if she continued in her sin, it would now be a conscious and deliberate choice, not simply a "failing."  In this way, Jesus showed love, compassion and forgiveness.  But He also made it clear that He did not expect her to continue in sin. This is what you are missing.  God loves all of His children, despite sexual orientation, lifestyle, failings, etc.  However, He does not expect you to remain in sin once you are aware of it.  He expects you to stop sinning - or at very least make conscious efforts to minimize sin - since continuing to sin once you know you are doing so would be a conscious, deliberate choice, and not just a failing, and is thus "snubbing your nose" at God. Yes, God loves all people, despite the fact that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."  And He loves you from the day you are born until the day you die.  However, if you consciously and deliberately remain in sin despite knowing you are doing wrong, then, yes, you will be "judged" when you "leave your mortal coil," and you will not inherit the kingdom.  Does that make God "mean" or "unloving?"  Or, does it make Him "just?" Peace.

So you're saying that the massive scale of death and misery is a just response of a loving creator towards human promiscuity?

That sounds like a god worth 'snubbing one's nose' at. A truly loving god would weep more for the consequences of the plague than the mechanics of its transmission.

AIDS has been the single biggest deterrent to casual sex, undoubtedly...but to regard it as meaningful in any moral sense is dangerous. One might as well conclude that skin cancer is god's curse for the sin of staying outside in the sun too much. And like condoms, no sunblocker is fully effective...to be truly free of sin, one must stay indoors.

JrKASperov wrote:   Indeed, sin is such a horror to the Lord that even the smallest is big. We are all 'the same' in that prospect, and if God says that some are unworthy and some worthy, He must have The reason for it, and He is the only one who can see this. But surely, you must be working towards pleasing God in that prospect, and that is what Maani is warning you against. The more you refrain from fighting sin, in your knowledge, the less the chance is you will be admitted into His Kingdom. that is not our judgement, that is the judgement of the Lord Himself, according to Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

JrKasperov:

Any more passages for the Good Christian Infants Book Of Nonesense?

Indeed, sin is such a horror to the Lord that even the smallest is big. We are all 'the same' in that prospect, and if God says that some are unworthy and some worthy, He must have The reason for it, and He is the only one who can see this

Sorry but this sounds like something you would tell a child not debate with adults.It also seems to me like the Good Lord wants to develop some perspective:if he thinks coveting thy neighbours wife is as bad as killing thy neighbours wife,then God help us!!!

maani wrote: If anything, AIDS is God's punishment against promiscuity.

Ouch... its statements like those that really give religion a bad rep....

Do you think God is some nice old man with a long white beard in a nightshirt, smiling lovingly on everyone and writing down your good deeds in a golden book?  "I thy God am a jealous God."  "I thy God am an angry God."  And when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments and found the people worshiping the golden calf, God justified him in saying "If you will not live by the law, then you will die by the law": throwing the tablets down, God caused the earth to open up and swallow those who had given up on Moses - and God.

Yes, "God is love."  And yes, He is full of grace, mercy, forgiveness and compassion.  But He is also jealous, angry, and, yes, it is His place ultimately to judge every human being.  To confine Him only to the "good" side of His nature is a dangerous misreading of Scripture and a dangerous misinterpretation of Christianity.

And God gave us "rules."  In the Old Testament, they included the Ten Commandments, as well as numerous other laws and guidelines for living a proper faith-based life.  In the New Testament, they include not only rules and limitations provided by Jesus Himself, but those provided by the apostles and disciples: whatever you may think of Paul, James, Timothy, Peter, Titus et al, their words hold only slightly less weight than Jesus' where living a "proper" Christian life is concerned.  To cherry-pick the rules, limitations and admonitions you "agree with," and simply ignore or deny the rest, is to condemn yourself: God no longer needs to condemn you.  "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all."

Ultimately, God is the judge, and He will judge.  As with the "cast the first stone" story - in which everyone conveniently forgets the rest of it ("Go, and sin no more") - most people only remember that Jesus said, "I do not come to judge the world but to save the world."  Yet they forget (or ignore) the very next line: "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him - the word I have spoken will judge him in the last day." (Emphasis mine).  And what does Jesus mean by "My words?"  Everything He said, including the rules and limitations He gave.

To think that you are free to do anything you wish during your temporal lives simply because "God is love" is a dangerous and illogical interpretation of Christianity - and God.

Peace.

In the beginning God made 'the light.' Shortly thereafter God made three big mistakes. The first mistake was called MAN, the second mistake was called WO-MAN, and the third mistake was the invention of THE POODLE. Now the reason the poodle was such a big mistake is because God originally wanted to build a Schnauzer, but he f**ked up.

F Zappa

JrKASperov wrote: James: you are turning things around. It is free sex that has allowed the wide spread of AIDS, thus advocates of free sex are the cause or at least the perpetuators of such diseases. As Maani has pointed out, Condoms will not help enough, they will only deter. Indeed, currently, it is not being out in the sun too much, it's more like staying in the sun all the time. If we are to be free of sin, we will remain in the piece of sun that has been given to us. Indeed, if you enjoy that piece in the Name of Yeshua, it will be as big as you can imagine.

The initial question of the thread wasn't about wanton, unrestrained sexuality but of the morality of sex before marriage. Is an 'advocate of free sex' the same thing as just believing that there is no immorality in sex before marriage? I refuse to be cast as enthusiastically encouraging irresponsibility simply because I don't think sex out of wedlock is neccesarily an immorality.

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying it's okay to be foolish about it, and I'm not denying that irresponsible sex causes a multitude of complications for the individual and society (STDs being but one obvious example). But these are reasons why we should learn instead of simply obey; so we can value individual responsibility and awareness. We will likely find that the words of religion are very helpful to our own decisions, especially if that religion has shaped our culture and community...but we may also come to different conclusions.

JrKASperov: many of your statements were conditional: 'if we believe in god', or 'if we are to be free of sin'. This implies an alternative. When I say that I do not believe in a God (in almost any sense), does this immediately mark me as an immoral man? To go further, when I say that I don't believe man was meant to avoid sin (in the sense that your moral worth is measured against adherence to specific and unchanging rules) does that make me one who encourages immorality? A good man tries to make the world a better place (or at least, no worse). Having sex before marriage doesn't automatically defeat that purpose.

maani: I'm probably not the one you're responding to- I've avoided making any references to scripture. I readily admit my knowledge of it is much more shallow than yours, but be assured that I have no illusions that the god of Christianity isn't clearly depicted to be as scary as he is loving. I just find it odd that anyone would be happy to consider themselves a willing and faithful subject to such an admitted tyrant and author of misery. But I was also mystified at the enthusiasm and number of Bush voters, too, so I admit that there are powerful forces in the world whose appeal I do not yet comprehend.

In his excellent book "The Necessity Of Atheism" Shelley (yes he didn't just write poetry) writes that god is like a little boy pulling wings off flies. Sums up the god of the old testament very nicely since he is obviously a lunatic,killing people left,right and centre and when he himself is too busy for a killing spree,he gets humans to do his dirty work for him,like Joshua at Jericho. God actually commanded Joshua to kill every living thing in Jericho,men,women,children,pets,the lot. And this maniac is what christians call father! If an actual father started killing members of his family every time they displeased him,he would be locked up for life. The old testament is one of the most violent books ever written showing that we're dealing with a god that has more than just one screw loose. Who shows love by violence and brutality? Do what I say or I hurt you? What kind of love is that? Everyone in real life knows that behaving like that is wrong but god supposedly doesn't? That shows amazing stupidity and/or insanity on his behalf. A good thing he's only a fictional character! On that note I would recommend a book by Graham Phillips called "Act Of God",proving that the biblical plagues were nothing more than natural disasters,misunderstood by a superstitious populace. As if there was ever any doubt but it's good to get scientific confirmation.

Maani,JKas:

You two need to get together and compare notes,so that you can at least sing of the same hymn sheet.

The more you two spew forth this stuff the more we get a jumbled message.God sees things this way,then that way.But never the same way.If following a code of morality is crucial in one's devotion to God,he's definitely made it difficult to see the correct path.

The one thing we can be certain of:God is not very good at getting his message across in any clear and consistent manner.In fact,one might postualate that God has multiple personalities each contributing their own bit to Scripture.Or it could all be the work of a multitude of people across the ages.

Beau Heem:

I am not judging you, nor anyone else.  Only God can judge.  I am only expressing the tenets of the faith called "Christianity," and pointing out that, according to those tenets, God will judge you (and others) when the time comes.  It is at that point that you will have to explain to Him why (i) you refused to believe in His son as having died for your sins and been resurrected for your salvation and the eternal life of your soul, (ii) you refused to admit you were a sinner, (iii) you refused to repent for your sins, and (iv) you continued to consciously and deliberately (i.e., not simply as a "failing" or "weakness") engage in sin even after you were informed that you were sinning.

As for my comment on AIDS, I was admittedly being somewhat bombastic: the point is that promiscuity is what causes STDs, including HIV and AIDS, to "make the rounds," and that if only monogamous couples were having sex, then STDs, including HIV and AIDS, would "have no place to go": they would be stopped dead in their tracks.  It is interesting that everyone jumped on me for the bombast of my statement, yet did not admit its underlying correctness.  (N.B.  I thank James Lee for his singular admission of this.)

Reed Lover:

In fact, JrKASperov and I are very much on the same page: I have not seen a single inconsistency in our beliefs vis-a-vis our faith and understanding of Jesus' ministry, and Christianity in general.  There may be occasional "gradations" in the way we present things, but our underlying beliefs about God, Christ and our faith is at least 95% united.

James:

I do not consider God a "tyrant."  I consider Him just.  After all, I start from the belief that God created us (whether out of dust or via evolution does not matter at this moment) and that our life - our very "breath" - is a gift.  If so, then He has every right to impose any rules, restrictions, guidelines, etc. on us that He wishes.  Further, if He gave us life, then He has every right to take it away - at any time, for any reason.  His wisdom is infinite; ours is puny by comparison.  "Who can know the mind of God?"

Further, if we are "made in God's (spiritual) image," that means, as I pointed out, that He must have all the same traits as we do: not just "good" traits like love, forgiveness, compassion, joy, etc., but also "bad" (used loosely here) traits like anger, jealousy, grief, etc.  And, as noted, He freely admits having those traits.  Indeed, it is because He has those traits - and because He lived among us to see how those traits affect us - that He truly knows what it is to be "human."

God knows that we cannot live up to His standard of perfection: "The law was given so that sin might increase."  (Emphasis mine.)  That is, the Jews so clamored for God to show them how He wanted them to live, that He obliged them - just to prove that they could never live up to even the most basic of His standards (the "Ten Commandments") - and that, in fact, in the very fact of having the law, they would only break it even more.

So He allows us incredible latitude.  He knows that our "flesh" is weak, that our minds are carnal (i.e., "worldly" (as opposed to "spiritual"), not just "sexual"), and that it is difficult to "fight" the "animal" part of us and always follow our "better conscience."  However, He does expect us to make at least "good faith" efforts (a wonderfully apropos phrase...) to do so.  In this regard, He actually requires only four things: (i) Faith in His son as having paid the penalty for all sin for all time by willingly dying on the cross - shedding His blood so that your sins would be forgiven if you repented - and being resurrected so that your eternal soul would find salvation and inherit the kingdom (heaven), (ii) Admitting you are a sinner, and humbly and honestly repenting for your sins by asking forgiveness through His son, (iii) Making at least "good faith" efforts to minimize sin (and definitely not consciously and deliberately remaining in sin), and (iv) Making at least "good faith" efforts to live as Jesus lived; i.e., by the precepts of His ministry - love, peace, humility, forgiveness, compassion, patience, charity, selflessness, service, truth - and by His single commandment: "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

That's actually not alot to ask, is it?  Only four things.  Indeed, much of the rest of the New Testament is simply "details" of (iv).

As for "author of misery," I can only repeat that "God's ways are unsearchable"; that we, as mere humans, do not have the requisite knowledge or understanding to see the reasons behind God's actions.  We only see it from the "human viewpoint"; He sees it from the "divine viewpoint."  As a related aside, there is a wonderful little saying by Richard Bach in his book, Illusions, which is appropriate here.  As simple as it seems on the surface, you may have to read it more than once in order to get its full meaning:

"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in tragedy and injustice.  What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly."

Simplistic, perhaps, but apropos.  When we see something as "tragedy" or "misery," we only see it through human eyes.  We cannot know what those events, moments, etc. "mean," or what they may "lead to."  As an aside, it is ironic that some of you believe that faith is based on a fear of death, on the "mortality factor."  Yet it would seem that Christians have a "healthier" understanding of and attitude toward death than non-believers: as Richard Bach's saying suggests, non-believers' fear of death leads to a misplaced notion of "tragedy" and "injustice," because they cannot get beyond their limited "human" view of death.  Believers, on the other hand, understand that they do not - cannot - know the "reasons" behind things, or the "butterflies" that God is creating.

Does this mean we do not care when someone dies?  Or that we are not sad, and do not cry, when "innocent" people, especially infants and children, die?  Of course not.  We mourn and grieve like anyone else.  But we do not search for "reasons" for such deaths, much less "blame God" for them.  [N.B.  Of course, many deaths are not caused by God, but by "the enemy."  However, this would get us into yet another hopelessly protracted and "unsolvable" discussion.]

Although it probably does the opposite (), I hope this clears up a few points.

Peace.

Maani:

Please have a look at your last statements and see that from the very beginning it's based upon your acceptance of the existence of something called god (sorry for the small caps). Your faith is what makes you believe on it, but you have to admit that many of us simply don't believe that and thus for us all your arguments fall like a house of cards. But I guess we have to agree to disagree on this. I have however some complains about your posts in this thread:

You say that your statement about AIDS was simply bombastic. Well, I think it was much more than that; anyway, if AIDS is god's punishment against promiscuity, can you please tell me your views on flu (that has caused many more deaths than AIDS)? What about malaria? A punishment against poverty?

Has AIDS being spread because of promiscuity? Yes, of course, in the same way that flu has been spread because of breathing. Living kills... and living as a human being has many implications, sex being one of them...

Another thing: you have stated that "condoms - even used properly - are only 87% effective against transmission of the HIV virus", which is fairly true but please read it again: only 87%. Is an 87% protection not good enough for you? Multiply some of the numbers of AIDS in Africa by 0.13 and see what you get... For (your) god's sake, they are at least 87% effective!!!

Peace... and health!

Given my sexual orientation I usually avoid theological debates like the plague but I will add my two cents in for a change. My knowledge of the Bible  is relatively solid in the New Testament, but very shaky concerning the Old Testament so Maani, please be gentle on me.

God is vengeful,God is a jealous God..and indeed he was in the Old Testament. Reading scripture, God seems to take on a softer approach and developes a better understanding of human flaws and weaknesses because of Jesus's time on Earth. In the New Testament, Jesus takes on a more tolerant outlook...it is no longer an Eye for an Eye...it is Turn the other cheek. His best friend is a prostitute, He forgives the theif on the cross next to him...I would say God is a more compassionate God in the New Testament. Simply said.. God has mellowed some and matured some since the Old Testament.

I try to read what Jesus taught...not the stuff from an angry, intolerant God of the Old testament, nor the tripe that Paul spread. Personally, I worry a bit if Paul's intentions were on the up and up...but that is whole different can of worms to be opened up on some other day.

One thing bothers me.

The Bible was written by people to whom God spoke, right?

Doesn't George W Bush say that God tells him what to do?

If we disbelieve the latter, why should we believe the former?

If we believe the former, then why should we not believe the latter?

Just a thought.