Sex: Inherently Sinful or Supreme Agapic Expressio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Flod and Bod, in a battle for souls.
Bod said to Flod, "I shall pirp these flo's."
Flod said in reply, "You'll get floderated,"
"Oh, and by the way, I've never basterflated."
Bod was a fliinner, through and through.
Fl ...[text shortened]... ob, and I've heard said
She once gave Bod some boly good bead.

To bin, or no bin: this is my question!
Is it a noble task to suffer the time and effort
To bring to this great forum a voice of reason,
To dodge the insults and slander of outrageous comments,
To oppose with arguments rife with a sea of knowledge and fact?
Indeed, in taking to arms and fighting the against
The Right -- oh so wrong -- and proffering Truth in the face of lies,
I deny myself the chance to sleep, and perchance to dream
Of better times, when intolerance was a word of the past,
Where the motivation of every God-fearing man and woman
Is but to share a bit of one's bounty, to give where need demands.
It should give one pause that, while those who claim to embrace life,
Ignore the pleas and cries of the poor, the hungry.
Indeed, the insolence of knowing one's salvation-status
Leads to the oppression of those simply seeking the way;
It leads to pride and spurning of one's duty as a loving Creation
In the Image of the Almighty.
And, while people go hungry, go thirsty, and go cold,
The Right can do nothing but worry the sheathing
Of other peoples' bare bodkins, for fear that they might,
In grunting and sweating in the heat of loving passion,
Block the seed of unwanted children from coming into being.
Or, in the dread of eternal damnation, they bear ill to those who
Choose a life of monogamous devotion
But fly from the True Church which they know to bring Life Eternal.
Thus their conscience makes a hell on earth for us all,
Their hubris imposes upon us an iron rule of morality
And a warped sense of Justice.
And, without even a glimmer of thought, and in the absence
Of commentary of pith and substance,
They turn to that which they deem Scripture,
Out of context, and, riddled with self-righteous arrogance and bigotry,
Force the political currents their way,
All the while ignoring those very basic and essential commands
To love Thy neighbor as God loves them: unconditionally.
And, in the absence of action, they fight hard against
The so-called 'Culture of Death,' and bat not an eye to those
Dying around them.
The unremembered dying! No hymn nor Psalm remembers them,
But God does, and will remit upon those hypocrite Pharisees
Unrelenting Justice, for their sins will be remembered.

Originally posted by Una

Where did Jesus say that?

Try to keep up. I wasn't talking about Jesus, I was talking about Darfius' God. You know, the God that said all that stuff in Leviticus. That God is a punk bitch, and I hope I never have to spend any time in his rapacious presence.

What mere mortal man says matters not, what does God say?

What Darfius' God says is as immaterial to me as what Charles Manson says. I give their words equivalent moral weight.

Just because you do not take sinfulness seriously does not mean God doesn't. The fact is He sent His Son because He was serious about sin. What have you done in regard to "moral wrongness"?

Sure, I know that Darfius' God takes sinfulness seriously. So what? I take 'binfulness' seriously. What I do in regard to "moral wrongness" is try to live a live that is morally good, and have chosen a career where I can teach ethical theory to others. What have you done, other than parrot Darfius' God's words on an internet forum?

You may declare what ever you wish but I ask, what authority do you do so? Jesus came and was proven by the signs and wonders by His Father.

I do so by the authority I possess as bbarr. You may reject that authority, just as I reject the authority of Darfius' maniacal God. You see no reason to give my declarations any credence, and I see no reason to give the declarations of Darfius' God any credence.

Since you take no account of God and His authority, then why would "moral rightness" be a concern. After all, violations of moral code of mankind you only suffer the retribution of men. Any good lawyer can invalidate a wrong to society.

Moral rightness and wrongness is a concern to me because I value acting rightly, and living a worthwhile and flourishing life, and helping others to live such lives. I have integrated moral rightness, and no longer need the threat of punishment (by either Darfius' God or mankind) in order to want to act rightly. You and Darfius need the threat of punishment because you are like children who are just learning what is right and wrong. Spare the rod, spoil the child, after all. But once the child learns, then there is no need for the rod.

Perhaps if you would read scripture, then you would be able to present your view points about them in a more intelligent manner. I would never offer view points about something I had not read.


I did not say I had not read scripture, nor that I do not now read scripture. I said I do not read scripture in the forums. You should read more closely, before offering your opinions on my posts.

Originally posted by Nemesio
To bin, or no bin: this is my question!
Is it a noble task to suffer the time and effort
To bring to this great forum a voice of reason,
To dodge the insults and slander of outrageous comments,
To oppose with arguments rife with a sea of knowledge and fact?
Indeed, in taking to arms and fighting the against
The Right -- oh so wrong -- and proffering Tr ...[text shortened]... remit upon those hypocrite Pharisees
Unrelenting Justice, for their sins will be remembered.

Nemesio: "Indeed, in taking to arms and fighting the against
The Right -- "

Thanks for acknowledging my claim that these silly ridiculous discussions are a political fight, disguised as a "spiritual" one.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Thanks for acknowledging my claim that these silly ridiculous discussions are a political fight, disguised as a "spiritual" one.

Did you compare my 'poem' to 'To be or not to be,' Ivanhoe?

Did you notice a bit of cribbing I did?

In any event, I would maintain the opposite, that the Right
wants to make thinly-veiled spiritual arguements into political
ones. Confer, for example, at the organizations supporting
the re-intubation of Terri Shiavo; one notices an overwhelming
number of specifically religious Right institutions. Do you
think this is a coincidence?

Or perhaps a conspiracy?!

😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Did you compare my 'poem' to 'To be or not to be,' Ivanhoe?

Did you notice a bit of cribbing I did?

In any event, I would maintain the opposite, that the Right
wants to make thinly-veiled spiritual arguements into political
ones ...[text shortened]... y?!

😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲

Nemesio

Worn out tactics to conceal what you are actually doing.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Sex: Inherently Sinful or Supreme Agapic Expressio

Great if you can get it.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Worn out tactics to conceal what you are actually doing.

I maintain that you yourself are doing this very thing.

What an impassé!

Nemesio

Bump for Darfius.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]I oppose contraception in a marriage between two, heterosexual, have-had-no-sex-before-marriage, monogomous partners.

Could you elaborate on this? Couldn't contraception be part of God's
plan? The use of contraception (be it medical or physical) only
prevents conception during usage. Most people use contraception
until they reach a time in their lives when they can bring up children
most successfully. They would still be fulfilling God's command to
'Be fruitful and multiply.'

Outside of that, I am first and foremost for abstinence, but when animal lust rears its ugly head, contraception is endorsed by me.

Although I am not in favor of the way in which you articulate this
part of your stance, I am in favor of its general principles.

I am not an expert on this. I just know that all sex [b]outside of marriage is sin.[/b]

It is a critical point, don't you think, about whether or not non-vaginal
sex is permissible according to 'Christian' moral values? I mean, the
overwhelming majority of people engage in the acts, including
Christians.

It seems clear to me that Paul is giving advice to avoid lust...Paul did not use words such as 'better' to imply that total celibacy was more holy than sex within marriage. He said celibacy was 'good'. Which of course it is, until marriage.

Consider 1 Cor 7:5-6 -- 'Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by
mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to
one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of
self-control. This I say by way of concession, however, not as a
command..

Seems pretty clear that marriage is a 'concession' not a 'command.'

Continuing: 1 Cor 7:8-9 -- Now to the unmarried and to widows I say:
it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but
if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to
marry than to be on fire.

Again, this clearly states that, in the absence of 'self-control' (which is
obviously a good thing), one should marry. However, virginity is
clearly the preferable state.

Lastly:

1 Cor 7:32-34a, 35 -- I should like you to be free of anxieties. An
unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may
please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the
world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided....I am telling
you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but
for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without
distraction.

Again, St Paul clearly is pointing to virginity as a higher state, a state
wherein one can more clearly focus on the Lord, whereas marriage is
the result of a 'lack of self-control,' a compromise or 'concession.'

Could you comment, please?

And, lastly, how do you find the scenario wherein a married couple chooses
to avoid conjugal relations, but uses the sperm withdrawl and insertion
in order to fulfill God's command? Would this not be the best of both
worlds, both remaining chaste and multiplying?

Nemesio[/b]

Originally posted by Nemesio
I maintain that you yourself are doing this very thing.

What an impassé!

Nemesio

Don't you feel like joining the discussion about the parable of the "Pharisee and the Publican" ?