New Pope

[iago]

Perhaps he made sex so enjoyable to offer you the freedom of choice. God's greatest gift is the freedom to choose between good and evil. Maybe he made it so enticing to seperate the righteous from the wicked.

Perhaps God actually had the bible written as a trick to see how many people would be fooled into not enjoying? A way of separating the lap dogs from the clever?

Perhaps Life itself is a great deception.  You're in a testtube somewhere, and your senses are being artificially stimulated by The Great Deceiver.  Your entire life is fake.  The only thing that really exists is you, which you can be sure about because you think.  The ability to think proves your own existance because if you weren't there, you wouldn't be able to think.

And no, that's not from The Matrix (originally) -- it's from Descartes.  "Cognito Ergo Sum" -> "I think equals I exist"

[nslay]

Why would God make sex fun if it shouldn't be?  Did he just fuck it up?

No one said it shouldn't be

Let me restate it: if it shouldn't be done for fun, why would He have made it fun?

But Hazard already gave me a satisfactory answer to that.

Again, no one said it shouldn't be fun.
It shouldn't be done solely because its fun since that would be objectifying your partner.  Obviously married couples do it for intimate reasons.  I still have no answer independent of the church as to why premarital sex is wrong...that I am still pondering.
Read one of my previous posts...I debunked my own argument of sex for procreation only...it was a terrible mistake, however, its not easy defending what you believe rationally.

[iago]

Why would God make sex fun if it shouldn't be?  Did he just fuck it up?

No one said it shouldn't be

Let me restate it: if it shouldn't be done for fun, why would He have made it fun?

But Hazard already gave me a satisfactory answer to that.

Again, no one said it shouldn't be fun.
It shouldn't be done solely because its fun since that would be objectifying your partner.  Obviously married couples do it for intimate reasons.  I still have no answer independent of the church as to why premarital sex is wrong...that I am still pondering.
Read one of my previous posts...I debunked my own argument of sex for procreation only...it was a terrible mistake, however, its not easy defending what you believe rationally.

It should be easy if your beliefs are actually rational and not dogma.

And of course it's not done solely for fun, it's also done for procreation.  It's not like using a condom stops you from procreating forever.  And usually, the things that do occur AFTER procreating.  But why can't people have the choice?

[Akamas]

[nslay]

Why would God make sex fun if it shouldn't be?  Did he just fuck it up?

No one said it shouldn't be

Let me restate it: if it shouldn't be done for fun, why would He have made it fun?

But Hazard already gave me a satisfactory answer to that.

Again, no one said it shouldn't be fun.
It shouldn't be done solely because its fun since that would be objectifying your partner.  Obviously married couples do it for intimate reasons.  I still have no answer independent of the church as to why premarital sex is wrong...that I am still pondering.
Read one of my previous posts...I debunked my own argument of sex for procreation only...it was a terrible mistake, however, its not easy defending what you believe rationally.

It should be easy if your beliefs are actually rational and not dogma.

And of course it's not done solely for fun, it's also done for procreation.  It's not like using a condom stops you from procreating forever.  And usually, the things that do occur AFTER procreating.  But why can't people have the choice?

You misunderstood my response.
When I say it shouldn't be done soley for fun, I mean that your intentions to have sex shouldn't be because of the fact that it is fun alone.  You should have other reasons... If your intentions are only because its fun, then you'd be using your partner.  Besides, it seems people usually only have sex because they have very intimate relations.
And I beg to differ, beliefs should be self-explanatory to you.  You know, there are some things you can't prove, an example independent of the church are the axioms of mathematics.  Beliefs are difficult to argue rationally since they are...beliefs!  Argue whether or whether not there is a cardinal number between aleph0 and c and you'll see that at that point it boils down to what you believe (this problem has been proven to be undecided, it requires another axiom).  Argue whether or whether not that infinite sets exist without using the axioms even.
Furthermore, I'm having to argue what the church believes is true in the domain of the world, so while it might be consistent with the church's doctrine, it doesn't seem to fit very well with the world.
On another note, in mathematics, if you accept that the axioms are consistent, you can think all of them are false and still be a successful mathematician...you  might think all your work is completely wrong, but because you believe the axioms are consistent (Godel said that axioms can't be proven consistent, you can show another set of axioms is consistent using your axioms though...ie. ZF => ZFC ), then you believe that there is no contradiction to any proofs whether you believe they are true or false.  Just a neat little fact

[Adron]

When I say it shouldn't be done soley for fun, I mean that your intentions to have sex shouldn't be because of the fact that it is fun alone.  You should have other reasons... If your intentions are only because its fun, then you'd be using your partner.

You're clearly thinking about this, and making points. That makes for productive discussions, so I'll jump in.

If your intention is to have sex because it's fun for yourself, and you force your partner into doing this, against his/her will, then yes, you'd be using your partner, and that is bad. I don't think that's the situation though.

What if you want to have sex because you want to give joy to your partner, and in the process getting joy yourself as well? Isn't that a very generous and admirable thing to do?

[Arta]

And what if your partner only wants fun, as well? How can you be using someone if their motivation is the same as yours? Why would you be using them, and not the other way round? Perhaps they'd be using each other. I think that's ok, because it's mutual.

[CrAz3D]

Dolphins have sex for pleasure & they aren't married!

[iago]

Dolphins have sex for pleasure & they aren't married!

Dolphins are sinners and will go to Hell.

[Hazard]

Dolphins have sex for pleasure & they aren't married!

Dolphins are sinners and will go to Hell.

Dolphins lack the mindset to differentiate right from wrong.

[iago]

Here's some Bible references I found (Thanks to Penn & Teller: Bullshit, on Showtime):

Exodus 35:2 says "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."

I suppose this means I should die because I work on Monday's newspaper all day long on Sunday. I would really like to see this rule enforced, in fact. With the hypocrisy that Catholicism has created, I'm sure they'd create some rule trumping Exodus 35:2 as soon as they realized they couldn't receive medical attention or police assistance on Sundays. What sweet irony it would be to see a church burning down on a Sunday - if only the firefighters would be working on the Sabbath instead of fearing death, it might be saved.

1 Corinthians 11:14 says "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."

I'm pretty sure this is the most hypocritical rule in history. Jesus had long hair.

1 Samuel 17:50 and 17:51 contradict each other. In verse 50, it says David killed Goliath without a sword; in the very next verse it says he killed him with the Philistine's sword.

1 Samuel 17:50 says "So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him." Verse 51 says "David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword."

Before you try to refute this, ask yourself if my inevitable response of "so he killed him twice?" will really be answered.

Leviticus 15:19 says "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening."

As Penn & Teller put it, try asking the female traffic court judge if she's on her period before approaching the bench. See how far that gets you.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 says "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." Roughly translated, that means homeless people should die. God must be a Republican.

1 Timothy 3:11 says "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission."

It should be noted that 1 Timothy was written by the apostle Paul. I've seen a flood of letters to the editor come in after some of the things Andrew Sickinger has written in the past year, and some of them have been backed by the Bible. If Paul were to write "a woman should learn in quietness and full submission" in the Western Courier, the letters would come flying in - but this was printed in the Bible, the "word of God."

1 Timothy, chapter 3 goes on to say that women should not be allowed to teach. In that case, my mom would not have a job, therefore she would not be allowed to EAT, therefore she would have died and I wouldn't be here.

Yeah. Homosexuality is a sin and all gays are going to Hell. It's right there in the Bible, next to all the above completely sane, un-hateful things.

If he's your God and you take the Bible literally, you have to abide by all his rules - ALL of them. You can't pick and choose. If you don't have a job and you are not tolerant of homosexuality, I hope to God you starve.

So if any Catholics are working on Sundays or giving money to homeless people, then they are following parts of the bible.  The parts, as it turns out, that suits them.  Is that really a religion? Picking and choosing what to follow? I don't think so.

[nslay]

Here's some Bible references I found (Thanks to Penn & Teller: Bullshit, on Showtime):

Exodus 35:2 says "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."

I suppose this means I should die because I work on Monday's newspaper all day long on Sunday. I would really like to see this rule enforced, in fact. With the hypocrisy that Catholicism has created, I'm sure they'd create some rule trumping Exodus 35:2 as soon as they realized they couldn't receive medical attention or police assistance on Sundays. What sweet irony it would be to see a church burning down on a Sunday - if only the firefighters would be working on the Sabbath instead of fearing death, it might be saved.

1 Corinthians 11:14 says "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."

I'm pretty sure this is the most hypocritical rule in history. Jesus had long hair.

1 Samuel 17:50 and 17:51 contradict each other. In verse 50, it says David killed Goliath without a sword; in the very next verse it says he killed him with the Philistine's sword.

1 Samuel 17:50 says "So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him." Verse 51 says "David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword."

Before you try to refute this, ask yourself if my inevitable response of "so he killed him twice?" will really be answered.

Leviticus 15:19 says "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening."

As Penn & Teller put it, try asking the female traffic court judge if she's on her period before approaching the bench. See how far that gets you.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 says "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." Roughly translated, that means homeless people should die. God must be a Republican.

1 Timothy 3:11 says "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission."

It should be noted that 1 Timothy was written by the apostle Paul. I've seen a flood of letters to the editor come in after some of the things Andrew Sickinger has written in the past year, and some of them have been backed by the Bible. If Paul were to write "a woman should learn in quietness and full submission" in the Western Courier, the letters would come flying in - but this was printed in the Bible, the "word of God."

1 Timothy, chapter 3 goes on to say that women should not be allowed to teach. In that case, my mom would not have a job, therefore she would not be allowed to EAT, therefore she would have died and I wouldn't be here.

Yeah. Homosexuality is a sin and all gays are going to Hell. It's right there in the Bible, next to all the above completely sane, un-hateful things.

If he's your God and you take the Bible literally, you have to abide by all his rules - ALL of them. You can't pick and choose. If you don't have a job and you are not tolerant of homosexuality, I hope to God you starve.

So if any Catholics are working on Sundays or giving money to homeless people, then they are following parts of the bible.  The parts, as it turns out, that suits them.  Is that really a religion? Picking and choosing what to follow? I don't think so.

regarding: 1 Corinthians 11-14
The bible isn't infallible.  Oh, go and read in one of Paul's letters about women and hair coverings.  In fact, read all of Paul's letters, you'll find some things are inconsistent with much of his writings.  Marcion, a gnostic who formed the very first canon even concluded that Timothy and Titus weren't written by Paul.  It even doesn't sound like Paul in English.  Remember, scribes copied and recopied these writings.

1 Samuel 17-50
This is normal throughout the old testament.  Go read Genesis, God made the world "twice".

Leviticus 15:19
The old testament laws are pretty much excused because Jesus was not only the last sacrifice but in many places he even said things contra to the old testament laws (he told us we could eat pig for example).  As christians, we don't need to follow the 600 or so laws mentioned in Leviticus (Paul even says this).  Remember, that was the old covenant.  When God abandoned Judah and it was destroyed, that was the mark of the end of the old covenant.

2 Thessalonians 3-10
That doesn't mean they should die and how do you know they don't work?  I've taken some homeless out to eat at Subway and in conversations with them, they tell me they work down the street at some labor company that coordinates and provides hard labor to other companies.

1 Timothy 3:11
Go read Romans chapter 16 (sorry originally had 18)
Paul's theological model puts man and woman at even length.  Timothy and Titus put women below men.  Again, scholars believe Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul for good reason.

[Hazard]

iago, its so easy to sit there and pick out contradictions in Christian living, but the message is still the same. You can nit pick and find ironies all you want, but its totally irrellevant.

[iago]

iago, its so easy to sit there and pick out contradictions in Christian living, but the message is still the same. You can nit pick and find ironies all you want, but its totally irrellevant.

It's irrelevant that they follow some parts of the Bible (that are convenient) but not others?

All right, though.  I can't argue against anybody who's going to take that stand.  How could I? 

"Prove that fornication is bad" -- The bible says so, so it must be true; it's the word of God.. 

"Prove that you should be killed for working on Sunday" -- The bible says it, but we don't believe THAT part. 

"Prove that people who don't work should die" -- The bible says it, but again, THAT part doesn't matter.  It doesn't suit our beliefs, so we ignore it.

I don't really see any way to argue against blind faith in the Church.

[iago]

Incidentally, I should say, my point here isn't that the Church is bad or that Religion is wrong.  My point, as I said like 10 pages ago, is that the Church should change to suit the customs of the day.  I won't go on with that argument here -- look back to the first couple pages.