What if you never find that person, what would you reserve anything for?IRONCHEF wrote:
Oh no, I don't think my love for her was diminished at all because of what I/we did before being married. If it would be different, we'd never know! lolsergeriver wrote:
Anyway, my point is, you admitted you did it before you were married, then your love for your wife would be different if you'd have waited?
Also, to clarify, I was saying that if you can bring your virtue to the alter of marriage and offer that gift, it's not a measure of love necessarily. It would be a measure of devotion and committment. It's not like you know who you're going to marry as you reserve your virtue. You're just reserving it because one day, you'd like to offer ALL of you to your spouse. Sure would have been nice. I admire those with that dedication and self mastery.
Poll
Would you consider/have engaged in premarital sex?
| Yes, already been there and done that. | 66% | 66% - 209 | ||||
| Yes, I will if I get the chance to/grow up. | 18% | 18% - 59 | ||||
| Undecided, need to learn more. | 5% | 5% - 17 | ||||
| Definitely not, it's wrong. | 9% | 9% - 29 | ||||
| Total: 314 | ||||||
hehe, so many questions. one minute i'm being ridiculed for my religious beliefs, the next i'm being quizzed about them.sergeriver wrote:
What if you never find that person, what would you reserve anything for?
no, i know you're not investigating me or my beliefs or anything. and i dig this opportunity to be able to share things in an environment like this where it's uncommon.
What would you reserve anything for if you end up not finding your mate? Well, if you've come to the understanding that you should refrain from premarital sex, you'd probably be accompanying that belief with other religious principles like being chaste (refraining from the thoughts and actions of immodesty, fornication, etc) and you should hopefully be satisified that you were obedient to such a princple. In other words, if you're doing it for the right reasons, you won't be dissatisfied with your sacrifice. You'll also not get STDs, Aids, fatherless children running around, and other such consequences.
No, just child molesting priests, and guys with lots of blisters on their hands...but then again, masturbation is against the rules too.IRONCHEF wrote:
hehe, so many questions. one minute i'm being ridiculed for my religious beliefs, the next i'm being quizzed about them.sergeriver wrote:
What if you never find that person, what would you reserve anything for?
no, i know you're not investigating me or my beliefs or anything. and i dig this opportunity to be able to share things in an environment like this where it's uncommon.
What would you reserve anything for if you end up not finding your mate? Well, if you've come to the understanding that you should refrain from premarital sex, you'd probably be accompanying that belief with other religious principles like being chaste (refraining from the thoughts and actions of immodesty, fornication, etc) and you should hopefully be satisified that you were obedient to such a princple. In other words, if you're doing it for the right reasons, you won't be dissatisfied with your sacrifice. You'll also not get STDs, Aids, fatherless children running around, and other such consequences.
Uh, masturbaters don't get blisters on their hands, they get furry palms. Geez mon, don't you know anything?
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-10 11:50:09)
I was told I would go blind.IRONCHEF wrote:
Uh, masturbaters don't get blisters on their hands, they get furry palms. Geez mon, don't you know anything?
Furry?
Mr Ironchef, what is the churches stance on self pleasurment?
Mr Ironchef, what is the churches stance on self pleasurment?
If I were an official representative of my church, I'd tell you. As a layman in my church, and former representative, I will simply submit my understanding. Masturbation = violation of the law of chastity; repent and move on.ghettoperson wrote:
Furry?
Mr Ironchef, what is the churches stance on self pleasurment?
Not sure about all churches. You'll have to ask them.
Sure, religions SAY they don't approve, but they've none done anything about it.
What would you like them to do? Issue chastity belts to everyone?jonsimon wrote:
Sure, religions SAY they don't approve, but they've none done anything about it.
No, I'm just saying religion doesn't do shit and pointing out that most christians are unchristian.ghettoperson wrote:
What would you like them to do? Issue chastity belts to everyone?jonsimon wrote:
Sure, religions SAY they don't approve, but they've none done anything about it.
Yep, it's not a religion's duty (a church leader's duty) to follow people around with a stick and woop on them every time they break the laws. Their job is to teach by word and example, and help adherents improve their lives. In the christianity I know, Jesus came to the sinners, not to the perfect, and he taught them and commanded them to be perfect. Knowing that perfection wasn't something attainable in this life, he prepared a way to overcome obstacles..it's called repentance, and it's result is forgiveness.jonsimon wrote:
Sure, religions SAY they don't approve, but they've none done anything about it.
Religion shmeligion.... a lot of priests like fucking little boys up the stinkhole. I wouldn't pay any heed to the pompous decrees of a particular church.
CameronPoe wrote:
Religion shmeligion.... a lot of priests like fucking little boys up the stinkhole. I wouldn't pay any heed to the pompous decrees of a particular church.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-10-10 12:17:45)
I'd just like to point out that premarital sex does not exist.. but premarital fucking does.
Do you immerse yourself in the goings on of christians? Do you take notes and make observations everytime you see a church member breaking rules and follow up with their church leader to see if there's enforcement?jonsimon wrote:
No, I'm just saying religion doesn't do shit and pointing out that most christians are unchristian.
or could this line of questioning stem from the popular topic in the news of priests abusing children and them still retaining their priesthood? because frankly, there's no way you could tell if a church is doing shit or not...even if they could. the church i go to has zero tolerance for it's leaders who violate laws.
...and kiss this topic goodbye. lol
but overall, not bad. 4 and a half good pages of debate/discussion before the flies started circling!
but overall, not bad. 4 and a half good pages of debate/discussion before the flies started circling!
Don't be silly. But in American society, pre-marital sex is hardly rare, and neither are christians. It is reasonable to loosely guess that most christians are unchristian. And most christianity has never enforced the majority of sexually oriented dogmas and rules. Take the Catholic church, Popes were the most promiscuous of men for hundreds of years. As for mainstream christianity in America today, most people seperate religion and their lives during their younger years.IRONCHEF wrote:
Do you immerse yourself in the goings on of christians? Do you take notes and make observations everytime you see a church member breaking rules and follow up with their church leader to see if there's enforcement?jonsimon wrote:
No, I'm just saying religion doesn't do shit and pointing out that most christians are unchristian.
or could this line of questioning stem from the popular topic in the news of priests abusing children and them still retaining their priesthood? because frankly, there's no way you could tell if a church is doing shit or not...even if they could. the church i go to has zero tolerance for it's leaders who violate laws.
I would ask you to define exactly what you mean by being truly "christian."
When I say that "most christians aren't christian" I am using a blanket statement that is inacurrate, but I'll use it in context to a topic like Jesus Camp. To elaborate, I would refine my blanket statement by saying that the so-called christians who send their children to jesus camp have no clue what christ taught, therefore negating the title they pervert of being a christian. LIkewise, I say such things about our president who panders to said christians while absolutely abandoning any semblance to christian laws..for example warfare. Proof of this is that abortion is still completely available..yet probably 99% of Bush's "christian" base voted for him because he promised them something would be done about it...and gay marriage, flag burning, and other bs he couldn't possibly change.
As for your comment of the rarity of abstinence and real christians, I agree. This is why I'm asking you to define what you consider being christian? Because if being perfect is how you define it, then there's no such thing as a christian, and you'd be wrong in your definition because being a christian doesn't mean you're perfect. TO the contrary, being christian means you know you're imperfect and you wish to improve your life by living the teachings of christ. In short Christian = practioner of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
When I say that "most christians aren't christian" I am using a blanket statement that is inacurrate, but I'll use it in context to a topic like Jesus Camp. To elaborate, I would refine my blanket statement by saying that the so-called christians who send their children to jesus camp have no clue what christ taught, therefore negating the title they pervert of being a christian. LIkewise, I say such things about our president who panders to said christians while absolutely abandoning any semblance to christian laws..for example warfare. Proof of this is that abortion is still completely available..yet probably 99% of Bush's "christian" base voted for him because he promised them something would be done about it...and gay marriage, flag burning, and other bs he couldn't possibly change.
As for your comment of the rarity of abstinence and real christians, I agree. This is why I'm asking you to define what you consider being christian? Because if being perfect is how you define it, then there's no such thing as a christian, and you'd be wrong in your definition because being a christian doesn't mean you're perfect. TO the contrary, being christian means you know you're imperfect and you wish to improve your life by living the teachings of christ. In short Christian = practioner of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I guess its know that Im a neo con type person but yes, I would and have done that. I mean hell, what teenage guy wouldnt?
Well, what I'm getting from you is:IRONCHEF wrote:
I would ask you to define exactly what you mean by being truly "christian."
When I say that "most christians aren't christian" I am using a blanket statement that is inacurrate, but I'll use it in context to a topic like Jesus Camp. To elaborate, I would refine my blanket statement by saying that the so-called christians who send their children to jesus camp have no clue what christ taught, therefore negating the title they pervert of being a christian. LIkewise, I say such things about our president who panders to said christians while absolutely abandoning any semblance to christian laws..for example warfare. Proof of this is that abortion is still completely available..yet probably 99% of Bush's "christian" base voted for him because he promised them something would be done about it...and gay marriage, flag burning, and other bs he couldn't possibly change.
As for your comment of the rarity of abstinence and real christians, I agree. This is why I'm asking you to define what you consider being christian? Because if being perfect is how you define it, then there's no such thing as a christian, and you'd be wrong in your definition because being a christian doesn't mean you're perfect. TO the contrary, being christian means you know you're imperfect and you wish to improve your life by living the teachings of christ. In short Christian = practioner of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
1) it is not possible to be in love if you aren't married
2) sex should not occur unless you are in love
I agree with #2 but not #1.
You led with "wasting your purity prior to marriage". Being married myself, I can't say that I can love my wife more. I would say its probably the same with you.
But I do not believe messing around before marriage has had any impact on our relationship. If it did, I would suspect our relationship would be based more on sex and not what it really is.
So I'm not quite understanding your "waste of purity" statement, since I cannot love my wife more...can you explain further?
what about people who have done it but regret it, and later married someone with whom they did not fornicate? (me)
What you're getting from me doesn't look like what I had intended to give to anyone in my 'opinion.' In my opinion, I said that "love" as "I" understand it is a gift from God given to two committed people. I didn't even say married, i said two committed people. I didn't even exclude homosexuals for that matter as that would be an inappropriate discussion for now.Pug wrote:
Well, what I'm getting from you is:
1) it is not possible to be in love if you aren't married
2) sex should not occur unless you are in love
I agree with #2 but not #1.
You led with "wasting your purity prior to marriage". Being married myself, I can't say that I can love my wife more. I would say its probably the same with you.
But I do not believe messing around before marriage has had any impact on our relationship. If it did, I would suspect our relationship would be based more on sex and not what it really is.
So I'm not quite understanding your "waste of purity" statement, since I cannot love my wife more...can you explain further?
I also didn't directly say you should only have sex if you're in love..you said that. I did say it should be reserved for marriage..and yes, you should be in love when married.
And the "wasting your purity prior to marriage" comment was not meant to impune love..it was meant as a measurement of a gift you can offer your spouse. I believe i cleared this up a few posts up.**post #101**
Hope that clears it up for you.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-10 13:53:37)
They get a special medal made of shiny shiny gold.G3|Genius wrote:
what about people who have done it but regret it, and later married someone with whom they did not fornicate? (me)
Thanks Chef.
I have like 10 years to practice this speech before giving it to my kids...
I have like 10 years to practice this speech before giving it to my kids...
Christian the noun is anyone who claims to be a practicioner, or practices a christian religion.IRONCHEF wrote:
I would ask you to define exactly what you mean by being truly "christian."
When I say that "most christians aren't christian" I am using a blanket statement that is inacurrate, but I'll use it in context to a topic like Jesus Camp. To elaborate, I would refine my blanket statement by saying that the so-called christians who send their children to jesus camp have no clue what christ taught, therefore negating the title they pervert of being a christian. LIkewise, I say such things about our president who panders to said christians while absolutely abandoning any semblance to christian laws..for example warfare. Proof of this is that abortion is still completely available..yet probably 99% of Bush's "christian" base voted for him because he promised them something would be done about it...and gay marriage, flag burning, and other bs he couldn't possibly change.
As for your comment of the rarity of abstinence and real christians, I agree. This is why I'm asking you to define what you consider being christian? Because if being perfect is how you define it, then there's no such thing as a christian, and you'd be wrong in your definition because being a christian doesn't mean you're perfect. TO the contrary, being christian means you know you're imperfect and you wish to improve your life by living the teachings of christ. In short Christian = practioner of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Christian the adjective as I used it refers to the state or quality of having abided by rules and restrictions defined by a christian religion.
It seems that most christian church-goers do not abide by the rules dictated by their religions.