God and Mary the mother of Jesus

[Palerider]

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

I agree that good ole Joe exaggerates the position of the Christian worldview. As you can see above though, there are passages (plenty in my view) that are far from ringing endorsements. I imagine Paul wouldn't call sex "dirty" but perhaps "unsavory" or even, as you mentioned, "degrading".

It is interesting (to me anyways) that you can have two individuals claiming worship of the same god and one will swear off sex entirely while the other will acquire dozens and dozens of wives.

But the scriptures are nothing if not a little contradictory. So I issue a challenge in return: Where in the Christian worldview is the Joy of sex extolled? Not the obligation or responsibility but the joy? I can think of a couple scriptures that in a pinch could be forced to fit but I'm wondering if there are some better references?

Sorry but if there are so many passages expressing how dirty sex is to Christians and this from Paul is the best you can do, I'd hate to read the rest....

Besides, it's quite obvious that Paul is speaking about unsanctioned relations here when the entire context is considered. Of course he's going to admonish against sex outside of marriage.

The scriptures may appear contradictory to the unstudied but they also warn the reader that there will be shallow people who will attempt to twist them for their own purposes.

As Peter says regarding Paul's writings:

"(Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
2 Peter 3:16

I'll be happy to show the support for my position you have requested when the original question I had for JS is answered.

[wtfluff]

I'll be happy to show the support for my position you have requested when the original question I had for JS is answered.

You're expecting someone who created an account as a joke to take you seriously?

[LaMachina]

The scriptures may appear contradictory to the unstudied but they also warn the reader that there will be shallow people who will attempt to twist them for their own purposes.

As Peter says regarding Paul's writings:

"(Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
2 Peter 3:16

Ugh...consider me one of the unstudied, shallow, ignorant & unstable then, I guess. Way to avoid any discussion and dismiss an opposing viewpoint.

Besides, it's quite obvious that Paul is speaking about unsanctioned relations here when the entire context is considered. Of course he's going to admonish against sex outside of marriage.

But be careful you don't distort the scripture to your own destruction either. Later in the exact same chapter Paul continues:

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is...
An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

Clearly this is a man simply arguing against "unsanctioned relations" and not advocating that lifelong celibacy is the best of all options.
Anyone who wishes to be devoted to the Lord should take a good long look at these verses as thousands of unstudied, shallow & ignorant nuns and priests have over the millennia.

[Palerider]

I'll be happy to show the support for my position you have requested when the original question I had for JS is answered.

You're expecting someone who created an account as a joke to take you seriously?

The account may have been created as a joke but it's obvious that the response was reflective of the poster's true feelings. If they want to retract or redefine the statement as "sarcasm" or a send up or whatever then fine, I'll be happy to accept that.

[wtfluff]

I'll be happy to show the support for my position you have requested when the original question I had for JS is answered.

You're expecting someone who created an account as a joke to take you seriously?

The account may have been created as a joke but it's obvious that the response was reflective of the poster's true feelings. If they want to retract or redefine the statement as "sarcasm" or a send up or whatever then fine, I'll be happy to accept that.

Just curious Pale: If you took a random poll on the street, what do you think the majority of the public would say the "Christian World" thinks about sex? (BTW: I'm not asking you what you think "scripture" says about sex.)

[Palerider]

You're expecting someone who created an account as a joke to take you seriously?

The account may have been created as a joke but it's obvious that the response was reflective of the poster's true feelings. If they want to retract or redefine the statement as "sarcasm" or a send up or whatever then fine, I'll be happy to accept that.

Just curious Pale: If you took a random poll on the street, what do you think the majority of the public would say the "Christian World" thinks about sex? (BTW: I'm not asking you what you think "scripture" says about sex.)

Just remember there would be a number of Christians in that poll and it would be representative of their feelings as well. All in all I think you would have a pretty mixed bag of responses, depending on the generation of the individual being asked. Here's a link to such a poll where you can answer your own question.

One thing I would note is that no study group seems to be asking if the individual being questioned thinks that Christians believe that sex is something "dirty". I think most researchers would see that term as a something highly charged and prejudicial. Probably not what a researcher is looking for in a valid study.

https://www.barna.com/research/what-ame ... about-sex/

[Palerider]

The scriptures may appear contradictory to the unstudied but they also warn the reader that there will be shallow people who will attempt to twist them for their own purposes.

As Peter says regarding Paul's writings:

"(Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
2 Peter 3:16

Ugh...consider me one of the unstudied, shallow, ignorant & unstable then, I guess. Way to avoid any discussion and dismiss an opposing viewpoint.

Besides, it's quite obvious that Paul is speaking about unsanctioned relations here when the entire context is considered. Of course he's going to admonish against sex outside of marriage.

But be careful you don't distort the scripture to your own destruction either. Later in the exact same chapter Paul continues:

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is...
An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

Clearly this is a man simply arguing against "unsanctioned relations" and not advocating that lifelong celibacy is the best of all options.
Anyone who wishes to be devoted to the Lord should take a good long look at these verses as thousands of unstudied, shallow & ignorant nuns and priests have over the millennia.

I actually began writing up an informative and interesting exegetic on the scriptures you have quoted but then thought, "Why should I do all of this work for someone who doesn't care enough about the truth to do it themselves?" There's no way you could have done any real research on this and then come back with your insightful "Ugh". I thought maybe I was reading a James Fenimore Cooper novel for a moment.

You see, a shallow, superficial dust-off of the scripture allows one to maintain their prejudicial territory that they have staked out rather than say to themselves, "I wonder what Paul is really trying to say here and why? Does he really mean what it appears to be saying at a glance or is there something I might be missing?"

That's the type of question a valid truth seeker asks themselves.

But if I do the work for you it means you have made no effort to be thorough and open minded. It also means that you could with a thoughtless gesture "turn and rend" as you seem want to do. So do you want to be a truth seeker or do you, as you stated so succinctly, "consider (yourself) one of the unstudied, shallow, ignorant & unstable then..." ???

[wtfluff]

Just curious Pale: If you took a random poll on the street, what do you think the majority of the public would say the "Christian World" thinks about sex? (BTW: I'm not asking you what you think "scripture" says about sex.)

Just remember there would be a number of Christians in that poll and it would be representative of their feelings as well. All in all I think you would have a pretty mixed bag of responses, depending on the generation of the individual being asked. Here's a link to such a poll where you can answer your own question.

One thing I would note is that no study group seems to be asking if the individual being questioned thinks that Christians believe that sex is something "dirty". I think most researchers would see that term as a something highly charged and prejudicial. Probably not what a researcher is looking for in a valid study.

https://www.barna.com/research/what-ame ... about-sex/

Nope, not even close to the actual question that I asked.

But then again, your interpretation of that poll and all scripture is the only interpretation that is correct, right?

I can see that there won't be any rational answers here; But then again we're talking about religion and scripture, so rationality doesn't matter.

Time to ignore this thread.

[LaMachina]

The "Ugh" is a response to the condescension which appears to be doubled down on, so...double Ugh?

Despite our occasional interactions on this form we don't know each other at all so the presumption that I, or others who've come to certain conclusions you don't subcribe to, are unstudied, shallow and lazy perusers of scripture comes off as a tad obnoxious. I don't believe I've made the same assumptions towards you but I'm certainly not above being obnoxious myself so perhaps I've come across that way.

But yeah, despite my open-mindedness, my "superficial" reading of Paul has framed him as a zealot, a homophobe, a woman hater and a bit of a prude. And I'm pretty far from advocating for freelove and orgies.

However, if you don't wish to disabuse me of my position that's fine. Perhaps you have more in common with the Q15 than you would wish. I may just join you wtfluff.

[Palerider]

Just curious Pale: If you took a random poll on the street, what do you think the majority of the public would say the "Christian World" thinks about sex? (BTW: I'm not asking you what you think "scripture" says about sex.)

Just remember there would be a number of Christians in that poll and it would be representative of their feelings as well. All in all I think you would have a pretty mixed bag of responses, depending on the generation of the individual being asked. Here's a link to such a poll where you can answer your own question.

One thing I would note is that no study group seems to be asking if the individual being questioned thinks that Christians believe that sex is something "dirty". I think most researchers would see that term as a something highly charged and prejudicial. Probably not what a researcher is looking for in a valid study.

https://www.barna.com/research/what-ame ... about-sex/

Nope, not even close to the actual question that I asked.

But then again, your interpretation of that poll and all scripture is the only interpretation that is correct, right?

I can see that there won't be any rational answers here; But then again we're talking about religion and scripture, so rationality doesn't matter.

Time to ignore this thread.

Especially now...

[Geocacher]

Very few people understand about the veil, that separates our physical realm, from the other realms, including the spirit realm. Much healing, and other stuff can happen unseen, since we only see in the physical realm. The bit about Jesus being born of Mary, I believe the DNA for that was conceived in heaven, and it just came to be, in Mary's womb. There was no sex, in the physical sense, much was done, beyond the veil, as it is with healings, that are done from beyond the veil. I don't like to talk, about these things being in the physical sense of sex. God having sex > NOPE.

Even our own DNA was known in heaven, before our birth, and so we knew of our trials in life. God can generate life, without a heavenly mother, is my belief. Time does not exist in the heaven realm, like it does in this physical realm, so much can happen, in the blink of a physical eye, in heaven. Like right after the Great Flood, life had regenerated, almost instantly, from beyond the veil.

[Palerider]

The "Ugh" is a response to the condescension which appears to be doubled down on, so...double Ugh?

Despite our occasional interactions on this form we don't know each other at all so the presumption that I, or others who've come to certain conclusions you don't subcribe to, are unstudied, shallow and lazy perusers of scripture comes off as a tad obnoxious. I don't believe I've made the same assumptions towards you but I'm certainly not above being obnoxious myself so perhaps I've come across that way.

But yeah, despite my open-mindedness, my "superficial" reading of Paul has framed him as a zealot, a homophobe, a woman hater and a bit of a prude. And I'm pretty far from advocating for freelove and orgies.

However, if you don't wish to disabuse me of my position that's fine. Perhaps you have more in common with the Q15 than you would wish. I may just join you wtfluff.

Ahh... Thank you for answering the question I had concerning how much of a truth seeker you are and your own open-mindedness. And the ad hominem attacks re: the Q15 only underscore the conclusion.

I'm pretty disappointed.

Corrected for spelling.

[Hagoth]

Let's not overlook the obvious...


p.s. sorry about the nekkid shoulders. I hope I don't end up in a 12-step program for this.

[LaMachina]

I'm pretty disappointed.

The feeling is mutual. Although no winky face for me as I'm genuinely disappointed if not terribly surprised.

[Reuben]

Let's not overlook the obvious...


p.s. sorry about the nekkid shoulders. I hope I don't end up in a 12-step program for this.

Also, dude... that's an entire porn back. It's flippin' full dorsal nudity. You'll send the rest of us to 12-step programs with that, and yourself to a 13-step program. You are insane, sir!

[Palerider]

I'm pretty disappointed.

The feeling is mutual. Although no winky face for me as I'm genuinely disappointed if not terribly surprised.

Don't worry, it will pass and eventually you'll come to grips with what you have encountered in your journey of self discovery and it will make you a better person no doubt.