Post: #76

The only people I know who read the Bible are absolute weirdos . I wouldn't take advice on your sex life from such a book

Post: #77

A quick note here, albeit at the risk of some dreadful thread necromancy, as it relates to Catholicism. It's more a helpful notes thing than a direct criticism as such.

I notice one of the arguments put here was in essence that an unmarried woman sleeping around was pretty much unknown around circa. 0 AD because the consequences were STDs, death of the child maybe, and social ostracism.

If the argument is that having premarital sex is therefore excused because it was exceedingly rare around at the time that the writers of the Bible were writing up what was a sin and what was not, Catholicism at least has something that cuts across that suggestion, which in essence is the same as the right to life.

In terms of Catholic Catechism, the Catholic Church (whether you're sede vacante/ Traditionalist Catholic like Aurelius Moner at ROK or a post-Vatican II Catholic) holds that since human life is sacred and a gift from God, any attempt at artificial birth control or abortion is therefore at least a venial sin if not a mortal one. Same goes for a vasectomy; same goes for condoms and the contraceptive Pill, and certainly RU-486 which the Church probably sees as a technical abortion rather than stopping conception.

Natural methods, like timing a woman's menstrual cycles (i.e. having sex with her during her period or other 'bare' times) are excused because a failure to conceive there is a failure due to natural causes rather than human intervention.

In that sense, while the issue of premarital sex might be an open one (and for what it's worth I find the discussion of translation errors absolutely fascinating), about the only form of premarital sex that's going to be up for consideration as possibly, maybe non-sinful around this question of what 'fornication' means is raw dogging a woman who isn't on the Pill.

All other forms the Catholic Church would deem sinful anyway, not because of the act of premarital sex itself, but because anything other than spinning the roulette wheel with your cock, amounts to a sin against life, specifically the sixth commandment, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' and the fifth: 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Catechism reference: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...s2c2a6.htm

On that subject, though, and it's perhaps pertinent on the issue, since we're dealing with the translation and interpretation of Biblical documents on the issue, how do you deal with Christ's own words:

"You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Is there a translation question here too? On the face of that translation - the one the Catechism uses - Christ doesn't distinguish between married women and single women, he just says a woman and then goes on to the statement that even his disciples found pretty harsh: if you even think about having sex with a woman you're committing adultery in your heart.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #78

I didn't come back to this thread at the time because I was invested in other things at the time, but a lot of the citations here are using old testament passages.

The old testament as it relates to the bible only tell a story of a prophecy that was foretold to the Jews of Israel. The advice, wisdom, and "laws" (especially the old testament) are relatively useless for a practicing Christian. They're only there to tell a story of why Jesus came. With the exception of the Psalms, you can really just read the new Testament and the Psalms to get a proper understanding of what Christianity is all about.

Scorpion's post on page 2 really sums up the argument succinctly.

(06-04-2015 05:44 PM)scorpion Wrote:  The Beast1 raises a good point: even if fornication is not explicitly a sin in the same manner that adultery or prostitution are, that doesn't imply that fornication should be endorsed or passed off as harmless. Sex is the ultimate indulgence of the flesh, and the Bible repeatedly warns of the dangers of indulging the flesh and how doing so corrupts the spirit, since the spirit and the flesh are opposed to each other (Gal. 5:17).

Paul also explicitly writes that just because a thing is lawful, doesn't mean that it is necessarily good for us to do:

1st Corinthians 6:12 (NASB) Wrote:All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

So I think the best that we can say is that even if fornication is not explicitly a sin, at the same time it is not something that should be indulged in with reckless abandon, and to the extent that it is done at all it should be as a temporary measure with an eye toward marriage. What should certainly be avoided is becoming a slave to the desire to fornicate, which is very easy to do given how powerful the sexual urge is and how quickly and easily it can overcome the flesh. So even if fornication is not a sin, men do well to keep their sexual desire in check as much as possible, since indulging the flesh always damages the spirit and pulls us farther away from God.

Being promiscuous definitely is far more damaging to women than it is to men. But after doing what I've done, we as men have a limit. I wrote about it here on the forum. For me, sex stopped being enjoyable. That was when I knew something was wrong. It will be different for most folks.

Post: #79

(02-03-2016 02:52 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  A quick note here, albeit at the risk of some dreadful thread necromancy, as it relates to Catholicism. It's more a helpful notes thing than a direct criticism as such.

I was going to necro this thread with some updates, don't worry about it. I have more relevant research to present, but first let me address some of your questions.

Quote:I notice one of the arguments put here was in essence that an unmarried woman sleeping around was pretty much unknown around circa. 0 AD because the consequences were STDs, death of the child maybe, and social ostracism.

It was extremely rare.

Quote:If the argument is that having premarital sex is therefore excused because it was exceedingly rare around at the time that the writers of the Bible were writing up what was a sin and what was not, Catholicism at least has something that cuts across that suggestion, which in essence is the same as the right to life.

It's not excused because of rarity, but it isn't something the writers of the Bible had to seriously consider.

Quote:In terms of Catholic Catechism, the Catholic Church (whether you're sede vacante/ Traditionalist Catholic like Aurelius Moner at ROK or a post-Vatican II Catholic) holds that since human life is sacred and a gift from God, any attempt at artificial birth control or abortion is therefore at least a venial sin if not a mortal one. Same goes for a vasectomy; same goes for condoms and the contraceptive Pill, and certainly RU-486 which the Church probably sees as a technical abortion rather than stopping conception.

I agree abortion is a sin, but regular birth control as a sin never made sense to me. If a child is never conceived, then how is the sacredness of human life being infringed upon?

Quote:Natural methods, like timing a woman's menstrual cycles (i.e. having sex with her during her period or other 'bare' times) are excused because a failure to conceive there is a failure due to natural causes rather than human intervention.

What about coitus-interruptus? Isn't that just as "natural"? They'll say you cannot control when a woman is ovulating, yet you can control when you have sex with a woman. So therefore control when to have sex with a woman is just as natural as controlling when you ejaculate inside of her.

But then we can say it is just as natural to control when and where birth control pills are taken, and it is just as natural to control when a condom is used.

No matter what, there is a large degree of human control involved. "Naturalness" has nothing to do with it.

Quote:In that sense, while the issue of premarital sex might be an open one (and for what it's worth I find the discussion of translation errors absolutely fascinating), about the only form of premarital sex that's going to be up for consideration as possibly, maybe non-sinful around this question of what 'fornication' means is raw dogging a woman who isn't on the Pill.

Bad conclusion based on bad premises.

Quote:All other forms the Catholic Church would deem sinful anyway, not because of the act of premarital sex itself, but because anything other than spinning the roulette wheel with your cock, amounts to a sin against life, specifically the sixth commandment, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' and the fifth: 'Thou shalt not kill'.

There is not adultery if the two involved are not married. And it's "Thou shall not murder," not "kill." Read the YLT translation. Murder is the sin, not killing. Murder means to kill someone who is innocent. It is not murder to kill the guilty.

Quote:On that subject, though, and it's perhaps pertinent on the issue, since we're dealing with the translation and interpretation of Biblical documents on the issue, how do you deal with Christ's own words:

"You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Because if you're a single man, and you're looking at a single girl, your lust is not adulterating anything since you're not married and neither is she.

HOWEVER, lusting after a married woman is a sin. And if you are a married man, you're only supposed to have eyes for your wife.

Quote:Is there a translation question here too? On the face of that translation - the one the Catechism uses - Christ doesn't distinguish between married women and single women, he just says a woman and then goes on to the statement that even his disciples found pretty harsh: if you even think about having sex with a woman you're committing adultery in your heart.

The term adultery implies marriage. Adulterate means to water down, and pollute. Read up on First Testament Law (which Christ came to uphold), and you'll see that for women outside of marriage who sleep around the punishment is for men to either marry that woman or for the man to pay a whole lotta shekels to the father. We know that if there is no marriage, there is nothing that has been adulterated, other than the woman's virginity, which was protected by these aforementioned Jewish customs.

Therefore, if you have sex with a single woman who isn't a virgin, what has been adulterated?

Post: #80

Beast:

Quote:The old testament as it relates to the bible only tell a story of a prophecy that was foretold to the Jews of Israel. The advice, wisdom, and "laws" (especially the old testament) are relatively useless for a practicing Christian. They're only there to tell a story of why Jesus came. With the exception of the Psalms, you can really just read the new Testament and the Psalms to get a proper understanding of what Christianity is all about.

This is false. Jesus explicitly states in the Sermon on the Mount that he came to uphold the old laws, not undo them.

Matthew 5:

17 `Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill;
18 for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.

The only real exception to this is the "Eye for an eye" commandment, which Jesus states he came to clarify. "My father desires mercy, not sacrifice." Jesus stated God wanted more mercy and specifically when people commit wrongs against yourself, he asks for the victim to be as patient as possible and merciful to their oppressor as possible. This obviously excludes crimes committed against your neighbor (whom you must defend as he were yourself), and this also means that if the victim chooses not to be merciful then the victim shall not be held to any wrongdoing.

Post: #81

Trying to claim pre-marital sex is not a sin because it isn't explicitly mentioned in the bible brings to mind Jesus' battles with those Pharisees who were very strict in following Judaic Law to the letter but ignored it's spirit. Consider Jesus on divorce (which was allowed under the Mosaic Law in Matthew:19:7-9:

7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?”

8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

9 I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

Or a few verses later on the matter of wealth.

20 The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect,* go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”


Jesus is very clear that it isn't enough merely to obey the dictates of the law. You need to conform yourself to the spirit of it, something which he acknowledges is always impossible for humans, who need to rely upon God's mercy to obtain salvation, but which we should strive for nonetheless.

There is a dramatic change of emphasis on how we are to view our relationship with God between the Old Testament and the New which is why it is always dangerous to parse the various laws set down in the former to figure out if this or that is permitted. Proverbs 9:10:

10 The beginning of wisdom is fear of the LORD, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

In the Old Testament rules are set down that people are expected to obey out of fear of divine retribution, but Jesus invites his disciples to go beyond mere obedience to the laws by choosing to willingly conform themselves to God's will out of love for him. Fear of God is just the jumping off point. The end of the journey is the love of God.

In any event the Bible does actually imply that pre-marital sex constitutes adultery. Tobit 6:18:

"As soon as the demon smells the odor, it will flee and never again show itself near her. Then when you are about to have intercourse with her, both of you must first get up to pray. Beg the Lord of heaven that mercy and protection be granted you. Do not be afraid, for she was set apart for you before the world existed. You will save her, and she will go with you. And I assume that you will have children by her, and they will be like brothers for you. So do not worry.”


The background to the story is that the girl Tobit is to marry has been betrothed on seven previous occasions but each of her husbands was killed by a demon on the wedding night before they could consumate the marriage. But Tobit, who is her rightful husband is given the tools to defeat the demon. The implication is clear: if you sleep with an unmarried woman, you are cheating on her future husband.

If you're a Christian then you should understand that God through the blood sacrifice of his son has redeemed our sins, thus ending the conflict between justice and mercy. You should partake of both by seeking absolution for your sins and resolving not to sin again. Of course you will sin again, if not in this matter, then another but by seeking God's forgiveness and mercy you will gradually come to sin less. Trying to weasel out of "sin" through a narrow interpretation of the bible misses the whole point by a country mile.

If you aren't a Christian, carry on as you were.

Post: #82

(02-03-2016 07:21 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Beast:

Quote:The old testament as it relates to the bible only tell a story of a prophecy that was foretold to the Jews of Israel. The advice, wisdom, and "laws" (especially the old testament) are relatively useless for a practicing Christian. They're only there to tell a story of why Jesus came. With the exception of the Psalms, you can really just read the new Testament and the Psalms to get a proper understanding of what Christianity is all about.

This is false. Jesus explicitly states in the Sermon on the Mount that he came to uphold the old laws, not undo them.

Matthew 5:

17 `Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill;
18 for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.

The only real exception to this is the "Eye for an eye" commandment, which Jesus states he came to clarify. "My father desires mercy, not sacrifice." Jesus stated God wanted more mercy and specifically when people commit wrongs against yourself, he asks for the victim to be as patient as possible and merciful to their oppressor as possible. This obviously excludes crimes committed against your neighbor (whom you must defend as he were yourself), and this also means that if the victim chooses not to be merciful then the victim shall not be held to any wrongdoing.

Exactly, as Jesus said:
Matthew 22:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’c 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’d 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

All of the 10 commandments are rooted in loving one another and loving God. The two that Jesus left us do not violate them.

Now when we get to Leviticus we get the , "do not eat pork, do not eat shell fish, kosher, etc etc". We also get the Sodom and Gomorrah story. These laws did not come directly from God himself.

While I have my own opinions against homosexuality, killing gays and lesbians isn't very loving. However is eating pork and shellfish not loving? Not so much.

In my experience with premarital sex, Samsaeu how do you manage the drama associated with it? Every time I managed to get plates going the girls fell in love which caused drama, heart break, and the like. This doesn't follow Jesus' law very well (breaking hearts isn't loving) which is partially why I stopped going out seeking hook ups and doing mini ltrs.

Edit: Da_Zeb's explanation is much better than mine!

Post: #83

Several things wrong with your analysis. First, the "old law" (i.e., Old Testament) became invalid and non-binding when Christ died on the cross. It was replaced with the "new law" i.e., New Testament (starting with the book of Matthew and ending with Revelation.)

Hebrews 8:13

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Romans 7:6
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

Jeremiah 31:31-34
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”


And also the tiny details that "fornication" or "immorality" weren't the only words used:

Galatians 5:19-21

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Even using your version, the YLT:

Galatians 5:19-21 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

19 And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects,
21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit.

What do you think he means by "lasciviousness"? What is lust? If you can't lust after a woman, HOW can you fuck her? How does your dick get hard without lusting? Please explain it to me.



God warns about not twisting his words:

2 Peter 3:16

As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.



Matthew 5:21-22

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Ephesians 5:5
For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Given the above, it stands to reason that anyone who does the prerequisite of the sin (i.e. lust but not fucking, "coveting" without stealing, etc) is guilty of the sin.

I admire your resolve to find a loophole, and if memory serves, you are a lawyer. It makes sense that you so diligently tried to find a way to "acquit" yourself, but unfortunately, God doesn't judge like a courtroom does. He is absolute and omnipotent. You can't make verbal arguments and try to sneak your way through his judgement by selectively taking verses out of context and attempting to say since is wasn't incredibly explicit it's obviously allowed. The INTENT of the passages is VERY clear. Gods laws are NOT the laws of man, and you can't manipulate or argue your way out of judgement. If you want to fuck girls, thats fine, but realize if you fail to follow his word, hell awaits.

The real loophole is repenting and following his word before you die, NOT trying to get past it by sinning without ever repenting.

This is the reason why I don't call myself a "Christian" although I believe every word in the Bible.

James 2:18-20:

But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?"

Post: #84

This is very compelling. I'm writing this while reading through, to make sure I don't forget something. I'll compose it as a series of points.

First though - this is all speculation. Our goals as Christians should be to stumble forward into becoming better men.

Canon Vs Tradition

The Church has a great deal of respect for its histories and traditions, but ultimately these aren't binding. Canon is - Ex Cathedra is - but the traditions, though arrived at after a great deal of though (and therefore, not to be discarded lightly) are not binding. The celibacy of Priests, for instance, is a discipline which the Church demands, but if she so chooses she could overturn it tomorrow. It's a tradition and a discipline - but it's not binding.

Furthermore, if there has been some error due to translation, or if some archaeological document were to learn something which was heretofore unknown - the Church would acknowledge it. Remember, this is the same Church that came up with the Scientific Method; when a theory is proven false, it's false, even if centuries of work are overturned by it.

Moral Instinct

When it comes to theology or mathematics, I've always trusted my gut. Is this beautiful? Does this feel right? This doesn't mean that you don't still have to do the hard work of proving it, but the first sign that something's off will be a latent feeling of ugliness or uncertainty.

I'm far from sinless, and there have been times when I've burned in lust after a particular woman in a covetous manner, and these are times in my life that I'm embarrassed and ashamed of. I try not to live in denial about it, and even before converting I was trying to figure out how to not fall into these traps, time and time again. I think we all know this feeling; heck, pornography is the perfect example. The feeling of shame after jerking off to porn is nearly universal amongst men (the only men whom I've seen claim otherwise have struck me as being deeply in denial of their own profligate nature).

But while there are many things that I'm ashamed of, when I think of some of my dalliances over the years... nothing. In fact, I feel more shame over the hos I tried to housewife over the years. But the casual, friendly hookups? I have warm memories about those girls; nothing more.

Were there sluts in Biblical times?

There have always been sluts. When you combine the rhythm method and pulling out, and so long as she doesn't bang 20 guys in a week, the odds of pregnancy are pretty low. We have more sluts these days, granted, but the sheer promiscuity from the 19th Century - which is pretty well documented - suggests to me that things weren't much different 2000 years ago.

People have always been horny idiots. I would be downright shocked if there wasn't a fair amount of casual sex going on back then, too. Less than today, but hardly unheard of.

Case in point: Sodom and Gomorrah. Do you really believe that those two cities discovered Hollywood levels of degeneracy while the rest of the Fertile Crescent was practicing chastity?

Forbidden Versus Stupid

Let's be clear, there are still many trepidations on this path; but on a day to day basis, what people do sexually bothers me far less than the pride, envy, hatred, and greed that I see constantly. To put this into a metaphor: the latter are people driving recklessly on the road, the former is somebody cruising on the highway in 4th gear instead of 5th, while obeying all the traffic laws. Irksome to a professional driver (you're doing it wrong!), but hardly a threat to my existence or general well-being.

Ergo, no, I don't think sex is as important as it's made out to be. It's just sex; get over it.

[Side note: the condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah had more to do with the abuse of innocents than with sexual perversity; the sexuality was being used as a weapon to harm others, which is why God smote those cities. Think of Hollywood, and the abuse that children and aspiring starlets must go through to succeed. It's not the homosexuality per se that's so contemptible, it's the manipulation and abuse of innocents - innocents who should have been treated as guests.]

Now all of this said - if we work from the presumption of "Brah, nobody cares who you sleep with," - that doesn't then mean that it's a smart idea to go trolling for low-class women.

Getting hammered out of your skull, going to a nightclub with pounding beats, doing a bunch of drugs, and going home with some tatted-up tramp with a personality disorder - is this the behaviour of the sort of man we'd want to emulate? The sort of man we'd want to be? Could you imagine James Bond, Jean Luc Picard, Dillan Hunt, or any other hero from film or literature doing so? Granted, Liberalism has infected media - but could you imagine writing a story with a heroic protagonist who engaged in such behaviour?

Only if it was a comedic scene, showing that they, too, are a flawed man.

Furthermore, if your goal is finding a wife of good character - and I think most of us can agree that a loyal, sexy wife who earns all of her wrinkles by raising your children is far superior to endless, nubile variety - then what are you doing get trashed at a trendy night club? How does that get you any closer to your goals?

The Dangers of Male Virginity

The easiest way for a man to stay chaste is to fail at pursuing women. Actually pursuing them and dating them would lead to temptation (when successful) and heartbreak (when she shoots you down); ergo, in the pursuit of morality, many men will intentionally fail, rationalize their failures, or just never bother to pursue a woman in a manly fashion.

This is far more dangerous than casual sex - it is effeminacy!

As I age and grow spiritually, I find myself attracted to fewer and fewer women. They're young and foolish; or trashy; or mercenary; or unprincipled. Ten years ago I would have thought they were hot; these days I have zero physical interest in them, despite a potent sex drive.

I've met a few young men who are similar; who genuinely want a wife and nothing less, and they simply aren't attracted to your typical girl. This is a good state for all of us to be growing towards, but trying to force it before its time is folly. It engenders effeminacy amongst men, and results in hateful marriages where the husband will be tempted with infidelity.

Concern for the woman

Tempting others into sin is a grave sin indeed, and it is incumbent upon us not to be lascivious towards women - particularly younger and more foolish women, with a head full of Sex in the City. Sex evokes powerful emotions, and when engaged in recklessly it can create a great deal of fallout.

That doesn't mean that any sort of approach is sinful though; particularly if you are frank and non-manipulative when it comes to your intentions, the choice is ultimately hers (and besides, that's just good Game).

Sluts vs Whores

Quote:I doubt it. The intentions of a whore are completely different from a slut.

Slut: Wants pleasure and love.
Whore: Wants money, willing to use sex to get it.

If I may expand upon this: it doesn't just have to be for money. The woman who trades sex for ego/narcissistic supply is equally a whore (typically they'll be sexing you up to control and hurt you). A woman who trades attention for money is also a whore (camgirls have graduated to merely wearing lowcut tops and streaming videogames on twitch to pathetic schlubs). A large number of the painted harlots you'll meet at the club are in this category.

Final Thoughts

I am currently celibate, and have no plans to change that any time soon. It's one of those topics where right answers are hard to come by. Best of luck to everyone else who's addressing these issues.

Samseau - finish off the bloody post! I want to know what you found out about Canon Law.

Post: #85

Quote:The background to the story is that the girl Tobit is to marry has been betrothed on seven previous occasions but each of her husbands was killed by a demon on the wedding night before they could consumate the marriage. But Tobit, who is her rightful husband is given the tools to defeat the demon. The implication is clear: if you sleep with an unmarried woman, you are cheating on her future husband.

Yeah, the conclusion here does not follow from the premises. The implication is that this woman was being guarded by a demon for some reason. Demons do not obey the will of God but Satan. Had it been an Angel killing those men, then we could assume God was protecting her virginity. Instead it was a demon preventing her from becoming a good and loyal wife, and God had set apart Tobit as the one to save this damsel in distress.

Post: #86

Quote:First, the "old law" (i.e., Old Testament) became invalid and non-binding when Christ died on the cross. It was replaced with the "new law" i.e., New Testament (starting with the book of Matthew and ending with Revelation.)

Partially true yet false in spirit. The new covenant Christ made was explicitly to fulfill the old law as stated on the Sermon on the Mount. If you seriously think Christ's teachings deviate significantly from the ten commandments, then you need to re-read the Bible.

Moreover, Christ updated some commandments such as an Eye for an Eye, "love they enemy" (this is not the same as loving thy neighbor as thyself), and the rules on adultery, "he who lusts with his eyes commits adultery with his heart," so the implication is if Christ did not update a rule then it stands as was originally written by Moses. As for the other rules as not written by Christ (such as in Leviticus), there is actual disagreement between the Apostles Paul and Peter, who held works in varying degrees of importance. Paul argued against strict legalism, but Peter was in favor.

Personally, I'm with Paul and I don't think many of the old rules matter but the commandments should remain as Jesus taught them. Additionally, the old rules such as in Leviticus can still be studied for their intent. Hence why I say that virginity is valuable for a woman, as it was valued within the Old Testament, but not for a man, as a man's virginity is never mentioned in any book aside from a brief mention in Tobit (but only in praise of Tobit resisting whores). Hence pre-marital sex for men with a woman who is not a whore nor a virgin is outside the scope of Biblical teachings.

Now, again, I have an idea of how the rules to apply to such grey areas, but it is beyond the scope of this thread and someday I will make another thread about what I believe Biblical sexuality morality is in light of the above findings.

I still have more to update this thread but time is scarce.

Post: #87

(02-13-2016 05:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:First, the "old law" (i.e., Old Testament) became invalid and non-binding when Christ died on the cross. It was replaced with the "new law" i.e., New Testament (starting with the book of Matthew and ending with Revelation.)

Partially true yet false in spirit. The new covenant Christ made was explicitly to fulfill the old law as stated on the Sermon on the Mount. If you seriously think Christ's teachings deviate significantly from the ten commandments, then you need to re-read the Bible.

Moreover, Christ updated some commandments such as an Eye for an Eye, "love they enemy" (this is not the same as loving thy neighbor as thyself), and the rules on adultery, "he who lusts with his eyes commits adultery with his heart," so the implication is if Christ did not update a rule then it stands as was originally written by Moses. As for the other rules as not written by Christ (such as in Leviticus), there is actual disagreement between the Apostles Paul and Peter, who held works in varying degrees of importance. Paul argued against strict legalism, but Peter was in favor.

Personally, I'm with Paul and I don't think many of the old rules matter but the commandments should remain as Jesus taught them. Additionally, the old rules such as in Leviticus can still be studied for their intent. Hence why I say that virginity is valuable for a woman, as it was valued within the Old Testament, but not for a man, as a man's virginity is never mentioned in any book aside from a brief mention in Tobit (but only in praise of Tobit resisting whores). Hence pre-marital sex for men with a woman who is not a whore nor a virgin is outside the scope of Biblical teachings.

Now, again, I have an idea of how the rules to apply to such grey areas, but it is beyond the scope of this thread and someday I will make another thread about what I believe Biblical sexuality morality is in light of the above findings.

I still have more to update this thread but time is scarce.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this.

I get the impression we're arguing semantics.

Obviously we both know the Old Testament isn't binding. I haven't heard you say that you refuse to do any work on Saturdays (the Sabbath), nor would I assume you sacrifice animals. (If you recall, this was how they repented for sins in the Old Testament).

Anyways, on your point about virginity mattering more for a woman than a man, we really don't need to read the Bible to know that. Anyone with an IQ above 80 can simply observe and figure that out easily.

I'm more interested in hearing your reply to the scripture I quoted than any of the above.

As I said, I don't consider myself a Christian, and I'm not going to try to "save your soul". But as a fellow man who also believes in God, and presumably, heaven and hell, I would be remiss not to point out the things you overlooked when trying to justify fucking girls.

My advice? If you want to chase tail, do it, and do it without remorse. When you're done with it (as Roosh said, eventually any man gets bored with fucking random sluts) settle down with a good virgin woman, get married, and repent.

For me, that's really the only thing holding me back from being Christian---pussy. I love it. But God willing, I'll live long enough to turn things around before my judgement day. That's the best any man can hope for.

Post: #88

I love how I am arguing against hypocrites who claim not to be Christians yet lectures a man who reads the Bible every week.

Quote:Galatians 5:19-21 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

19 And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects,
21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit.

What do you think he means by "lasciviousness"? What is lust? If you can't lust after a woman, HOW can you fuck her? How does your dick get hard without lusting? Please explain it to me.

I explained this quote right on the first post. You can use ctrl+f to find it, not gonna waste my time.

I do want to state another thing, however.

It seems that most people who argue against me are in fact the ones behaving as Pharisees, claiming that ANY sex before marriage is an automatic sin. Such categorical claims are in fact the opposite of the Apostle Paul's claim that the spirit can be understood without legalism. And yet, even though I argue with Paul, I have people claiming I am acting like a Pharisee because I actually took the work to translate the Bible as it was written. The hypocrisy in this thread, as with most Christians today, is extreme. I'd say hypocrisy is the #1 sin Christians suffer from today, followed by effimacy as Aruni points out.

Post: #89

If the Bible strictly prohibits any and all sex before marriage, then:

A) We're hopeless sinners, so why bother going to Church? Or,
B) The Bible's ridiculous, so why bother going to Church?

If you switch a couple of the words in the above, you can describe the same reasoning used by the virtue signallers in the Alt Right to denounce Roosh. Something occurred to me last night; I don't think any of the prominent ones ever served in the military, where areas the old manosphere was chock-full of soldiers.

Post: #90

Or, we're all sinners because sin is in our nature, but as long as we genuinely repent and strive to improve in the future God will forgive us.
I thought that was the whole point of the Bible instead of the typical atheist (mine-included) reaction "why did God make the world so that we would suffer - God must be pointless or evil".

Post: #91

(02-15-2016 01:13 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Or, we're all sinners because sin is in our nature, but as long as we genuinely repent and strive to improve in the future God will forgive us.
I thought that was the whole point of the Bible instead of the typical atheist (mine-included) reaction "why did God make the world so that we would suffer - God must be pointless or evil".

95% of Christ's teachings had nothing to do with sex. And yet whenever someone talks about Christianity today, it's "You won't have sex outside of marriage? THEN UR NOT A CHRISTIAN!!1"

Trust me, the sins Christ talks about are way more serious than sexual sins, and the average person today commits them on the regular.

Some off the top of my head:

- Have you insulted your brother or family members?
- Do you judge people by standards you wouldn't apply for yourself?
- Do you give your time and energy to people or causes that aren't worth it?
- Do neglect regular prayer to God?
- Do you defend Jesus when others talk trash about him?
- Do you give money to the poor who have been unjustly robbed in this life (such as homeless vets)?

All of the above are 10x more serious than sex. Yet do you ever hear people talking about them?

The facts of the matter are most of what people believe about sexual teachings come from the Catholic church, a notoriously corrupt Church that has made plenty of mistakes in it's history. I've yet to see any of my detractors in this thread actually show text to contradict me.

Post: #92

(02-15-2016 03:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 01:13 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Or, we're all sinners because sin is in our nature, but as long as we genuinely repent and strive to improve in the future God will forgive us.
I thought that was the whole point of the Bible instead of the typical atheist (mine-included) reaction "why did God make the world so that we would suffer - God must be pointless or evil".

95% of Christ's teachings had nothing to do with sex. And yet whenever someone talks about Christianity today, it's "You won't have sex outside of marriage? THEN UR NOT A CHRISTIAN!!1"

Trust me, the sins Christ talks about are way more serious than sexual sins, and the average person today commits them on the regular.

Some off the top of my head:

- Have you insulted your brother or family members?
- Do you judge people by standards you wouldn't apply for yourself?
- Do you give your time and energy to people or causes that aren't worth it?
- Do neglect regular prayer to God?
- Do you defend Jesus when others talk trash about him?
- Do you give money to the poor who have been unjustly robbed in this life (such as homeless vets)?

All of the above are 10x more serious than sex. Yet do you ever hear people talking about them?

The facts of the matter are most of what people believe about sexual teachings come from the Catholic church, a notoriously corrupt Church that has made plenty of mistakes in it's history. I've yet to see any of my detractors in this thread actually show text to contradict me.

I'm probably going off on a tangent here because I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about here, but I might point out without going through them exhaustively that most if not all of the acts you're mentioning there are indeed deemed by Catholicism as mortal sins, i.e. die with a mortal sin unconfessed and unrepentant for it, and absent some special grace from God at the last hour you're going to Hell. But again I suspect we may be talking past each other to some extent, because Catholicism's theological model of mortal sin, venial sin, grace, confession, prayer, and what happens in the Mass are almost unique to the Catholic Church at this point.

Catholicism's doctrine is that sex outside of marriage is a sin. If you don't ascribe to that doctrine because you're not a Catholic, so be it. Catholics don't get the option to determine for themselves what is a sin and what is not. What we do have the option of doing is acknowledging and confessing our sins and asking God's help via prayer and via the miracle that happens in the Mass to make us into better people.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #93

(02-15-2016 03:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 01:13 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Or, we're all sinners because sin is in our nature, but as long as we genuinely repent and strive to improve in the future God will forgive us.
I thought that was the whole point of the Bible instead of the typical atheist (mine-included) reaction "why did God make the world so that we would suffer - God must be pointless or evil".

95% of Christ's teachings had nothing to do with sex. And yet whenever someone talks about Christianity today, it's "You won't have sex outside of marriage? THEN UR NOT A CHRISTIAN!!1"

Trust me, the sins Christ talks about are way more serious than sexual sins, and the average person today commits them on the regular.

Some off the top of my head:

- Have you insulted your brother or family members?
- Do you judge people by standards you wouldn't apply for yourself?
- Do you give your time and energy to people or causes that aren't worth it?
- Do neglect regular prayer to God?
- Do you defend Jesus when others talk trash about him?
- Do you give money to the poor who have been unjustly robbed in this life (such as homeless vets)?

All of the above are 10x more serious than sex. Yet do you ever hear people talking about them?

The facts of the matter are most of what people believe about sexual teachings come from the Catholic church, a notoriously corrupt Church that has made plenty of mistakes in it's history. I've yet to see any of my detractors in this thread actually show text to contradict me.

1. I don't claim to be a Christian. I also did not criticize you for having sex outside of marriage. I criticized your misinterpretation of scripture. Therefore, not a hypocrite.

2. Unless you have scripture to back up your statement that "the sins Christ talks about are way more serious than sexual sins, and the average person today commits them on the regular." then you're simply making shit up. In fact, I have scripture that directly contradicts what you just said.

For example:

James 2:10 - For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

and

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

These two verse point out that ALL sin leads to death, or, in other words, eternal damnation. Telling a white lie or committing genocide....the result of ANY sin is damnation. Of course, this is why Christ died on the cross for our sins. Through his sacrifice, we are able to be forgiven.

3. I've shown you direct scripture. How do you justify your lust, in light of the above passages?
Completely serious question: When you're seducing/dating/fucking girls, are you to have me believe that you do not lust for them? If so, how do you insert your flaccid penis into their vaginas? Also, do they not lust after you? So you're telling me, you game women, seduce them, and bed them, only to stick your flaccid penis into a dry vagina, since lubrication typically follows her being aroused.

I realize this may sound funny, but I'm completely serious. Surely you can understand how ludicrous your assertion that lust is a sin, yet you fucking women you aren't married to is ok. Unless of course, you ARE asserting the above is true, in which case.......ok....you're pretty weird.

4. I'm not a Catholic, and I've never been to a Catholic church nor been to a mass. I was raised Christian. Furthermore, I started going to church when I was an infant. My father was VERY adamant about it, we went every time the doors were open, twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday. Starting at age 5, I had to attend Vacation Bible School for a week during the summer, and starting at age 9, Monday evenings were reserved for bible studies with men from our church. I've read through the entire Bible cover-to-cover 7 times growing up. So your assumption that you know more than everyone else simply because you "read the bible every day" is pretty arrogant. I don't need to read it everyday in order to remember what I was forced to study constantly growing up. The Bible hasn't changed in over 2 millennia, so I don't need to read it again to understand what the words mean.

All that said, It's not my concern how you live your life. I said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't consider myself a Christian. I BELIEVE in the Bible, but I don't follow the teachings. Part of what happens when you're forced to go to church as much as I was growing up is that you become desensitized and stop giving a shit about religion. That said, I can't help but point out the fallacies you're committing in trying so hard to justify your behavior. Just fuck girls and accept who you are. There's no need to try to justify it to God or anyone else. God is all knowing, and he will forgive any sin. You don't have to come up with excuses. He made us the way he did, knowing we would make mistakes. When you're ready to repent, he will forgive. Same for me. That's why I don't put pressure on myself to follow the Bible and its teachings. When I repent, it won't matter what sins I committed.

Post: #94

Whatever:

Lust is not what you think it is. Simple as that. How most churches teach lust is not actually what lust is. A single man desiring a single woman, is not lust. However, due to mistranslations of the Bible many Christians have been taught false things. These false teachings have probably caused more damage and harm to the faith than anything else today, as represented by declining church numbers across the board (except for Orthodox, of which I belong, and whose priests helped me write this thread... coincidence that our numbers grow even though we do not believe sex outside marriage is an automatic sin? It's because we interpret scripture as it was understood during its time period, and we do not have an infallible pope leading us to hell).

So far you've done nothing to show where I have erred in my analysis of sexual teachings within the Bible. Christ forgave whores and adulterers, he probably doesn't care too much about single-men banging skanks. It's the skanks who need to be saved, not the men (as I've pointed out many times in this thread due to sex being different for men and women).


Paracelsus:

I don't care what the Pope says, or what "Catholicism" is, I only care about the teachings as Christ presented them. It's more important to go to heaven and be with God than to be a Catholic.

Post: #95

Lust and sexual attraction are not the same. Lust is more of a consuming preoccupation with a female or anything else for thar matter. You can Lust after money with a flaccid penis.

Post: #96

(02-16-2016 08:37 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Whatever:

Lust is not what you think it is. Simple as that. How most churches teach lust is not actually what lust is. A single man desiring a single woman, is not lust. However, due to mistranslations of the Bible many Christians have been taught false things. These false teachings have probably caused more damage and harm to the faith than anything else today, as represented by declining church numbers across the board (except for Orthodox, of which I belong, and whose priests helped me write this thread... coincidence that our numbers grow even though we do not believe sex outside marriage is an automatic sin? It's because we interpret scripture as it was understood during its time period, and we do not have an infallible pope leading us to hell).

So far you've done nothing to show where I have erred in my analysis of sexual teachings within the Bible. Christ forgave whores and adulterers, he probably doesn't care too much about single-men banging skanks. It's the skanks who need to be saved, not the men (as I've pointed out many times in this thread due to sex being different for men and women).

The definition of "lust" is "strong sexual desire". The church didn't define that word. Webster did.

So now you're continuing to argue that you know the intent of the Bibles authors better than they did.

You are ignoring every piece of scripture I quote. You simply make arguments based on semantics and some priest only you've met.

In short, we have to take you at your word.

That's fine. It's clear your mind is made up, an no amount of evidence will change it. I think I've written enough that anyone who wants to seriously research both sides of the argument can make an informed decision on where they think God stands on the matter.

I really wish we could discuss this issue based on the Bible, not your perceived "mistranslation", so if you ever change your mind, let me know.

Post: #97

This thread reminds me of a story about the comedian W.C. Fields, a misanthrope and atheist to his core for all his days.

A friend went to visit Fields in the hospital when he was on his deathbed, and was surprised by what he saw.

"Why are you reading the Bible," asked the friend.

Fields looked up at him and said,

"Looking for loopholes."

Post: #98

The fact that this thread is getting so derailed is precisely why Samseau's research is so important.

Sex is extremely important to humans. As Oscar Wilde said, "Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power." When we're young it's all we can think about. When we're old it's all we can worry about. Everything we do - all the great passions and struggles of our soul - connect back to sex.

Those in Heaven find it rather quaint and ridiculous.

The thing of great important is not the sex itself, but how you deal with it. Are you using it to hurt people? Are you reckless and irresponsible, begetting bastards and collecting STDs? Is it an all consuming passion that prevents you from meditating on deeper issues, enslaving you to pleasure? Are you effeminately worshipping a woman, placing her on an altar reserved for God? Is it being used as an excuse to unjustly demonize male competition? Do you feel boastful pride over your celibacy?

In defense of the Catholic Church (as a direct response to Samseau's comments), the reason they have so many Orders and Regulations regarding sex, is because most people are extremely stupid. As an example look at birth control. You hand it to high-IQ college students, and they fuck like bunnies until they settle down. You hand it to retards, and you wind up with single mothers collecting welfare, and degenerate men competing for attention by being gangsta. Nobody but an asexual can live up to Catholic sexual standards, which is precisely the point. Sex is mercurial, and without some sort of guidance everybody will get lit on fire.

The major issue these days is Catholic sexual morality, twisted by Puritanical Protestantism, mixed with feminine imperative feminism. Rules that were very effective for keeping horny medieval peasants in line have been co-opted by a societal narrative that seeks to destroy masculinity.

In a healthy society, you do spank boys for being boisterous 24/7; they need to learn to sit still at times. But in this fundamentally anti-male society good discipline is being mixed with toxic indoctrination.

Christ never intended for men to make eunuchs out of themselves in service to Eve. This isn't about trying to find loopholes to excuse sin - it's about realizing that effeminacy is far, far worse than a bit of drunken rutting. The latter is silly and embarrassing. The former is catastrophic.

Christianity is not Islam. We are commanded to learn about the scripture, ourselves, and the world, and even if we get the final answer wrong we still get points for showing our work. Prodigal son. Mic drop.

Post: #99

(02-16-2016 04:07 PM)Aurini Wrote:  Christianity is not Islam. We are commanded to learn about the scripture, ourselves, and the world, and even if we get the final answer wrong we still get points for showing our work. Prodigal son. Mic drop.

The Prodigal Son didn't get "points for showing.....work" until he repented and turned away from his sinful lifestyle.

Manipulating written documents doesn't change the original intent of what the author wrote. Just as feminists can scream that Roosh wants to legalize rape as much as they want doesn't change that he never advocated such a thing.

I'm said my piece. I'm not going to argue semantics with you people. If someone wants to point out scripture to validate their points, we can talk. Until then, it's your word vs Gods.

Post: #100

(02-16-2016 03:18 PM)whateverfuckit Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 08:37 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Whatever:

Lust is not what you think it is. Simple as that. How most churches teach lust is not actually what lust is. A single man desiring a single woman, is not lust. However, due to mistranslations of the Bible many Christians have been taught false things. These false teachings have probably caused more damage and harm to the faith than anything else today, as represented by declining church numbers across the board (except for Orthodox, of which I belong, and whose priests helped me write this thread... coincidence that our numbers grow even though we do not believe sex outside marriage is an automatic sin? It's because we interpret scripture as it was understood during its time period, and we do not have an infallible pope leading us to hell).

So far you've done nothing to show where I have erred in my analysis of sexual teachings within the Bible. Christ forgave whores and adulterers, he probably doesn't care too much about single-men banging skanks. It's the skanks who need to be saved, not the men (as I've pointed out many times in this thread due to sex being different for men and women).

The definition of "lust" is "strong sexual desire". The church didn't define that word. Webster did.

Right. And please point out a single passage within the Bible that says it's wrong to lust after a single woman or desire her.

On the contrary, it says be fruitful and multiply, and get married. How does one get married without lust?

Lust is not inherently sinful. Just like the desire to make money isn't inherently greedy. There's no semantics here. You're just being the hypocritical pharisee claiming to represent the Word and yet doing nothing to try and understand it.

So when I said lust is not what you think it is, you're quoting a dictionary definition that literally is from 2016 and comparing it to a book written almost 2000 years prior to the dictionary.

Do you not see how absurd you are?

Quote:So now you're continuing to argue that you know the intent of the Bibles authors better than they did.

Actually, I'm arguing right along with the intent of those who wrote it. That's why guys like Augustine and Constantine had tons of women each, and yet were some of the most important Christians to have lived. Constantine had direct visions from God and defeated armies twice his size. He fucked mad chicks and had bastard children. God chose him anyways, because he was manly son of a bitch who could enforce God's will.

Quote:You are ignoring every piece of scripture I quote. You simply make arguments based on semantics and some priest only you've met.

In short, we have to take you at your word.

I haven't ignored a thing you've said. Conversely, it's obvious you haven't read much of what I have written in this thread.

Quote:I really wish we could discuss this issue based on the Bible, not your perceived "mistranslation", so if you ever change your mind, let me know.

You're being emotional now.


Aurini:

Quote:In defense of the Catholic Church (as a direct response to Samseau's comments), the reason they have so many Orders and Regulations regarding sex, is because most people are extremely stupid. As an example look at birth control. You hand it to high-IQ college students, and they fuck like bunnies until they settle down. You hand it to retards, and you wind up with single mothers collecting welfare, and degenerate men competing for attention by being gangsta. Nobody but an asexual can live up to Catholic sexual standards, which is precisely the point. Sex is mercurial, and without some sort of guidance everybody will get lit on fire.

The major issue these days is Catholic sexual morality, twisted by Puritanical Protestantism, mixed with feminine imperative feminism. Rules that were very effective for keeping horny medieval peasants in line have been co-opted by a societal narrative that seeks to destroy masculinity.

Yes, very much so. I speak at length about the how the Catholics developed their rules on sexuality on the first post and on page 3 when I dissected the chapter where Aquinas deduces that all premarital sex is wrong (and I spot his translation errors and logical errors as well).

It's obvious that no Christian writer in the past needed to consider things like premarital sex because normally it was such a risky behavior it almost never happened. Either women became whores or housewives. Sluttery was extremely rare by comparison.