No it isn't. Sexual morality is very healthy, childbirth is not considered a curse, teaching celibacy isn't baseless, but it isn't commanded, it is merely an option, fornication is not always a sin, and lust is dangerous because it pollutes the mind and soul.
They are unclean for 7 days after giving birth according to the Mosaic law. Which is very understandable given the times. There is a lot of blood in childbirth.
Originally posted by Nellinator
No it isn't. Sexual morality is very healthy, childbirth is not considered a curse, teaching celibacy isn't baseless, but it isn't commanded, it is merely an option, fornication is not always a sin, and lust is dangerous because it pollutes the mind and soul.They are unclean for 7 days after giving birth according to the Mosaic law. Which is very understandable given the times. There is a lot of blood in childbirth.
lol. i think you forgot what i was referring to. i was merely finding support in these facts about sexual lust being the original sin in christianity as most christians believe. and you practically proved every point{maybe u had it at the back of your head that i was trying to degrade these practices in the post. lol, your so defensive}
as for thosepoints. sexual morality is taboo with well established harmful psychological/physical side affects. chidlbirth is considered a curse{by curse i mean a punishment} ill try and remeber the place and verse and get back on it. teaching celibacy is pointless/psychologically harmful, and many would interpret it as commanded. fornication is MOSTLY a sin{most would argue ALWAYS a sin}
in reality withholding sexual urges before marriages{fear punishmet/guilt/control etc} are very psychologically harmful. i can not even begin to elaborate on this fact. there shud be NO place where fornication shoudl be portrayed as bad.
lust is merely an emotion, it isnt a poison, at times it can be detrimental at times it can be good{specially SEXUAL LUST as is often referred to}. if you bottle it up and try to FORCIBLY control it, the consequnces will ALWAYS be far worse than negetive things lust can bring{other than perhaps rape which is dependant on other emotions as much as lust}.
well that can be debated upon, in many places its more than seven. and no, seven days is not any MAGICAL perfect time period to get rid of the physical affects of chidbirth. also, the bible is for people till the end of time according to your belief. is god's expression so lacking that he cud not sumhow add guidance to the people of today who have healthcare facilities and the same problems dont hold??? why shud women be unclean after child birth even for 7 days{arguably its more but i wont say until i can quote exactly}
interjection: [grimace, pitying] {directed towards feceman of course}
It is not taboo. It is healthy. I'd love to see you support promiscuity as healthy with credible scientific sources because I've never seen it. Also, there is strong evidence that celibacy until marriage is healthy physically and also contributes to a lasting marriage and sexual satisfaction in the relationship.
Childbirth in itself was never considered punishment. I believe you may be referring to the fact that pains in childbirth are punishment for women. That would be Biblically supported, but children are a considered a blessing otherwise and it is encouraged. Rarely is fornication argued to always be a sin. Very few consider sex inside marriage to be a sin.
Yes, it should and it is not psychologically harmful.
One saved by Jesus does not need to forcibly control lust.
And it actually is seven days for the birth of a male child and fourteen for the birth of a female child. And it isn't a magical number, it is a safe number for cleanliness reasons. Second that isn't applicable anymore because of the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law possibly in part because health care was advanced enough at that time to handle it.
"It is not taboo. It is healthy. I'd love to see you support promiscuity as healthy with credible scientific sources because I've never seen it. Also, there is strong evidence that celibacy until marriage is healthy physically and also contributes to a lasting marriage and sexual satisfaction in the relationship."
untrue untrue and untrue. it is taboo without any logical justification. it is detrimental because it limits curiosity and pleasureable acitivities to a standard which does no good but illogically forcing one to refrain which DOES do a lot of harm. promiscuity is healthy because in the absence of a lasting love interest{refering to the greater part of the world} you do not need to commit and can still have sexua;l intercourse{a healthy activity helping both physically and psychologically TREMENDOUSLY}. promiscuity also helps in variety, excitement and mental satisfaction when one has not decided to commit.
there is NO evidence{psuedo christian supprted HYPOTHESIS dont count, nor does taking things out of context} that celibacy untill marriage is healthy. quite the contrary, it supresses the main sexual urge, leading to internal conflict, frustration, mental imbalances and BOTTLING UP. person does not get to release these and it has several severely harmful affects on the psyche{puberty starts in the early teens and people generally do not get married till after 20 atleast. furthermore, the biochemicals which are released during sex and stabilise a person/form lasting reletionship with the partner{skin to skin touch releases biochemicals which help greatly in forming BONDS with your mate} are not released and you are that much likely to not be bonded mentally with a mate when you make the choice of marriage.
another thing, your forgetting the problems being sexually incompatible with your mater can have.
also, sexual urges isnt like electricity which can be turned on and off at the flick of a switch called marriage and many sexual problems arise to the inexpirienced in marriage. which can often lead to divorce.
"Childbirth in itself was never considered punishment. I believe you may be referring to the fact that pains in childbirth are punishment for women. That would be Biblically supported, but children are a considered a blessing otherwise and it is encouraged. Rarely is fornication argued to always be a sin. Very few consider sex inside marriage to be a sin."
yes i am referring to the pain. it is evidence for the sex=original sin hypothesis. not to mention show the cruelty and non sensical sadism of a christian god. fornication as ive explained is MOSTLY a sin. and that is wrong logically.
"Yes, it should and it is not psychologically harmful."
it is MOST DEFINATELY psychologically harmful, and no it shud not. HONESTLY for sum1 who claims to know the subject, you seem to nitpick and read what you want to. your willing to null all research/facts known to us today about the shortcomings of supressing sexual desire.
"One saved by Jesus does not need to forcibly control lust."
lol. do you have lust? do most christians have lust? if you say no you are delusional. if you say yes, then you and most other christians have not been saved by jesus.
"And it actually is seven days for the birth of a male child and fourteen for the birth of a female child. And it isn't a magical number, it is a safe number for cleanliness reasons. Second that isn't applicable anymore because of the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law possibly in part because health care was advanced enough at that time to handle it."
i dont remember exactly but yea, the difference seems ok. other than the fact that the time difference is COMPLETELY based on taboos and is illogical{theres no real difference between male and female birth. certainly nuthing warranting a greater period of impurity. }. there is ZERO evidence to support that 7 days is a period in which an unsterilised delivering mother is purged clean of the diseases often associated with open birth blood and the blood emission that follows.{the blood emission doesnt necessarily continue for 7 days. nor is there a difference of 7 seven days between the apparent impurity of a maleand female child. thats just the bias of the ignorant founders talking}
also, do elaborate more fully on your version of the mosaic law, i believe i missed that on kmc.
im telling a christianity adherant and a follower of one BRANCH of the very vast and vague christianity, what the bible says. im not preaching verses to him{if you didnt get that } but making a case for sex being the original sin, as a plausible theory, to him, who does not believe this version of events. unlike the greater christian community worldwide.
and please, dont be so ridiculed, most christians here have sumwhat conflicting views. you obviously have nt spent enough time on this forum.{although your name sounds remotely familiar}.
forgive me for asking but why is that you are asking me this? it doesnt have anything to do with the debate at hand. and you said that you were agnostic. the motivation cant possibly be vindictive could it{hint hint}. rest assured, the reputation of superman has no bearing on thisdebate so CHILL.
Originally posted by leonheartmmYou, a NON-CHRISTIAN is telling a CHRISTIAN what CHRISTIAN'S think. and you're doing it with your sucky ass grammar again... "christianity adherant" "dont be so ridiculed"
im telling a christianity adherant and a follower of one BRANCH of the very vast and vague christianity, what the bible says. im not preaching verses to him{if you didnt get that } but making a case for sex being the original sin, as a plausible theory, to him, who does not believe this version of events. unlike the greater christian community worldwide.and please, dont be so ridiculed, most christians here have sumwhat conflicting views. you obviously have nt spent enough time on this forum.{although your name sounds remotely familiar}.
forgive me for asking but why is that you are asking me this? it doesnt have anything to do with the debate at hand. and you said that you were agnostic. the motivation cant possibly be vindictive could it{hint hint}. rest assured, the reputation of superman has no bearing on thisdebate so CHILL.
Are you really so dense as to not see how large that makes your ego seem to be?
And what the hell does Superman have to do with this?
You can't tell people what it is that they think. 🤨
Function: Executing program talkcolloquial.exe...
Function: Program talkcolloquial.exe executed. Initiating.
Leon, I'm going to be as kind as possible and say the following:
You're being a retard.
The belief that the "Original Sin" is sexual immorality is not supported biblically in the least, and anyone who believes that is an idiot.
Genesis 2:23-24The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
But hold on a sec, let's pretend that you might be right. I'm glancing over Genesis 3 right now...no mention of sex; there's something about eating a piece of fruit and blame-passing, and there's something about a snake...but no sex. In fact, Adam doesn't have sex with Eve until Genesis 4.
"Aha!" you cry, thinking that you've caught me. "Adam didn't have sex with Eve prior to the Fall; therefore, sex is a product of the Fall! It is a sin!"
*Rubs his temples.*
When Adam talks about a "mother and a father," what do you think that he and Eve are going to adopt children?
*Sighs.*
Now, onto your next bit.
[i]Genesis 3:16To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."[/b]
Oh, and as for why the Christian sexual ethic is good: In a world where the Christian sexual ethic was practiced perfectly, there would be no STDs, no unwanted pregnancies, and fewer deaths from HIV/AIDS.
I'd like to see a single study showing that promiscuity had some kind of health benefit.
(It reminds me of those experiments done with kids and some kind of candy or treat--the kid is told that he can have a treat immediately upon being seated in the room, and he is told that he can wait and have two treats. Guess who turns out better, in the long run? The kids who wait.
Hmm...the ability to delay gratification might have some kind of analogue here...a sexy analogue...but it's just not coming to me.)
Anyway, stop talking out of your ass because it's really annoying.
""""""Function: Executing program talkcolloquial.exe...
Function: Program talkcolloquial.exe executed. Initiating.
Leon, I'm going to be as kind as possible and say the following:
You're being a retard.
The belief that the "Original Sin" is sexual immorality is not supported biblically in the least, and anyone who believes that is an idiot.
Hmm. "United as one flesh" doesn't mean playing Twister and eating shish-kebobs, now does it? No, in fact, it means sex."""""""
your not paying attention. i didnt claim that is DOES mean sex. i merely claimed that the MAJORITY of christians who DO believe it to mean sex, DO have a large amount of evidence to support that claim. they also have a VALID interpretation, at least as valid as yours. im in no way, in favour of any ideology preaching against sex as a whole, and i think yours is a better point of VIEW as opposed to those who believe sex was the original sin. im not supporting them, im merely saying that christianity/bible have a lot of contradictory things, you take some to heart and interpret it one way, but the MAJORITY interprets it another and they have sound biblical evidence to back them up TOO.
"""""But hold on a sec, let's pretend that you might be right. I'm glancing over Genesis 3 right now...no mention of sex; there's something about eating a piece of fruit and blame-passing, and there's something about a snake...but no sex. In fact, Adam doesn't have sex with Eve until Genesis 4.
"Aha!" you cry, thinking that you've caught me. "Adam didn't have sex with Eve prior to the Fall; therefore, sex is a product of the Fall! It is a sin!"
*Rubs his temples.*
When Adam talks about a "mother and a father," what do you think that he and Eve are going to adopt children?""""""""
errrm, okkkkk. so adam eating the fruit had nothing to do with LUST????
now, before we mindlessly set onto the lust vs coitus debate. tell me, why did the snake use EVE to entice adam to eat the fruit?????? answer: it was SEXUAL lust/desire which enticed adam to eath the fruit in the garden of eden and fall. this supports that celibate/pain of birth being a curse/retribution point of view.
"""""""""""""""*Sighs.*
Now, onto your next bit.
Huh. There's nothing in there about giving birth to children being a curse...except the part about the PAIN in childbirth being increased. That's not making childbirth a curse.""""""""""""""""""""""'
i WAS referring to the pain, havent you been reading? WHY is the pain ob chidbirth a curse/retribution? its wrong to put women through that since they have done nothing to deserve it. you have to admit, theres sumthing seriously wrong with this.
"""""""""""""Oh, and as for why the Christian sexual ethic is good: In a world where the Christian sexual ethic was practiced perfectly, there would be no STDs, no unwanted pregnancies, and fewer deaths from HIV/AIDS."""""""""""""""""""""'
over 70% of aids transmitted in africa is inside wedlock. please do not let catholic propaganda cloud your eyes. this was from studies done by the world health organisation with backing from the u.n. and compleyte involvement. it is also their official standing on the issue. the catholic church's firm stance on birth control{the reason why most donated birth control products are burnt in african countries } is one of the leading reasons why std's are spreading like wildfire in africa. go to africa and ask a normal person why theuyr wudnt use birth control to protect themselves from aids.
the answer, the catholic church has made it popular in the continent that latex condoms have small HOLES in them not seen by the naked eye. through these the aids virus can easily pass and hence even the best quality latex condoms give NO protection{but DO incur the wrath of god for their usage} against stds. the world health organisation took this claim to the test. verdict: latex has no such hole and the molecular structure does NOT let any aids/stds virus's or pathogens pass through. yet most africans{even educated} continue to believe it.
""""""""""I'd like to see a single study showing that promiscuity had some kind of health benefit."""""""""""""""
there are more than one. there are many case studies. and perhaps your not aware of the rather large psychodynamin school of psychologie's position and theories about child sexuality/internal conflicts/i.d/ phobias etc that arise from supression of sexual urges.
the SUPRESSION of urges {which more often than not can be sated by promiscuity for a single/young person} can lead to many severely negetive affects on the psyche, even if they dont lead to full out pathological disorders.
"""""""""""(It reminds me of those experiments done with kids and some kind of candy or treat--the kid is told that he can have a treat immediately upon being seated in the room, and he is told that he can wait and have two treats. Guess who turns out better, in the long run? The kids who wait.
Hmm...the ability to delay gratification might have some kind of analogue here...a sexy analogue...but it's just not coming to me.)"""""""""
one example? and your referring to candies here. not an instinct. furthermore, im sure the authors of any respectable psychological study would NEVER label the outcome of gratifying vs non gratofying as one turning out to be BETTER than the other. its a reductionist experiment with a sever lack of ecological validity. making wild generalisations is the FIRST thing you should be wary of in psychology{or so all the lecturers ive had have told me+all books ive read warn about}
and while were being cautious here, this isnt simply a problem of premature ejaculation where delayed gratification has advantages. its the game of self blame/repression/twisting a natural positive instinct for the greater part of the formulative years of puberty.
"""""Anyway, stop talking out of your ass because it's really annoying. """""""
lol, are you perhaps frustrated by the fact that you couldnt answer in a few phrases with your traditional style of detachment and self elation based in mockery???
im not talking out of my ass. you refuse to see any truth in the matters you are stubborn about. and you have ignored a lot of the other points i made.
Leon you are quite frankly being ridiculous.
The idea of "promiscuity is good" doesn't make sense any way you frame it because humans are unique. Their reasons and motives for sex with many partners vary wildly. I have known a girl who I cared about. She used sex to get at the drugs she was addicted to and to fill a void in her self-esteem. The sex was proof she was good-looking and that guys liked her.
Is this "good" in your view?
As with parenting, too much restraint and too much allowance can vary from any two kids just like reasoning for promiscuous sex can vary from any two people. Because the human mind is a very complex thing we still don't fully understand, and the soul is something we will never fully understand, there is no formula for X amount of allowance and X amount of discipline will produce a good result.
Holding out on sex could be negative; it defies basic human instinct. But overly indulging in sex is pointless Hedonist, equivalent to eating long passed your fill of food. It serves no rational purpose other than to satisfy your own longings which would generally induce more selfish behavior.
Also
sex being the original sin, as a plausible theory, to him, who does not believe this version of events. unlike the greater christian community worldwide.
Are you actively saying most Christians believe Original Sin is sex?
As far as I'm aware, Catholicism has been the dominating sect of Christianity for centuries now and the Holy Church's defines Original Sin as
"397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm#III
Some might indeed minconstrude original sin to relate to sexual intercourse insofar that everyone is supposedly born with sin. Thus the idea they are born with sin is a direct result of their parents having sex. But this is not the case as stated by the one true Church (for the majority of Christians you claim to be speaking about) and it's not supported under any Scripture I've read.
shin, what im saying refers to ONE variable and one variable alone. if you bring in novel situation where the variable in question has the opposite effect it generally does then that isnt a valid argument. im not saying sex as way of validating personal complexes is good any more than im saying psychological counsel is the way out for EACH AND EVERY mentally suffering person. but due to that alone, would you forsake the greater part of the mentally out of therapy knowing that unless sum unseen variables interfer{very unlikely} theyd be better off with the therapy than without it???? same goes for the other arguments.
as for the original sin, id beg to differ, WHAT was the motivation behind original sin? WHAT made the original sin possible? both things go to eve. she was seduced by the snake but that didnt mean she wasnt a willing participant. the RESULT was going against god. similar to the way killing another human is wrong in relegion. now that is because god supposedly made a LAW against it, and that is surpassed when man kills another man without reason. but do you think that the ACT of killing isnt a sin in itself reguardless of the fact that god didnt alow it? {ofcourse it gets more confusing as the allowance of the act by god and the percieved nature of the act as seein as almost synoymous by most christians who do not believe in the discrepancies between god's law and the world} . the thing about women's birth pains being a punishment for it is evidence enough of such a philosophy's existance which blames the women for the transgression and shudnt be denied. nor can one deny the treatment and outlook christianity has had{and continues to have} on the position of women in history.
shin, what im saying refers to ONE variable and one variable alone. if you bring in novel situation where the variable in question has the opposite effect it generally does then that isnt a valid argument. im not saying sex as way of validating personal complexes is good any more than im saying psychological counsel is the way out for EACH AND EVERY mentally suffering person. but due to that alone, would you forsake the greater part of the mentally out of therapy knowing that unless sum unseen variables interfer{very unlikely} theyd be better off with the therapy than without it???? same goes for the other arguments.
Except I've seen nor read anything to suggest sexual promiscuity is a good thing.
It depends on the person. EVERY person is a variable. So making a generalization is pretty dumb.
the thing about women's birth pains being a punishment for it is evidence enough of such a philosophy's existance which blames the women for the transgression and shudnt be denied. nor can one deny the treatment and outlook christianity has had{and continues to have} on the position of women in history.
No one will deny the masculine tilt in the Church through history.
But I know many women who are faithful Catholics and are just fine with the way it is. They don't feel demeaned or lessened. So I'm fine with it too.
Originally posted by Shin_Nikkolas
Except I've seen nor read anything to suggest sexual promiscuity is a good thing.It depends on the person. EVERY person is a variable. So making a generalization is pretty dumb.
No one will deny the masculine tilt in the Church through history.
But I know many women who are faithful Catholics and are just fine with the way it is. They don't feel demeaned or lessened. So I'm fine with it too.
never read anything? well you havent read a lot of psychological literature then have you. or medical literature for that part. the rather significant{understatement} psychodynamic school of thought has some very important theories and valid studies on the subject. i mean you cant MISS IT if you study psychology.
and for the second part, untrue. in this phenomenon the SURROUNDINGS of a person are the variable. in all healthy surroundings a period of promiscuity is generally good and practical. sex is most DEFINATELY good. and supression is most DEFINATELY bad. this also holds true for most bad surroundings, but a few novel ones can affect you in ways where the things ATTACHED to promiscuity or teen sex are negetive. reguardless, dont blame THOSE TWO FOR IT, blame the negetive variables attached.
never read anything? well you havent read a lot of psychological literature then have you.
Oh no. Are you gonna go Freudian on me and tell me my reppressed sexual desires are the absolute fault for everything in my life?
Clarify what you mean by psych literature. There are MANY schools of thought in the field of the mind. Jungian? Neuro? I never was much for the brain psych. The idea love, faith, etc.. all come from chemicals in teh brain and nothing more is just so lame.
or medical literature for that part. the rather significant{understatement} psychodynamic school of thought has some very important theories and valid studies on the subject. i mean you cant MISS IT if you study psychology.
Present me one source of these "valid studies" promoting sexual promiscuity as a good thing.
Sounds like waffle to me.
and for the second part, untrue. in this phenomenon the SURROUNDINGS of a person are the variable.
While I do tend to believe in Nature over Nurture, ithat is a faulty. A person is the variable because the person's inherent nature can make them as much as their surroundings. People with near perfect lives can feel worse than people in squalor because the former has several imbalances in their body and so no matter what their surroundings, they won't feel any better.
in all healthy surroundings a period of promiscuity is generally good and practical. sex is most DEFINATELY good. and supression is most DEFINATELY bad.
Again, a person's own body and mind is more a factor than their environment.
This is pure Hedonism. Sexual pleasure for its own reward is empty. It offers nothing to the body or mind. In fact, it is SHALLOW people who engage in such activity. The purpose of sex is to procreate and if not for that then it's for a deeper connection between two people.
Also repressing any desire, NOT a need, is bad how? To IGNORE sexual desire is bad. To keep a leash on it is beneficial as it's beneficial to understand, but not over-indulge, in any desire.
and the amount of women your talking about in genuinity are a minority. most who claim as such are brainwashed. and greater still and the supressed guilty majority.
Believe me pal, women don't care what you think.
And come to think of it, neither do I.
i pity your deluded existance. not just acceptance but encouraging acceptance of an ideology that suppresses your instincts andsexuality. i also pity your adherance to a life of servitude and unhappiness+ brainwashing of a god who does not exist and of a prophet who was a warring pedophile. and i truly feal sorry for your adult life when your muslim/pakistani husband will make you and your kids unhappy and craved.
I don't care if my God doexn't exist. If my religion and faith is false. As long as I'm not turned into the bitter, despicable ball of ignorance and hate you are, I'm happy.
And I thank my faith for not turning me into something as retched as you.
Promiscuity is unhealthy according to everything I've ever seen in medical or psychological literature. Aside from STIs there is an increased chance of cervical cancer for women, promiscuous men apparently have an increased chance of giving sexual partners cervical cancer [1], [2]. Also, I've never met or counseled a sexual addict who abstained from actual sex...
[1] Castellsague, X.; Ghaffari, A.; Daniel, R. W.; Bosch, F. X.; Munoz, N.; Shah, K. V. Prevalence of penile human papillomarivus DNA in husbands of women with and without cervical neoplasia: A study in Spain and Colombia. Journal of Infectious Diseases 176 (2) : 353-361 1997
[2] Agarwal, Shyman S.; Sehgal, Ashok; Sardana, Sarita; Kumar, Anil; Luthra, Usha K. Role of male behavior in cervical carcinogenesis among women with one lifetime sexual partner. Cancer (Philadelphia) 72 (5) : 1666-1669 1993
Here's a quote from the abstract for Infidelity Treatment Patterns: A Practice-based Evidence Approach from the American Journal of Family Therapy; Jul2007, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p327-341, 15p.
" Infidelity is a common presenting problem in couples therapy and can be challenging for therapists to treat."
Or you could look at Recovering from an Extramarital Relationship from a Non-Systemic Approach.. American Journal of Psychotherapy; 2007, Vol. 61 Issue 2, p181-190, 10p.
Apparently health and psychological literature show disadvantages to promiscuity. And I found that with minimal effort. Not once did I see one supporting it.
Oh no. Are you gonna go Freudian on me and tell me my reppressed sexual desires are the absolute fault for everything in my life?Clarify what you mean by psych literature. There are MANY schools of thought in the field of the mind. Jungian? Neuro? I never was much for the brain psych. The idea love, faith, etc.. all come from chemicals in teh brain and nothing more is just so lame.
already did. psychodynamic school of thought. its one of the major ones,like humanism, behaviourism, cognitive, sociol etc. and jungian comes under psychodynamics. and when did i say that theres nuthing more to love than biochemicals{although they play a huge part} or infact when did FREUD ever say it{or his followers}, he was expressedly against it.
Present me one source of these "valid studies" promoting sexual promiscuity as a good thing.Sounds like waffle to me.
well keep believing that then. i never said it was an expressedly good thing in itself. i just said that there was nuthing BAD about it as the bible professes{which is most definately illogical and disproven}. if a person is confined to only sex inside marriage and not the ability to have sex before, or with people without having emotional attachements, and ends up supressing sexual urges or frustration due to it{which a lot of people do in this world practically} than it is BAD. and the bible promotes that my friend.
While I do tend to believe in Nature over Nurture, ithat is a faulty. A person is the variable because the person's inherent nature can make them as much as their surroundings. People with near perfect lives can feel worse than people in squalor because the former has several imbalances in their body and so no matter what their surroundings, they won't feel any better.
theirein lies the problem. a person is a template, with certain tendencies of exploitation given enough stimulus in that direction from outside. there is no such thing as person's INHERENT NATURE which is so unique in itself to warrant such conclusion. man's nature{as u describe it} is a result of socialisation and the enviornment around them for the greater part. and imbalances in the body predominantly result from stimulii from outside the body.
Again, a person's own body and mind is more a factor than their environment.
completely and utterly untrue. if that were the case you wudnt see child soldiers fighting in africa or mas genocide in africa/bosnia/south america etc. people are not born good or evil, they are made by their enviornment for the greater part.
This is pure Hedonism. Sexual pleasure for its own reward is empty. It offers nothing to the body or mind. In fact, it is SHALLOW people who engage in such activity. The purpose of sex is to procreate and if not for that then it's for a deeper connection between two people.
utter bull. ur simply quoting the bible which is empty in such claims. your judgement means nuthing to people with broader minds. sexual pleasure in its own is PLEASURE, which harms no1 and is good for both sexes psychologically and biochemically. it helps motivate and satisfy you. and it releases biochemicals which help in being happy and having a positive outlook on life. nuthing shallow about it. the purpose of sex is so much more than procreation, otherwise such a thing as an orgasm wudnt exist! its a very backward take on sex im afraid to say.
Also repressing any desire, NOT a need, is bad how? To IGNORE sexual desire is bad. To keep a leash on it is beneficial as it's beneficial to understand, but not over-indulge, in any desire.
untrue, medically, sex is officially good for you. and it is encouraged as much as possible unless it becomes unnaturally obsessive and the body can not keep up with it and stops becoming pleasureable{nymphomania etc } and that liek when u do it even when u dont desire it and over 8 times a day consistanly.
Believe me pal, women don't care what you think.And come to think of it, neither do I.
ur right, brainwashed ones dont. as for the second part, im glad.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=9341709&highlight=Islam+userid%3A46345#post9341709"I don't care if my God doexn't exist. If my religion and faith is false. As long as I'm not turned into the bitter, despicable ball of ignorance and hate you are, I'm happy.
silly rabbit. that wasnt directed towards you. it was directed towards a girl who glorified arranged marriages, death by stoning for adultery/fornication, thought masturbation was terrible and followed the rather repressive faith of islm where women hardly have rights. think before you speak because it certainly wasnt me who looked ignorant there.
And I thank my faith for not turning me into something as retched as you.
baaah, whatever makes you happy.