Why are so many christians so concerned with sexual matters?

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 61 discussions (2261 posts)
  1. profile image0
    jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years ago

    Sexuality seems to be very high on the list of "sins" with many christians.   Why is this, when there are so many cruel and anti-social practices reported in news media across the world?   Such practices have very real and destructive effects upon the lives of so many people....yet they are ignored, by and large.

    1. Oztinato profile image78
      Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think we can safely sat that both atheists and theists have these types of sins very high on their agenda. Both camps reserve severe censure for even the smallest indiscretions as can be seen in the tabloids.
      Atheists might want to believe they are more liberated but if we study the newspapers/societies constant obsession with this topic it is easy to see
      the "sin" aspect is still present in their analysis.

      1. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        The newspapers and other media are full of reports about crimes, e.g., embezzlement, corruption, theft, murder, genocide, pillaging of natural forests, forcing communities out of their homelands for economic gain..... all these are very real crimes that cause hurt and suffering to so many people.   

        Yet the christian "lobby" is almost silent about it.   As though none of these things come anywhere near to the level of "sin" that sexuality does.

        Please don't sidestep the question by bringing in the old football game of theist v. atheist.   Why do you regard sexual sin as warranting more attention than any other sin?

        1. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Dear JohnnyCumlately,
          The newspapers might be full of all that "other stuff" but the question in this hub is about why sex is regarded as sinful by Christians/religious people. All I have done is point out the Fact that both sides of the fence regard sex as sinful on some weird psychological level.
          I know the JWs are always talking about all the other stuff (I am not overly fond of JWs) and in my experience the Hindus are also concerned about ethics in general. Most churches I've been to don't focus on sex.
          As far as mainstream Christians "in the media" go I know they focus (many not all) on an anti gay agenda but this is more about their concept of marriage and tradition. Certainly in the distant past there was a fixation on sex by puritans and inquisitions say in the Middle Ages.
          I agree that Christians and many religious types (not all) have hang ups about sex; but I repeat in all sincerity that this seems to be a general feature of humanity.
          May I recommend two short books? (summary on wiki): Sigmund Freud's "Totem and Taboo' and "Moses and Monotheism"  where he goes into some of this. This is a psychological insight into all people's general hang ups about sex and the very real "Oedipus complex".
          Certainly early and late religions all had to deal with sexual issues. Prior to modern medicine in say the darkest Middle Ages example of Christian evolution the practice of sex was fraught with horrible diseases that could not be cured. Hence it seemed that both nature and/or God were not happy about sex.
          My personal view is that sex is a test no one completely passes; but it depends on how we fail that matters to the God . Its like a metal fatigue test! Certainly sex is one of the most difficult tests for people to deal with. My personal focus on personal inner tests is more concerned with ego and controlling pride/ego. Personally I think the focus on sex that both sides of the equation share (atheist/theist) is more about the Freudian tale of the inner primordial ape trying to get the better of the the others. Or in scientific parlance, trying to get their genes ahead of the pack.
          However JCLately I have to reinforce that the two sides of the coin have an identical equal focus on this concept of sexual "sin" regardless of football.

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Ok, thank you for that explanation.... very helpful.

          2. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Oztinato, you are vulgar.   I take great exception to you mis-spelling my name in that way. 

            Give me an apology and I will let it rest here.  Otherwise, I will not let it rest.

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              If he doesn't apologize, I will report him. That IS crude and vulgar. I have never reported anyone except for spam. This is crossing the line.

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Really Guys??? Success in offense comes simply by 2 letters? Report??? (Hi Janesix smile I remember you, we are becoming one...) I just KNOW...jonny... is not gonna fall for that one. I did notice a mis-spelling of oztinato by jonny not long ago...should he be reported? No... we are all adults. Vulgarity is the M.O. of most of us on some level. wink'We all give/take it.
                And as a further note... If I asked for apology from jonny----lately for each and every "offense" toward me, he'd STILL be apologizing...and...still. smile

            2. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              See, this proves my point!
              On a discussion about the alleged prudery of Christians we have extreme prudery being shown by atheists to a very mild sexual innuendo. Hypocrisy of the first order.
              Game set and match.

    2. fpherj48 profile image59
      fpherj48posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      jonny....Oh...hmmmm, let's see...how shall I put this?  They're nosy?  Peeping toms?  sensationalists?  VOYEURS?  Pick one or two.  Maybe they are the same group of individuals who make up the greatest number of smut magazine/celebrity gossip subscribers?......Wait....could be they're all elite members of the Sex Police Task Force.
      Whatever THEIR answer might be for their interest in "sex" (in general or specifically)....I'm honestly not concerned, but I would like to suggest to these busy body hypocrites:  Relax, back off, MYOB, first get a life, 2nd a useful hobby, stay out of my bedroom, I stay out of yours,  and thank you very much, but no thank you, I will make my own sexual choices, decisions and activities.....within the guidelines of morality and the law.
      Do we have a deal?  Good.
      Peace & Love to you, Ms & Mr. Christian (with a capital "C")

      1. Oztinato profile image78
        Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        fpher
        do you have the same venom for internationally acclaimed atheist Professor of Ethics and leading atheist academic Peter Singer in his promotion of "Zoophilia"? Have a look at his "Zoophilia"  on Wiki on this good friend and cohort of Mr Dawkins.
        Do you swing that way as a modern atheist?

        1. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          If you consider the label "Atheist" as applying to a group calling themselves that, fair enough.... I presume there is such a group, masquerading as some sort of new "religion."

          I am not a "member" of any such group, but I am atheist (adjective) in my thinking.  I would not align myself with anything that an ethicist claims to be the correct way of thinking.  Who are they to claim a monopoly on ethics?   

          As far as bestiality is concerned, have you ever heard of a horse giving written consent to such abuse upon itself?

          Neigh!

        2. fpherj48 profile image59
          fpherj48posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Oztinato.....You "presume" FAR too much, which of course, is always a huge mistake.  #!. I am not an atheist, nor did I allude to such in any way. #2 Never heard of Singer, nor am I interested in his "Zoophilia." Thank you anyway. Simply, 90% of Christians are a group of judgmental, ignorant hypocrites..MY Opinion.  Focus on your OWN comments.  #3 I am not your "good friend" nor would I wish to be. I do not appreciate unsolicited critiques of my constitutional rights. What shall the rest of us assume by your OBSESSION with Zoophilia?  Never mind, I'm not interested in what you think.

          1. Oztinato profile image78
            Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for not answering my question.
            You have proved my point to all objective observers. Most online atheists are willing to criticize but not to be criticized or to answer logical questions.

    3. kess profile image61
      kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Isn't sexuality highest of list of human interest.
      Plus homosexuality is highest on the list of abominations.
      I am surprise that you seem surprised?

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
        EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Really? More than rape and murder? Wow, you Christians really have your moral priorities straight. lol

        1. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          encehpalio
          lets not forget about you either: what are your views on the current atheist fashion for "Zoophilia" as proposed by "Professor of Ethics" Peter Singer?
          No condemnation there I bet.
          Do you swing it that way too?

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
            EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You once again bring up Singer, for what reason? What does he have to do with this discussion?

            1. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I am bringing it up so anyone with some intelligence can realize there might be very good reason for some groups of Christians to be concerned about the new atheist sexual fashions that can potentially create new diseases and nightmarish scenarios.
              If you actually stop and think about it instead of rushing to criticize Christians all the time you might learn something.
              In a nut shell: do you have any venom for the SInger/Dawkins populist style style bestiality? No of course you don't you only criticize Christians and religions.

              1. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                "Atheist types..."    You are being very (trying to think of one word that might describe you, obstinato) obtuse maybe?   Apparently you have a group calling themselves the Atheists..... but I don't claim to fit into any such category.   

                Just because I do not accept the existence of a judgmental god, that does not mean I necessarily approve of any sexual activity which does not involve the full and free agreement of both parties.

                Any person who uses another person or animal for his/her own gratification, without the approval of that other person/animal, is guilty of a gross assault.   Obviously no animal is able to give consent to an assault upon it's body.... therefore I feel that no reasonable person should engage in such a thing.

                As far as humans are concerned, any person who, for whatever reason, cannot defend him/herself from assault, and/or cannot reasonably be expected to give his/her consent to a sexual act, must be protected and defended by the community at large.  Where a law has been broken it of course must be dealt with in a court of law.  I am thinking of women or men who are of a weaker disposition; a child; a person who is disabled physically or mentally or intellectually; a person who cannot be addressed in their own language.   

                Are you suggesting that one needs to be "a christian" in order to have and live up to such moral standards?  Are you suggesting that "a christian" would never be guilty of immorality in such matters.

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I believe true ethical atheism has its place: however this kind of Real atheism would be actively opposing beastialtiy and open slather infanticide. As current atheist trends are not opposing these unethical and dangerous practices I am quite correct in pointing out this failing.

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    One does not need to be of a theist or atheist persuation to be against such practices.

                    You seem to be "muddying the waters" with irrelevant nonsense in order to direct attention away from the subject of this Discussion.  Are you?

                  2. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    See??? When you believe in my God; NO atheism has it's place anywhere. That is called a NO in the Kingdom of God. We gotta believe that he at least IS before we may ever hope to receive anything from him.

                  3. wilderness profile image77
                    wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    "Open slather infanticide".  This is a bit of jargon I've not seen before; can you describe what it is supposed to mean? 

                    Because I've never heard anyone promoting infanticide, let alone something has horrible sounding as "open slather" infanticide.

      2. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks, Kess.  I am not surprised, just trying to highlight the irrational exaggeration in the minds of some people.

        1. kess profile image61
          kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Come on johnny why such harsh judgement?
          Maybe that is why it will remain there....

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, that harsh judgment.....determining the at because something is thoroughly enjoyable "God" will not like it.   You can tax it.  You can ban it.  You can use it to exploit people.  You can secretly engage in it.   Yet never acknowledge it as healthy and able to be spoken about in respectable company.

            Yes, sexual relationships are some of the most powerful connections we make with other individuals, fraught with difficulties in conveying our true feelings, our honest selves.   Thus such relationships have the makings of deep divide as well as higher unions.   Do those who regard sexual sin as one of the greatest "abominations" ever look into the reasons for their understanding?

            I share the skepticism of EncephaloiDead

            1. kess profile image61
              kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              By aligning with mr dead it becomes understandable why you would initiate this rant.

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Johnny is just showing he has morals and ethics that have reasonable and logical priorities, something amiss in your posts.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Hi Em!!! smile
                  Morals and ethics vary from person to person. What rings ethically in my ear today; could very well sound differently tomorrow. We evolve in thought. We change. We get angry and or ecstatically enthusiastic and changes in thought occur.
                  Shades of gray need a moderator. smile
                  Who moderates for you? What solid standard sets you so far in advance of the moralities of Kess? I jist gotta know if you don't mind...

        2. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          JCLately
          and last but not least JCL: let us hear your views about Peter Singer's atheist philosophy on "Zoophilia"?
          Do you swing it that way as a new atheist type?

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            There is  no logical or rational connection between the two.... how could you make such an error?

            There are many heterosexual males who regularly get involved in grossly disgusting pornographic activity.   Do you presume ALL heterosexual men are thus inclined?    Stereotyping any group is inappropriate.   Maybe my opening statement in this thread is similarly in error.

      3. Oztinato profile image78
        Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Kess
        and what of your thoughts about leading atheist professor of ethics Peter Singer and his atheist promotion of "Zoophilia"?
        No criticsim there? Do you swing it that way?

        1. kess profile image61
          kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          That kind of lifestyle goes with the thinking of this age.
          I just did not realize that it was so open and out there.
          Where I live, he would be facing a prison sentence.

          1. Oztinato profile image78
            Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Well stop and think about it before you go and criticize Christians views of sex.

    4. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi All!!! smile
      I like Kess and Mo's responses.
      Sex is not the christian problem. Not only are we constantly bombarded by t-n-a; we are under obligation to agree with God on the matter. In christian cases, the bible is what God says.
      As for sexuality; the abomination part is the clincher. And alternative sexuality is OUT OF THE CLOSET (as never before.) smile I remember how gay was a word that people did not say when I was a kid. Elton John and Liberace were the ONLY two in the 70's! wink that's why all the fuss these days. That closet flew open and out poured a multitude!!! Lol...
      I, as one of "them" (christians) today, am not bothered by any of it. I got my own sexual junk to continue in prayer about. To turn my nose up in the direction of the gay man is in another sense, abominable. We got NO rights to direct the paths of others. Or oust/mistreat.
      It is better that a millstone be tied about one's neck and he be cast into the sea; than for him to offend the very least of God's own. (Bible script paraphrase) homosexuality is not any more death sentence than my stuff. Or their stuff... we just gotta have the mind of Christ about it. Humble, meek, not puffed up, remorse, ability for self scrutiny, and determination for truth are all good places to start.

      1. Oztinato profile image78
        Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Hi Cgenea,
        do you think there is any hope for "us"? wink

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Hi Oztinato. smile Yes, our hope springs eternal. Without doubt, there is hope for us all. Fret not smile the battle is the Lord's.

          1. Oztinato profile image78
            Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I mean "you and me"........
            I am an older George Clooney look alike type ; artistic; musical.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Now see...just got all "bothered" lol!!! George is a little too sexy for this conversation. wink
              Was that a flirt??? Hmmm... im a younger "type" 41 y/o artistically inclined car/shower singer... smile we've got a lot in common. But hope? I doubt it. Internet love strikes me the wrong way. Plus im kinda taken.

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Genaea, you never know!  I met my husband online.  We're working on six years married now.  wink

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Nice smile
                  In the America of skyrocketing divorce rates, it seems that you have cake that you get to eat too. I'm glad for your success in that area (a lil jealous too, lol). Congratulations on making IT work. I shall have my day.

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Never doubt it.  smile We often joke that the only way either of us is leaving this marriage is in a pine box.  We're both committed.  And I knew the instant I met him that he was the one who'd been made for me.  I believe you'll know too.

              2. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I resemble that!!!
                Some people tell me I look like Clooney, yet never too sexy to talk to anyone. I want everyone to enjoy the sex energy to the max without quilt or regret or feel they will go to hell for it. Maybe hell will have hotter sex..

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You are somewhat visually Clooneyesque. smile but hell, from what I hear aint fun (though hot).
                  Sex is to be enjoyed by Mo and her man ONLY smile We got rules...they are not there to take the "freaky-sneaky fun" from your life. But in place to protect your member and keep you from all kinds of ugly leakages. God knew what casual sex could do. Bastard babies who grow up fatherless; chlamydia; and using/hurting vulnerable women and children (damaging them for life) all for 3squirts of the hot sticky drip. Those 3 seconds of Heaven are rarely worth the damage done to self and others. Screw given consents. It just aint good for you to lay the pipe everywhere your feet trod. As hot and as lovely as sex can become, it is best done with your one wife.
                  Homosexuality has its dangers as well. It cannot be a good thing when someone can fit two fists... anal fissures... AIDS... toxic wastes and blood in bed with you... no way to shut off the sphincter...
                  Safety first. smile we can always find ways to have fun without incorporating dangers. Uh...wanna play grocery store??? smile

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Sorry, Cgenaea, but those things you mention are not characteristic of all (or necessarily many) homosexual people.  HIV/AIDS is a disease.  It can be experienced by hetero- and homosexual people alike.  In Africa it is principally a disease of heterosexual people.  Just like syphilis and gonorrhea, herpes, which occur regardless of orientation. 

                    Part of the reason for my original question in this Discussion was the previous hub exchange about homosexuality and the bible.  I am putting up the premise that sexuality per see is a stumbling block for many christians, disproportionately compared with other crimes and "sins."

              3. Oztinato profile image78
                Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Cgenea
                yes I was flirting to blow the minds on the atheist types here.
                Also I was trying to "read your mind" online.
                See we are not so different even though I take a more holistic approach to religion.
                I play a mean boogie piano for a white guy.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What's that supposed to mean? Would you suck for an asian? White people are people too.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Don't you realize the only thing white people can do is make money and war?

                    (I will have to put my /sarcasm disclaimer in here, before I get accused of being racist again.)

                2. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Mission accomplished. All minds were blown smile maybe one day we can all boogie together. I'd like that.

      2. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        For once I have no criticism of what you have written, Cgenaea.   big_smile

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          wink

    5. Chris Neal profile image76
      Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Because God has given us a list of things to be concerned with and many Christians are concerned with all these things, including sexuality, poverty, starvation and genocide.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Seems to me that according to the bible God gave the Jews a list of things he was concerned about for them, but Jesus is said to have not been so concerned. I've been told Christians are allowed to work on Sundays, but yet people pick certain practices that they don't like or understand and use the bible to attack them.

        Christians should be more like Christ rather than simply fans of Christ.

        1. Chris Neal profile image76
          Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Okay.

          Which practices that Christians don't like or understand but that Jesus was totally okay with should we choose to be more Christ-like about?

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Prostitution, homosexuality. Why can they work on Sunday, but still think homosexuality is a sin?

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Christ himself gave a specific answer to one of those questions. Hmmm. I wonder why he never said anything about homosexuality... oh!!! He told the woman, sin no more... I guess he knew that she knew what he meant for her. It MAY not be sin for some... though I dont know anyone who is totally unconvicted about it without first saying no to the inner promptings.

            2. Chris Neal profile image76
              Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Explain prostitution and sexuality to me. How was Jesus so laissez-faire about those? What did He do that I should emulate?

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Did he stone or tell others to stone prostitutes, homosexuals or those who work on Sundays?

                1. Chris Neal profile image76
                  Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Let's think about that. When the woman was caught in adultery, what did He actually say to her? And when the subject of marriage was brought up, what did He actually say about that?

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Last I checked there are no laws against adultery or working on Sundays in more nations that are predominately Christian, however there are against prostitution and homosexuality. We have people protesting the funerals of US soldiers with "GOD HATES FAGS" signs. While most Christians may think that adultery is a sin, few think working on Sunday is a sin. Christians do both equally anyway, but for some reason some think we need laws against prostitution and homosexuality.

                    What would be the purpose of any God making 10% of people attracted only to their own sex and then telling them not to do it. It would be like you or I being told to never act on our own sexuality, never get married or have a relationship or fall in love. I would call the cruel and unjust punishment.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Odd how Christians make a huge deal out of the first one and literally ignore the rest.

        Well, except for the genocide one, in which Christians have actually participated.

        1. Chris Neal profile image76
          Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          It is odd how you continue to say things so patently untrue with a straight face and actually believe them. Nevertheless, there you are.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "No event in recent history has challenged Christian reflection on Africa more than the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.Within a period of less than one hundred days, more than 800,000 Rwandans were killed by fellow Rwandans, as the rest of the world stood by and watched. The majority of the killings were carried out by ordinary Rwandans against their neighbors using machetes, sticks, and clubs with nails, making the Rwandan genocide one of the most inexplicable tragedies of our time. What makes the Rwandan genocide a particularly chilling and challenging event for Christian reflection, however, is thatRwanda has been, and perhaps remains, one of the most Christianized nations in Africa."

            http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/log/summar … ngole.html

            Once again, you seem to conveniently forget facts. smile

            1. Chris Neal profile image76
              Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I'm sorry, did you actually cherry-pick one fact, out of context, and use it as your entire basis for making a sweeping statement that would cover far more than you seem to be trying to prove?

              How very, very....you...of you.

              Come back when you're serious.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                No, I presented a fact in context, after you said to me...

                1. Chris Neal profile image76
                  Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Even if it was in context (and with you, sometimes it's hard to tell) the fact is you cherry-picked one factoid as the entire proof basis for a sweeping statement that covered far more than that.

                  So yeah, I stand by what I wrote.

                  No to mention that you grossly over-simplified a situation that is actually very well-documented in order to 'prove' your point...

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Again, I presented a fact in which you said I was saying untrue things, hence you were wrong, that is the bottom line.

            2. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Machetes and mass killings are not Christian tools. Christians may only do so much if hardness of heart and coldly waxed love is the motivation. Stop trying to inject those turnips. Lol...

            3. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I wasn't aware that Hutu and Tutsi were names of Christian sects.

              For some, I think it is true what Leland R. Beaumont said   “Blame is where we try to park our grief.” but sometimes it appears that the only purpose the blame game serves is to keep us from being positive influences for change.

              1. Chris Neal profile image76
                Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                That was pretty good.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                There is a great deal you have shown us that you're not aware. Par for the course.

                1. Chris Neal profile image76
                  Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You're kidding, right?

                  Are we back to accusation as proof?

                2. profile image0
                  Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Since they are not Christian sects, you appear to be the one willfully floundering around in the dark.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Shhhhhh...possible fragile ego...

    6. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      we need a "for instance…" !
      I have no idea what you are talking about either!

    7. profile image0
      SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      1Co 6:18  Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

      Other sins are not ignored.  The sin of fornication is not only against God but also against the person's own body.

      I also must point out that most threads about sex and the Bible are not started by believers but non-believer whether they are atheists or some other belief system.

      1. wilderness profile image77
        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Don't be ridiculous; sex between unmarried but consenting adults is not a sin against your body.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Well now we have the "authority" on the matter??? Thanks.
          Someone probably ALMOST stopped fornicating for a few minutes. smile lol...
          America! We have Wilderness' blessing. Let the good times roll!!!

          Unless you have faith in God...

          1. wilderness profile image77
            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You do have Wilderness' blessing to fornicate in private, given that both wish it so.  Whether your old book says to or not, you have my blessing.

            And judging from the frequency with which it happens, I'd have to say that the large majority will accept my blessing rather than the Christians condemnation as something real and true. smile

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              You are correct. Itching ears and hot bodies will follow you anywhere!!! wink

              1. wilderness profile image77
                wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                You're right - people will always follow sex - God made sure of that when He installed a sex drive that overrides mental capabilities in most people.  Just look at advertisements everywhere to see that! big_smile

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  NOTHING overrides GODLY mental capabilities wink I can do ALL things through Christ who gives me strength.
                  Now, Wilderness mental capabilities are very well represented by the sand in the hourglass... time's a wasting... wink

                  1. wilderness profile image77
                    wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    You are apparently wrong.  God's creation, man's wants and emotions, overrides God's orders most of the time.  It's called "sin" and all men sin; man's wants overriding God's orders, whether Christ is giving strength or not. 

                    Or are you sinless?

          2. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "America! We have Wilderness' blessing. Let the good times roll!!!

            Unless you have faith in God..."

            That is paraphrase for your Grandad  walking in to the bedroom just at the wrong moment!  Bah!  Just when things were getting hot and good!

      2. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        " The sin of fornication is not only against God but also against the person's own body. "

        If there was force, brutality, disregard for the "other" person, sure it would be against one's own body and the other.

        However, a bit of hanky-panky between to friends can be some of the best tonic pick-me-ups in the world.  Does your bogus god object to such enjoyment?

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Depends...is that friend your one and only wife???

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting. You think God wants us to go against our natural inclinations?

            It's possible He does. Maybe he wishes us to be sexually responsible (by not having sex outside of marriage). However, there is plenty of sex in even marriage that is not used for procreating. Does God want us to enjoy sex (why make it enjoyable when not used for procreation in the first place, etc.)?

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Aw come on! smile
              Our natural inclinations are against God. Right??? He said "don"t touch it." To the first people, according to the legend. And all they needed was one little suggestion. And they touched all over it. Lol... they passed the disobedience down.
              (Why make it so tasty looking God??????) Really???
              We must bring our thoughts under subjection. Otherwise, we'll get pedophiles who ask God why make those little legs so cute? Or the thief, why did he make me so poor. Or the embezzler, why Did God give me access to all those books with real money on them??? We are responsible for our own indulgences. We dont wanna believe that, but it's true. We must know how restraint works. We need to use it.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Why must we know? I know why, but I'm wondering what you are thinking.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  The way I see it, the bible says that we are to be disciplined. We are to die daily. Contain self so that the spirit of God is most evident. Give over the carnal nature for abundant life and optimal existence on Earth. It is of GREAT struggle. So if we say yes, we receive the extra help needed. It becomes easy and successful. wink

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    That's ridiculous. We are forced into choosing to go against our own natures, so we can be disciplined? That sounds a bit sadistic to me. There must be something you're missing, girl. wink

                    It's like forcing someone with a high libido to live in a house filled with willing starlets, yet telling him to look the other way, and don't touch the goods (or else!). That seems pretty mean to me. There has to be some other explanation.

          2. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Nope, never had one.

        2. wilderness profile image77
          wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Males are instructed not to play with a female spouse.  Are there any other restrictions from God?  Not the Catholic church, but God?

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Completely as an aside, but the Catholic Church places no restrictions on a married couple on sex for purposes other than procreation.  Sex is considered a bonding ritual as well as a procreative one.  In case anyone cares. wink

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              According to what scripture is non-procreative sex in marriage a bonding ritual?

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I don't know if the teaching references a specific scripture, tbh.  The concept is that two people when they marry become one flesh, and there is no more intimate action between two people than sex.  So the sexual act brings two people to greater intimacy. smile

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  So it's just something they made up as an excuse to have non-procreative sex.

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Uh. Sure.  Kinda like the concept of sex only for procreation was made up? Not been a huge concern for me so not something I ever really looked into in depth.

        3. profile image0
          SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          The OP asked why Christians are so hung up on the sin of sexuality.  I answered according to what Christians believe and follow, along with a bit of commentary. 

          You can hanky panky with whomever you wish to.  Doesn't make it right nor does it make it good. .

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            It certainly can be good, very good!  Anyway, who's judging... not you of course.

        4. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I've heard of doggie style, but with a real dog???

    8. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I have not kept up with this thread, so not sure of all the posts though I read some.  I agree with you there are some very horrible practices reported in the news and media and are truly are destructive to others.  I think all sin is sin, and that we all have committed sins or broken God's laws.  Do you take the fact that some people aren't weighing in or talking about the other stuff to mean they don't care as much?  For instance, I thought back to my last few months at my job, and the news stories that came up where people did anything "bad."  The stuff that came up had to do more with terrorist stuff, and some kidnapping stories (and attempted kidnappings) and a murder story, etc.  Not once did the Christians I work with in the last few months speak of "sexual sins."  I know by what was talked about that they do care about the other stuff.  Just sharing from my little corner of the world there.

      If  you are correct though about an almost fixation on particular sexual sins by the religious I can only speculate what the reasons would be. In this thread, has anyone brought up the idea that it could be considered one of the more "celebrated sins", compared to all the other sins? Depending on what part of the country and world you are in, you may see it or not, but you can for sure see it in media, and news stories, etc.

      There also is a big push to change the actual thinking of many people in regards to certain things.  People think one way, and some seem to not be at peace with that and are making it news themselves sometimes.  I don't recall seeing such a push for that before, so to see a possible push back wouldn't be crazy.  (I was thinking hard about the possible reasons that would be the case that you asked your question!  I know these are controversial, but I am being sincere in what I think SOME might be thinking.)

      Perhaps it is easy to focus on what they themselves are possibly struggling with?  So its a response to inner denials, etc?  They might fight hard against something they struggle with themselves perhaps, which would be a bit hypocritical. (Another sin, of course.)  Bottom line, I don't know for sure.  These are some ideas out there that I see floating about.  I do think that Jesus himself would encourage the most vocal against others crowd, to look inward first, and stop their own sin.  I say that based on my studies, but what do I know!

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Maybe it's just that everyone sort-of already agrees that murder and stealing etc. are bad.

        But not everyone agrees whether certain sexual practices are bad.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
          oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I think you are right.  If so, it would make sense what we see sometimes.  Its a "given" that those other things are horrifying.  That doesn't seem to be in question.  The other things do seem to be.

    9. Godsstreetsweeper profile image60
      Godsstreetsweeperposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Christians as a whole understand that sin is sin, and one isn't worse than another. Isiah chapter 1 in verse 18 describes sins that are scarlet and crimson, probably referring to murder and adultery, but states both can be cleansed. Biblically sex outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage is sinful, but then so is stealing a paper clip from your work. Sin is not for Christians, myself included to judge, since judgement comes from God. But Christians are enabled to recognize sinful behaviors, both that they can avoid them, and teach a better way. On a side note, there are numerous articles online regarding the affect sex has on dopamine or other receptors in the brain. That might explain why society as a whole is fixated on sex.

    10. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hey all, Jonny gives his regards to everyone in the forums.  I got this message on my profile from him, I don't think he will mind me sharing some of it, considering what he says in it.

      "I have been banned from posting for 3 days, cannot think why, but will be back soon I hope.  Please give my regards to everyone in the forums, especially those who disagree with me yet continue their generous tolerance."

      I don't know what would have caused the ban either.  I don't get the opportunity to read everything due to time.  I don't find Jonny posting ban worthy stuff.  He seems very fair minded overall that I have seen, and not ever hateful.  He even lets me ask some tough questions, lol, and responds fairly all the times I have seen.  Anyway, was sorry to see that, and just wanted to share.  See you soon Jonny.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        All I keep thinking is, what did I miss??? Banning should be banned. I hate that button.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
          oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Haha, that is a good point.  What did we miss?  Was there some knock down drag out we missed?  I saw someone mentioning a gentle warning about something, but that was all I saw, and that seemed to be amended.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Oh yeah! I do remember a request to edit banable content.  Even then, I was at a loss but considered it not important enough to investigate.  People get so sensitive after spitting their fiery messages. I guess being mean DOES thin the skin.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Here is the thing... If a post is edited like that at the suggestion of a friend that caught something (which is so nice, because we can all say things at times and not really have thought it fully through..), then could it still have been ban worthy?  If you delete it, or edit it, isn't that self moderation, so to speak?

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I have no idea. I need to read the rules. If when reported a copy of original content was flagged and/or sent. How else could the offense be known.
                Yes, we all have our moments. But I say if you throw discomfort; it may more than likely reverb. (One of my issues) the button is about bitterness or spite.  Neither are productive emotions.

    11. Rebel-PDF profile image61
      Rebel-PDFposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Deleted

      1. profile image0
        SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Spamming the forums is the fast track out of here.  You should reply to the discussions instead of posting a link to your forum.

        1. profile image0
          SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Thank you Moderator.  That was a fast response.

    12. micadeolu profile image44
      micadeoluposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If you observe well you will realize that it takes two or more in agreement before a any meaningful achievement can take place. In every pair, one complements another, there by producing the third party. Look at the atom. The electron interacts with the proton and so produces the neutron. So in human level, whenever any sexual activity takes place there is a beautiful harvest being reaped. But due to the density and pollution in this part of creation, a big breach and conflict is not news. This conflict is the sexual immorality God (nature) is trying to resolve. Because before you can ever experience peace in any situation, there must be order and restoration.

      This is why our God warns us to abstain from all form of sexual immorality. To have sex is no sin. In fact, sex experience improves ones spiritual growth and well being. But the abuse brings one down to hell slowly or speedily.

    13. flpalermo profile image60
      flpalermoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If they were true Christans, they wouldn't be.
      A true Christian is one in whom the Holy Spirit of God  dwells. (Romans 8:9)
      The Holy Spirit has absolutely no problem with this mentality.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
        EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        And, you know that, how? Have you spoken with the Holy Spirit to confirm this?

    14. paradigmsearch profile image61
      paradigmsearchposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I am not inclined to read the 1000+ previous posts. Sorry. big_smile

      The human species is preoccupied with sex, as are all other species for that matter. For whatever reason, that is the way this reality construct was designed.

      And so it goes...

      1. profile image56
        James Bonnyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
        1 Corinthians 6:18
        Romans 12:1

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Okay, so I take it from those scriptures you feel your God made us the way he did (with desires and urges) however doesn't want us to act on those desires and urges? He made some of us with desires and urges that correspond to his wishes and some of us that have other desires and wishes? I guess that means he gave some an easy ride to heaven and others a more difficult or impossible ride to heaven. Seems rather unfair and unrealistic to me. It also seems to me that the more likely case is that men made these laws which persecute those who are unlike themselves.

          1. profile image56
            James Bonnyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            By your logic, if we have desires and urges then on those premises, the actions can be justified. Your logic is extremely flawed. Why does society try to bend our desires and urges? When a man has angered another man and his urge is to take that man's life is he justified through his angry desire? How about when a Man lusts after another mans wife and she lusts back, does that attraction justify their actions? Maybe we should just behave as the animals do. For us believers, we believe that there is a higher calling. That God has a higher standard for earthly behavior (Sermon on the mount, Fruits of the Spirit, Ten Commandments, etc.). I'm not bashing anyone here, you are the one trying to initiate debate. I am completely comfortable in my beliefs and it appears you are in yours. I don't think there is any persecution, just the sharing of a certain way of believing.

            1. wilderness profile image77
              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Society tries to bend our desires and urges because we have inappropriate ones, placed there by a god.  Not because society put them there and THEN said don't succumb to them.

              The illogic and stupidity lies in saying "See, I put a fine fruit tree in front of you; don't touch it or I will kill you".  Wouldn't it make more sense not to put the tree there in the first place?  Or is it just a case of sadism at work?

              1. profile image56
                James Bonnyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Considering that neither of us are going to dissuade the other on our viewpoints this will be my last response. My original goal was just to share a few Bible verses as to why we concern our selves with sexual sins. I was then challenged with a very illogical argument by which I responded. Now, perhaps a more daunting task; to explain Genesis. Many Christian Scholars today, including Francis Collins, the lead researcher on the Human Genome Project in 1999, believe the original account in Genesis of Adam and Eve to be a metaphor. The book was written by Moses long after creation took place and would have a hard time holding up in a historical analysis. Perhaps it is a story just to give the ancient people some time of backdrop for the race of men, maybe it is a completely accurate account. I do not claim to have the ability to answer this question. However, that story has absolutely no bearing on Christianity. What I believe is that there is a God. In God's attempt to bring man into what God intends us to become, he sent Jesus. Jesus, God incarnate on earth, was born of a virgin, died on a cross, and was raised in 3 days. Although they are not here to vouch for us today, somewhere around 500 people saw the risen Christ. It would be rather difficult to refute 500 eye witnesses in a court of law. This is the only thing that really matters. This is what I hang my faith on. The whole old testament can be partial truths, yet when Jesus steps out of the tomb...

                "Here's pardon for transgressions past,
                It matter not how black their cast,
                And O my soul, with wonder view,
                For sins to come, here's pardon too.
                Fully discharged by Christ I am,
                From Christ's tremendous curse and blame."
                REV. C. H. Spurgeon

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Wow, that's pretty flimsy reasoning upon which to hang ones entire faith.

                  Yes, you could easily refute 500 eye witness accounts of people who claim they saw someone whom they believed were dead, no problem. That would never even get to trial.

                2. profile image0
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  James, I have no problems with you believing what you believe in relation to Jesus, etc., although I do not believe them at all. 

                  The problem I have is when those beliefs are taken as absolute "truth," and used to judge anyone else.   Sure, let's have good codes of conduct for our living together in community.  Let the Code support us and guide us.

                  But there is one human tendency that so often comes in the way of success..... the desire to look out at others, try to deal with their "problems," in stead of our own.... the latter being the more difficult, so it's easier to point the finger.

                  I have indicated in previous post to you that those writings from which you quoted are directed at a community 2000 years ago, in a different culture, in different circumstances.   They can only be understood in that context, not brought forward and placed in front of us in a distorted fashion.  Using them in order to lay blame or judge others is not appropriate.

                3. wilderness profile image77
                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry, I didn't get my point across very well.  It was not my intent to question Genesis in specific, but rather the idea that a god give us all these neat-o gifts and then forbid us their use. 

                  The obvious inference is that we are being tested, but that doesn't hold up; an omniscient god already knows what our response will be and doesn't NEED a test.  An alternative is that the Christian god is a sadist, but few will accept that, whether true or not.  Just like accepting that the god is NOT omniscient; a forbidden though not to be considered.

                4. Cat333 profile image59
                  Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Good points, James Bonny!

                  I have no revelation on the literal or symbolic nature of much of the OT. I know his Word is truth, whether that is truth that is often symbolic or literal. Also, we shouldn't demand that the Word read as if written by God's own hand since he used men (who then had to put it into limited words), yet we cannot dismiss any of the Word just because he used men, as we know the men were inspired by the Holy Spirit. I do know that God is the Creator of all things and the Ruler of all things; that he spoke and it was so. And I am content with that.

                  Just wanted to give an AMEN to this - "In God's attempt to bring man into what God intends us to become, he sent Jesus. Jesus, God incarnate on earth, was born of a virgin, died on a cross, and was raised in 3 days. Although they are not here to vouch for us today, somewhere around 500 people saw the risen Christ. It would be rather difficult to refute 500 eye witnesses in a court of law."

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Those are good points, James.

              1. profile image56
                James Bonnyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Thank you.

            3. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              No reason at all to debate, unless of course you try to implement your beliefs on others. For instance the bible says that homosexuals shall be put to death. You are welcome to believe that if you like as long as you don't act on that belief or as long as you don't intent to prevent same sex partners from having the same privileges as yourself.

              So, if two people of any sex decide to have consensual sex and or a relationship then their actions are justified. Murder is not consensual nor is rape.

              1. profile image56
                James Bonnyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                We can agree on the part about rap.

              2. Cat333 profile image59
                Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                The bible also says all liars will be put to death and from birth all are liars to greater or lesser degrees. So all deserve and will be put to death according to the righteous requirements of the holy and righteous God. BUT for Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior, who has paid the price for all liars and all who sin in ANY manner. Because of Jesus' righteousness and sacrifice, you and I and everyone may receive the undeserved status of righteous and may forever live with the righteous Father. Not to any of us sinners by nature be any glory, but to him who loved us and gave himself for us be all glory both now and forevermore! Amen and amen!

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Great! I get to do whatever I want then, with no consequences! Praise Jesus!

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    So glad to know that at least someone wants me, Jane.... lol

                  2. Cat333 profile image59
                    Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    "By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Romans 6:2)

                    1. profile image0
                      jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      cat333, this is one of the major reasons I have turned away from the christian religion.   Call me "fallen," whatever you like.   It is one of the biggest, most nonsensical, mental constructions I have ever come across.... and from people who in most other respects are sensible and intelligent.

                      But, your choice.  Who am I to argue?

                2. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh sure, sacrifice, human sacrifice. Nice God you've got. Goat killing he liked, but human/god killing did the trick. Do you ever listen to yourself?

                  1. Cat333 profile image59
                    Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    He sacrificed HIMSELF for you and me and all the world!

                    1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                      EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Sorry, that is not true, Jesus was tried and convicted by the Roman State to crucifixion, just like many, many, many other criminals of the Roman State, no difference whatsoever.

                      Jesus didn't jump up on a cross and nail himself to it, did he?

            4. EncephaloiDead profile image55
              EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Simple common sense, some reason and logic could easily explain why we don't kill others when we're angry or lust after another mans wife, with no need for Sermons or Commandments or Gods telling us how to behave.

            5. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Sure, lust is a tendency that needs to be carefully managed if we are to live in relative harmony within our society, but lust is a natural factor which drives our lives.  The other animals have it too.... it drives their lives some of the time.   But why would you denigrate "the animals?"   We are animals too.

          2. Cat333 profile image59
            Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Rad Man, you say, "I guess that means he gave some an easy ride to heaven and others a more difficult or impossible ride to heaven. Seems rather unfair and unrealistic to me." There is no difference if a person has this or that urge or sins in this or that manner, ALL sin and therefore all have an "impossible ride to heaven" EXCEPT that God loved us too much to leave it at this and so Jesus Christ lay down his life to make the IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBLE! Now ALL (no matter what urge or sin) may come to him and receive eternal life!

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              So there is no difference? We all get into heaven? Awesome, we can do whatever we want.

              1. Cat333 profile image59
                Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, "there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:22-23). And yes ALL have been given the offer of eternal life, BUT Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to take hold of that offer which came through him - "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'." (John 14:6)

                No, we may not do whatever we want because "Those who have been born from God don't live sinful lives. What God has said lives in them, and they can't live sinful lives. They have been born from God." (1 John 3:9) Since we live by the Spirit, we are to keep in step with the Spirit and to avoid grieving the Spirit within us. Our sinful nature and the Spirit within us are at odds with each other, so that we do not do what we in our fleshly states want, but rather what the Spirit within us wants.

                1. wilderness profile image77
                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  You do not sin.  Yet all Christians sin, as indeed do all people whether Christian or not.  The conclusion is that you are not a human; what planet are you from?

                  1. Cat333 profile image59
                    Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    The flesh may fail us and sin, but this is only sin still living in us. The born again Christian is being transformed into the likeness of Christ. The Spirit within and the flesh are at odds with each other. The one born of the Spirit cannot continue in sin. The distinction is made between slips and a purposeful life of sin. When the one with the Spirit sins, the Spirit within is grieved. Sinning becomes undesirable and unbearable to the one living according to the Spirit. We are to walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh, putting to death the deeds of the flesh - rage, lust, jealousy, selfishness, etc. This is an ongoing process. But when Jesus Christ returns we will be freed from these bodies of sin altogether, just as we will be freed from these bodies of death and decay.

                    In a sense, yes, we are "aliens", but our "planet" is one from the future - the "new heavens / new earth" that will be created, just as our Lord has promised. "For this world is not our permanent home; we are looking forward to a home yet to come." (Hebrews 13:14); "Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul."  (1 Peter 2:11)

                    1. StephenFergusonJR profile image59
                      StephenFergusonJRposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Cat (1st John chapter 3) John being a man who truly seen and was taught by Jesus unlike Paul, says "Sin is the transgression of the law, and whosoever sins does not know Jesus nor have seen him". (Matthew 5:48) Jesus command "go forth and be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect". (Matthew chapter 5) also says " Think not I have come to destroy the law nor the prophets; I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. He who breaks the least of the commandments breaks all the commandments shall be the least in the kingdom of heaven but he who keeps the shall be the greatest". All three of the statements makes a lie out of the entire Christian belief taught in church. That is unless you plan to allow your husband to have multiple wives, sacrifice animals and stone your children if they rebel? Jesus said "when you see the abomination and desolation that Daniel the prophet spoke of go stand in the Holy place. Daniel said the people would take away the daily sacrifices and replace on the altar that which would cause the world to become desolate. Placing Jesus on the altar and not obeying Gods laws is the abomination that cause the world to become desolate.

                    2. wilderness profile image77
                      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Gobbldegook.  If you sin (do something you feel you should not) then it is because you want to, and that desire is stronger than the desire to please your god.

                      It's not Satan, and it's not because the sin is somehow living inside you.  It is YOU, nothing more and nothing less.

                      Nor does the action of sinning become undesirable or unbearable; if the first you wouldn't do it and if the second you wouldn't be able to; as you (and everyone else) sins, the statement is false.

                      Hebrews does not reference aliens in the sense you are using the word.  The people of the time did not know what stars were, did not know what planets were and didn't know there were any out there; they had no concept of an intelligent being from another planet.

        2. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          "1 Thessalonians 4:3-5"   not said to you, James, or me, or anyone outside of that period in history.  Please, look into the context.   Read about who it was said to; what was the purpose of what was being said.

          "1 Corinthians 6:18"   likewise.   You are reading these verses as though they are a new set of Commandments to everyone, for ever.   

          "Romans 12:1"   likewise.

          If you want to throw biblical texts at me or anyone else, trying to see sexual matters as so important, way above anything else, you apply them in your own life first, 100%, including all the secret desires you have which no one else knows about.   Only when you have accomplished that will you be free to look into MY life.

          1. profile image56
            James Bonnyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I apologize for not reading your entire question. I now see that what you asked, was why do we place it "more" important. That makes my bible verses pretty irrelevant to the situation. However, our obsession with sexual sins probably stems from our society's obsession with sex. To the Christian, sin is sin, no matter how you slice it. However, the way our media blasts sexual innuendos we retort, as Newton would say, with an equal and opposite reaction. I'm not justifying that, simply providing an explanation as to MAYBE why that is the case. Once again, I apologize for misreading your question.

            1. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              No problems there, James.   This is a very emotive conversation, with many people having their rightful say.   Even though I will try to put my points of view across, sometimes with some emphasis, I do not discredit you or try to ridicule you.  Mutual respect for cross-opinions is important in my view.

              1. profile image56
                James Bonnyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                I completely agree.

          2. Cat333 profile image59
            Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Amen to this, jonny, and something we should all (believers and unbelievers alike) take to heart - "You apply them in your own life first, 100%, including all the secret desires you have which no one else knows about.   Only when you have accomplished that will you be free to look into MY life."

            Jesus said the same thing - "First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5); "Let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!" (John 8:7). And in Romans 2:1 it is written, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."

      2. profile image0
        fit2dayposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I have not taken time to read the other comments, so please forgive me if I'm repeating something already stated. Those few of us who are Christians in this world have a duty to be salt and light. Matthew 5:13-16 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house." In our duty, we expose sin for what it is (rebellion against God) for which the world will be judged. Sin begets more sin. When we sin, it comes in 3 forms. as noted in 1 John 2:16; there is the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Sexual sin represents all 3. For example. a guy looks at a girl and lusts after her in his heart. He has sex with her to fulfill his lust of the flesh, and he brags to his friends, displaying the pride of life. Sins 3 forms say I see it and want it, I want to fulfill this pleasure I crave and I am in love with myself. Apart from Christ man is depraved and doomed to live in sin.

        I appreciate you asking this question and if I had more time I'd continue, but I'll end with this. Because of sin, there is murder, rape, theft, lying, etc. The diagnosis is sin, the remedy is Christ. Eternal life for those who receive Christ as Savior (from sin) and Lord (He directs my steps and I walk with Him). Eternal damnation for those who don't believe (trust in Christ).

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
          EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I don't see anything there that supports your conclusion that you have such a duty.

          Many of us don't rebel against your God because your God is irrelevant to us, He doesn't exist, hence your so called duty is not only a nuisance to the rest of us, it serves to show just how much conflict and wars it has started and fueled over time.



          That is not your problem, it has nothing to do with you. We don't need you sticking your nose in someone else business causing trouble.



          No, we have man made laws to deal with those issues and the remedy is not Christ, or Zeus or Thor or any other invisible friend.



          Yes, you will spread your hatred of others and threaten those who don't believe in your God and you will cause conflict and wars as a result, and you will not stop.

        2. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Ok, I am eternally damned.... so be it.   smile

      3. Weis on the rocks profile image62
        Weis on the rocksposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        One must look at so many Christians before observing their nonsensical obsessions. To me a Christian would be a person with one of those fantastic Bibles with red text - and dismisses the rest as the words of mere men. I have only encountered one such person. All my life I've been surrounded by what I like to call Biblical cherrypickers. They poach the passages that they've been conditioned to believe, ignore the one's next to it, have little stock in the love and acceptance Christ preached, are manipulated like puppets - methodically controlled en masse to maliciously oppress others - just like Jesus would do (Rollin my frikkin eyes)
        "I like your Christ - I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Ghandi
        I feel sorry for them - but mostly for Christ. A wonderful man with such terrible representation. He deserves much better than the vindictive lemmings who tarnish his name and ignore his teachings.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
          oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          The kind of Christians you describe in that post, sound like the type of people Jesus and even Paul addressed a lot.   The ones that say one thing, yet do another.  It is not a good thing for them to be that way, and Jesus had some of the harshest words for them. 

          The path is hard and narrow, and Jesus said not many are really on it.  There will be a time where the wheat and the chaff (within a church) will be separated out.  There are a lot of warnings for those within the walls of a church or a religion.  There is a lot of talk about hypocrisy because it has never not been a problem

          The story of the gospel of Jesus is one of the truth about human nature, and what you describe also echoes some of that human nature already addressed long ago by Jesus, and the Christian view.  Not all will heed all the things, but part of what comes with the view of Christianity is that people all choose what they do and what comes with it.  Christians would do better and this includes me, to read it all and heed it all and not just portions.

          Oh and welcome to HubPages and the topical forums section of it.

      4. AshtonFirefly profile image70
        AshtonFireflyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        So, in other words, you feel these other issues are far more important but Christians choose to prioritize the sexual topics?
        Perhaps because they feel it is easier to have an immediate influence on this particular area, (educating their children, etc.) than the others. Or it's simply easier. Not sure.

      5. Lee Strong profile image60
        Lee Strongposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        It's not so much they are concerned with sexual matters - it's a matter of the broader culture being obsessed with it.

      6. Nicole Hering profile image52
        Nicole Heringposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        In my opinion it's because they want to control the herd easier that Christians view sex so negatively. Children that are born from unwed parents are less likely to be raised in a church and the parents are less likely to fear God or the devil's power if they're fine with having sex and not be married and Christians WANT their followers to be afraid to have control over them. I agree with you that it is wrong for Christians to be so negative about sex (Consensual sex) and to not persecute murder, rape, and crime more.

      7. LoisRyan13903 profile image72
        LoisRyan13903posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        In my case I am concerned with sex when it comes to rape, incest, bestiality teenagers who have sex and/or get pregnant at a young age.  I know a girl who got pregnant when she was 13 or 14.  My main concern was for both of them she being so young and the chances of the baby having complications.  Thankfully he was a healthy baby and is a healthy teenager.  When it comes to what goes on in the bed room it does not concern me.  I hear so much talk and rumors at work who is sleeping with who.  I don't get involved in the gossip since some of these are false.  Even if they are true Who am I to judge?  I am a Christian.  And this question should not be just directed at Christians because it is originally Jewish Law from the Old Testament

        1. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          "In my case I am concerned with sex when it comes to rape, incest, bestiality teenagers who have sex and/or get pregnant at a young age. "

          I full agree with you there, Lois.

          "When it comes to what goes on in the bed room it does not concern me. "

          And here, likewise.   I feel one of the problems might be lack of down-to-earth basic education, where the adult(s) are not open to clear and honest discussion with their children; adults who are so hung up with sexual matters within themselves that they find it uncomfortable, embarrassing, (yukky) to talk talk with other; unable to say-it-as-it-is.   To take my orginal question further, do you think there are a lot of people who are so tied up with being "good" and "sin-free." that sexual matters are pushed under the carpet and not talked about?

          Right at this moment, I am not leveling the questions at yourself, personally, just trying to see where those un-wanted pregnancies can be prevented with better education.  Also, young people who are homosexual persons as well as heterosexual, can get a very bad dose of guilt-ridden ignorance if the adults let them down.  Extra education in sexual matters would solve a lot of social problems.   My question can certainly be directed at the population in general, not just christians.

          1. LoisRyan13903 profile image72
            LoisRyan13903posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I am a mother with an 18 years old and a 20 year old daughters.  My older daughter has a boyfriend and I tell her times and time again I would rather, if she is going to be sexually active, to talk to me so she can be on birth control.  It is my desire that she waits until she gets married but I would rather want he to be safe than taking chances.  She does say that both she and he are waiting until they are ready.  My younger one is autistic and does not date yet.  But yeah I think a lot of unwanted pregnancies can be prevented with better education the church that I attend to when I am not working has a good education program for teenagers.  The public school also has an excellent program.

            "To take my original question further, do you think there are a lot of people who are so tied up with being "good" and "sin-free.""

            I have actually have seen non-believers and believers in other dieties this way too.  I have even seen Christian couples, who after they got married, absstained from sexual contact.  I think that is taking it to the extreme.

    15. Toni_Roman profile image61
      Toni_Romanposted 11 years ago

      Because most Christians (the word is capitalized) are sexually immature.  They freak about sex while having no problem with violence.  In the real world, sex between consenting adults such as husband & wife or fiancé & fiancée has few or no negative consequences while violence ALWAYS one hundred percent of the time has negative consequences such as death, suffering, psychological damage, victims, someone going to jail or on the lam from the law, cost to the taxpayers of locking up the perpetrator, the public endangered, law enforcement officers endangered, disturbing the peace when people are trying to sleep or get to work (as in neighborhood domestic distrubances), and on a large scale, violence is genocide and war.  No good comes from violence because even in cases where violence is seen as good -- executing bad national leaders like Bashar Hafez al-Assad of Syria or Kim Jong-un of North Korea  or the CEO's of polluting companies responsible for cancer clusters -- there will be a few silly liberals who wring their hands over the suffering of a sociopath for a second or two while he dies while these same silly liberals will blithely ignore the life long suffering of their victims and not consider that the b*stard deserved to die or at least get life imprisonment without hope of parole.  Mean ignorant racist conservatives are like the silly liberals because conservatives also blithely ignore the suffering of victims of violence and war and slavery -- unless they happen to be beat up by cops while arrested for drunk driving for example.  Then they become liberals.  Liberals in turn become conservatives if they are mugged or criminals break into their homes.  Christians can of course be liberal as well as conservative.  Neither type seems to have much perspective.

      Sexuality is a convenient whipping boy.  One can rail on about sex and no one really takes you seriously.  Especially if they happen to notice that you happen to have a large family (children are not created by miracle, sex is required) or if they happen to know that you cheat on your spouse.  Protestant preachers are seen as hypocrites and so in recent years there is not nearly as much pulpit pounding about sex.  The exception is the new denominations which have not been around for centuries and gained perspective.  Catholic priests are men and, like all human beings, they are sexual beings.  Frustrate all sexual outlets and you see the result.  Perhaps the authorities should take a meat cleaver and chop it off or chemically castrate them since anaphrodisiacs like saltpetre are in apparent short supply.  Hops (found in beer) does not work.  Soy obviously does not work because soy is popular in Asia with the highest population on Earth.

      No one, aside from me, seems concerned about violence and carnography.  And, as you can read in my hubs, I reserve capital punishment for genocidal sociopaths and I do not think insanity is a defense (lots of insane people never hurt a fly) nor do I think low IQ is a defense.  Most retarded citizens (intelligence challenged or whatever is the PC phrase) never hurt anyone.  I simply see no excuse for murder and particularly not mass murder as committed by national leaders and the CEO's of polluting companies. I would gladly push the button or pull the switch on them (especially if I was paid to be an executioner).  Hypocrisy?  Maybe. Maybe not.  After all, we do not call soldiers murderers and even Jesus, important to us Christians, did not avail himself of numerous opportunities to tell Roman centurions:  "Thou shalt not kill."

      I have had decades since childhood to think about sexuality. I think your question is irrelevant.  Christians are horny like everyone else but they have had centuries of conditioning since the sexually frustrated Saint Paul and Saint Augustine (and many other Church Fathers across history) and sexually frustrated nuns like Saint Theresa (either one doesn't matter) beating it into our collective heads that sex is bad.  Or at least naughty.  Since the life impulse, as Sigmund Freud observed, cannot be denied, all that repression comes to naught and sex comes out in twisted ways.  Read any history book or read Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis.   The real question to ask is: Why don't Christians consider violence to be the number one sin? (instead of sex)

      I actually have answers to this question but I erased them twice while composing this reply to  jonnycomelately 's forum question.  Perhaps I am not ready to release them.  After all, in my reply I walked around the two-ton elephant in the middle of the room because, in the USA, free speech is now considered hate speech if you do not speak PC.  We might as well not have forums at all but simply post FAQ of politically correct statements and threaten anyone who does not quote the FAQ verbatim with arrest by the Department of Justice.  The end is truly near.

      1. Oztinato profile image78
        Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I am concerned about violence that's why I am against Singer and Dawkins who profess violence to children and intolerance to relgion. How come you don't see that?

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          That isn't true at all. You are against them for false reasons.

          1. Oztinato profile image78
            Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            These atheist leaders represent tens of thousands if not millions of the new café style atheists. They teach and publish and push for law changes. They are actively leading a huge movement with a patchwork of pre human style ethics.

        2. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Singer and Dawkins profess violence to children? That's monstrous, show us your evidence please.

          1. Oztinato profile image78
            Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            read wiki.

        3. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Dawkins called for stronger distinctions to be made between what he called "mild paedophilia" and violent crimes. He told Giles Whittell of [subscription required], "Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism.

          Dawkins is not intolerant of religion he is obsessed with it, he even called himself a deeply religious person on youtube. Either way he makes a great deal a money from it all, I don’t make any money trying to present middle grounds solution.

    16. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years ago

      A most interesting answer!

    17. Jodah profile image86
      Jodahposted 11 years ago

      I think Toni_Roman said it all. I am Christian and I like sex. Most Christians I know nowadays are open about it unless it is abusive or paedophilic (the church is finding that out now). We do however, as do most sane people of any religion or not oppose war, mass murder, genocide, and polluting of our food, water, and climate by chemical , fossil fuel , companies etc. at the moment the big debate here in Australia is whether same sex marriage should be allowed. It seems apparent that about 75 % of the people support it, Christian and non Christian alike but the Government won't consider legalising it. Those that oppose seem to be not in the Christian majority.

    18. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago

      Wow, jonny.  Nothing like asking the tough questions.  I'm going to give you a two fold answer.  First, why do most Christians think this way (of course, IMO and from my experience) and second, as a Christian, what do I actually think.

      I think in part, Christians are concerned about sex because it's pervasive in our society.  Advertising, movies, in our education system....it's pretty much everywhere.  And the feeling of many Christians is that it should always be confined to the bedroom. In some cases, Christians never get the opportunity to teach their children about it before the secular world has already done so.  Also, it's believed by Christians that if sex is reserved solely for bonding between a married couple, or procreative purposes, it doesn't need to be such an overwhelmingly pervasive part of mainstream culture.  Lastly, if someone has not been properly educated about sex and its purposes, they don't know how to handle it, and so cover their ears, run into the corner, and cry about how evil it is.

      Now, I personally am a Christian.  I'm NOT a prude, and I was given an excellent foundational education about sex-from my parents of all people.  I asked questions that they actually answered, rather than getting embarrassed and shoving me off.  They didn't let either the church or the school system provide my sex education, and for that I am eternally grateful.  What I did learn, though, is that it's meant to be something incredibly special-dare I say sacred?  It's not a spectator sport, but something In which we engage to deepen the bonds between people who love each other.

      Some Christians have a crazy and prurient interest about what's happening behind everyone else's closed doors, and because it isn't meant to be done publicly, they assume it's something dirty.  Oddly enough, Jesus told us to pray privately, and that's not dirty.  Why the double standard?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Nature is the new religion, sex is natural as sleeping and eating. If Religion want to make sex the world's greatest sin, let them indulge in their own personal hell.

        When Governments of predominate religious countries make laws up for gays or any other persons of no harm sexual acts,over the age of 18 illegal, Then I say to Governments, mind your business and take better care of our roads, hospitals and real criminals like  thieves and murderers.

        1. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Castlepaloma
          and do you support atheist leader Peter Singer's ideas on "Zoophilia" too?
          Do you swing it that way?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Funny thing my daughter and brother (who is a pastor) and self do not agree with much of the over fight of Richard Dawkins. Even though he is in our family tree. My daughter and I do not belong to any group other than making our living as artist in order to love the whole world unconditional.

    19. Oztinato profile image78
      Oztinatoposted 11 years ago

      As expected: thundering silence and feigned ignorance from the online atheists about Peter Singer.
      JCLately tried to distance himself from it by claiming it is not related to atheism as a philosophy but unfortunately atheism jumped the tracks a few years back into a whole new existential explanation "for everything" so it is now a fully fledged stumbling frankenstein of an ethical dogs breakfast thanks to Mr Dawkins, Singer and co.
      Perhaps some Christians are concerned about where atheism and its adherents are taking sexuality. Ever heard of these animal/human interspecies diseases: ebola, aids, swine flu, bird flu etc. Have a look at the other examples on wiki.

      1. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Mr. or Mrs. Oztinato, I was initially under the impression I was talking to a rational human being, but now it seems you have become somewhat silly in your writing.

        You wrote :"Ever heard of these animal/human interspecies diseases: ebola, aids, swine flu, bird flu etc.?"   Are you trying to say that all these diseases jumped to humans because people were  having sex with animals?   Horses, pigs, birds?   Oh dear oh dear!   What is this world coming to?  Wait til men get it off with elephants, and we get a somewhat over-endowed mule of a thing. from the union.....Have you ever heard of a truncated man?

        1. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          It is clear that society will exponentially increase the risk of inter species diseases by going down the atheist path of legalizing beastialtiy.
          This should be clear to anyone and not need any further explanation.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I don't understand your need to insist on a particular group of people to be headed down a path toward beastiality.  It is not clear to me at all, and you say it should be clear to anyone.  You seem to want to justify the put downs, but it seems really you may be just wanting to demean a whole group of people for some other reason.  While atheists disagree with me on many things I think most are in agreement that beastiality is horrifying.  I think this kind of talk isn't coming from a reasonable person wanting to discuss matters.  If you have been corrected, and I think you have, why keep in insisting in such a thing for some here and then a whole group?  You surely wouldn't want that done to you?  Do you want to be taken half seriously?

            1. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              I have already posted towards the end of this hub the FACTS about this unpleasant topic.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                That doesn't help to defend the comments you made.  So especially if you have posted something for more clarification, then you should be first to know what you are accusing is not fitting of this conversation.  There is no basis for it.  Definitions help to clarify truths about such matters, and show us your comments don't seem to be about keeping to the facts of matters.

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I have alleged (and will continue to allege) that this hub's premise is hypocritical; therefore by pointing out the gross contradictions via the atheist push for totally abberant sexuality shines a withering spotlight on the topic.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    But you have been corrected since your first and possibly (assuming the best there) confused judgements about such matters.  What if someone were saying that about you, unfounded?  Even question why perhaps if you TRULY are confused at a possible contradiction.  Other than that, you are repeating untruths for what seems to be personal gain.  Why not let it go and discuss the real stuff concerning people.  Not to say those things wouldn't concern me, but I truly don't think people here are struggling to not do those things.  Its just over the top, and people have been pretty patient with you! Right?  If you truly didn't know before, then now you know.  Its a lot of time spent NOT making the points you are trying to make, and actually making others.  This isn't helpful, nor anything really but kind of vulgar in itself.

      2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
        EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Or, the "thundering silence" is an indication of the irrelevancy of your posts, the fact that they have nothing to do with the discussion. lol

        1. fpherj48 profile image59
          fpherj48posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Encephaloi.....(Applause)....It's official...the wizard of OZtinato is a paid agent for Peter Singer, totally obsessed with steering the world in the direction of Zoophilia.  He repeats his comment like a parrot...BAWK....same size brain it seems.  "Irrelevant" posts is an understatement.  Boring, monotonous and going NO WHERE.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            lo

          2. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            lol  .... and a big hurtful beak......do you think it can ever smile, except in response to a little sadism?

      3. Oztinato profile image78
        Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Its so easy to criticize the Christians or religions for strange views on sex, but it seems most online atheists will not offer any criticism at all of Singer and co.(as proved once again here)  The potential for new inter species diseases is enormous with this kind of fashionable sexual atheism. This type of atheist fad is far worse than Christianity or religion.
        This would have to be classed as hypocrisy and deep deep denial by all of you here so far.
        Are you JCL actually defending Zoophilia?
        And the rest of you; no word of criticism for SInger and co? By not criticizing you are condoning it. Not even the most balmy crazy terrorist in the world is trying to legalize bestiality. But you guys? No problem!

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Interesting how you compare one man's ideas to the entire Christian organization and it's 20 century history of bloodshed and conflict.

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Welcome back!

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Hey!!! Trouble my man

              Did you know abortionist are the worst murderer in human history, according to some Christians I know.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Well, they certainly aren't a GOOD thing. Do you think abortion is a good thing?

                1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  It can be, if your unable to afford or love a child. Everyone needs love, from babies to old age people in an over populated and often driven by fear more than love. A person should be able to have the freedom to do whatever they want with their own bodies within reason.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    But it's not their own body. It's another human being's body. And life.

                    It's killing babies,and it's wrong. Unless it's a medical emergency or the like. If it's just "unwanted", it's no different that infanticide.

                    Do you know how an abortion is done? I won't be graphic here, but it is horrifying.

                    1. profile image0
                      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Thank you for pointing that out, Janesix.  It's a factor usually ignored for reasons of it being so gross and horrible to even think about.

                      When I was in East Africa 40 years ago, I got to understand that if a woman gave birth to a baby that was deformed, and she was just not happy with it, she was likely to leave it outside at night, for the Hyenas to take.   Now, this sounds, to us, a horrific and evil thing to do.   Yet when you think about it reasonably, there was no facility available to nurture or treat such a deformed being.  There was probably a belief system there linking some kind of devil worship with those deformities.   A quick bite from the wild animal brought virtually instantaneous death to the child.   Problem solved for that mother and her community, without anyone standing over her with a placard "EVIL" in their hand.

                      There are different points of view for each of us, in all manner of situations in life.   Usually there is no one-fix-for-all and we need to look our needs much more closely, with love in our hearts, if we are to grow as a human community.

                  2. Chris Neal profile image76
                    Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    So we should kill the useless eaters?

                2. Castlepaloma profile image76
                  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I am pro-choice, but there comes a time when you have to cut off freedom of choice to avoid crime. When an unborn baby has developed to 3 months, so much has already started to progress in the baby. Anyone destroying the fetus at this point is just selfish, and cause health damages

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm not opposed to something like the morning-after pill. If an abortion can be done very early on, before the baby can feel pain, then I probably wouldn't be that opposed to it either. It's the pain and suffering of the fetus that bothers me. They don't always euthanize before the procedure.

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                      Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Then pain of of unlove (baby)person, can be greater than the source where the Mother did not want the child in the first place.

                      My now ex wife, wanted to abort my child, unless I married her.

                      I ask the Universe what should I do? The little voice answered-marry the woman and save the child. My daughter today is the love of my life and we both divorce the Mother/Wife. Maybe there is a God.

              2. Oztinato profile image78
                Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Its obvious that a lot of people here are not aware of the atheist push for "after birth abortions" of all children up the age of six months. Many of them happily describe it as legal infanticide.
                If you are aware of it and are not sickened by it and actively opposing it then you should expect criticism.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Hi Mo!!!

              I took your advice and watched the movie, "The Book of Eli", good movie, loved it. Thanks for the recommendation. Great twist of the plot at the end regarding the book itself.

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I thought so too.  big_smile  Glad you enjoyed it!

        2. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I think it's because the conversation is not about zoophilia. It is about gay sex. Two different things. Gay sex is not the same as sex with animals. The bringing together of the two is very likely offensive. Responding to it would probably be an allowance that no one is ready to give. I think we are all of the opinion that zoophilia should not be officially condoned by any state.

          1. Oztinato profile image78
            Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Cgenea, wink
            I have never tried to relate those two topics together.
            It seems like a lot of atheists and others are unaware of what many high ranking atheist educators consider to be the "next step" in the evolution of new fashionable atheism. I am trying to inform everyone so they can absorb this fact in any debate which criticises religion but turns a blind eye to these twin atrocities.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Seems to me that that "next step" in this atheism is calling one's self Christian smile while at the same time, leading many away from Christ and head-first into ANTI-Christ territory.
              The bible promised this not-so-NEW trend. smile
              It is an expected phenomenon. "Look to Christ! Forget what he said" and it will continue rolling snowball fashion until...

              Christ is the way. We must remember his words now so that we receive the abundant life he promised. We must remember HIS words.

    20. Oztinato profile image78
      Oztinatoposted 11 years ago

      The subject of this hub is a negative and biased view of Christian/religious alleged concept of sex. By comparing and contrasting it with some of the new cutting edge atheist views I am trying to point out the hypocrisy implicit in your premise. Are you or any other online atheists here doing anything more than giving a weak token comment about these heinous atheist inspired sexual monstrosities? No.

      1. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Hypocrisy does not come into the original statement of this Discussion.   I deliberately said, ".....with many christians," because I cannot paint every person of the christian faith in the same way.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          No paint for me thanks!!! wink I get allergic. Lol

      2. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Uh-oh...you just said compare and contrast... see? I told you... wink

      3. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I think people in general are not having enough sex, Not being atheist myself, never did think if atheist have better sex than Christian. My guess
        Atheists have better sex lives than religious people who are plagued with guilt  during intercourse and for weeks afterwards.

        Non-believers are more willing to discuss sexual fantasies and are more satisfied with their experiences.Both groups admitted that they have the same activities such as masturbation, pornography, oral sex and pursuing affairs. Atheist have better sex lives than followers of religion strong feelings of guilt afterward and did not enjoy and intense feelings of regret after they had climaxed or because they spread their seed upon the ground. They felt bad afterwards and often preyed for forgiveness, the stronger their religious beliefs were the more powerful their feelings of sexual regret and may effect health of the brain. The out of the top 6 sins in America, four of them are sex sins, the church gives you the disease, then offers you a fake cure

        1. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I suggest that those who are deeply immersed in their ideologies have closed their minds to critical thinking.   So much is deferred to their "god" and/or their bible, that the time consuming task of sifting through concepts, questions, various answers and possibilities stops -- and they rely upon dogma.

          I see Peter Singer mentioned here, often.   If anyone is willing to actually listen to all that he says, and allow him to state his opinions without interrupting with your own preconceptions, then will understand more why he is saying what he does.  If you try to stop him even voicing his opinion, then you will always come away with a false understanding, and  offer instead, hatred and vitriol.

          I suggest this is required of all persons that express a belief, a faith.....open your human mind and use it!

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hey!!! If you swap God for Peter Singer; you'd be singing MY song!!! wink and well...

          2. Oztinato profile image78
            Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            If a person can keep their food down while considering Singers views it shows they have lost the main part of what makes us human: compassion for the weak and high ethical standards. Oddly enough thats what the main message of JC and other religious leaders is.
            JCL you have kind of proved my point: by calmly accepting such moral atrocities it shows ingrained hypocritical views to the much much milder average Christian hang ups.

            1. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              If you say so..... any amount of argument is most unlikely to change your mind.

              1. Oztinato profile image78
                Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Thanks for finally accepting my point. Please offer any argument you like for beastiality as I dont eat at the computer
                therefore the dry retching wont bring the food back up. So go ahead lets hear more about your defence of atheist beastiality and your repugnance at much lesser Christian hang ups. We are all listening.

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Has it yet occurred to you that no one is offering arguments for bestiality because A) they have none and B) find the whole idea so disturbing and distasteful as to not even count it worth addressing in a discussion about human sexuality?  You seem to be so obsessed with this idea and so convinced that atheists in general support and promote it. 

                  Please let it go.  Or go fight Peter Singer about it.  Contrary to what you may believe, the HP forum is not the think tank for intellectual atheism, anymore than it is the last mission field for devout and evangelical Christians.  We aren't talking about it because NO ONE WANTS TO!

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    ++++   Thank you for that Mo.

                    1. profile image0
                      Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      You are most welcome. big_smile

                  2. Oztinato profile image78
                    Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Mowtown
                    please do your homework/research!
                    These topics are very high on many prominent atheist agendas. Peter Singer represents a entire school of thought. He educates hundreds of students at several international univerisities. Some of his "best" graduates recently published an article in the Australian Medical Journal calling for legalized infanticide. There are senior doctors supporting these moves.
                    There have been serious attempts by educated lawmakers to introduce infanticide by degrees. Look at what the Netherlands is doing right now.
                    Attempts to legalize beastiality as law  were only recently defeated in the German Parliament. There have been several media controversies about the casual use of beastialtiy in ads. An active group of Singer style atheists want to legally marry their favorite pet and they want the right to "consummate" it!
                    I am not making this up.
                    These many phenomena are being pushed by powerful atheist lobby groups and leaders.
                    My main point here is that the majority of online atheists seem to be very concerned about lesser Christian hangups but don't want to think or talk about the much more bizarre and serious atheist sexual disorders springing up around the world.

                    1. janesix profile image59
                      janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      If that stuff is true, it's probably rare. There are all kinds of nuts in the world. It's hardly mainstream or common if it is true. Why do you think no one knows what you're talking about?

                    2. profile image0
                      Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      I did do research.  I had no idea who Peter Singer was.  So I found out.  No one here wants to countenance bestiality as a VALID sexual alternative.  You are preaching to the wrong choir.  Period.

                      Are you familiar with the phrase "ad nauseum?"

                    3. profile image0
                      Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      atheist sexual disorders?

                      Funny.

                2. profile image0
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Are you that unintelligent?   I did NOT agree with you.   Do NOT put words into my mouth or promote untruths about me.
                  You need to examine your own motives.

            2. wilderness profile image77
              wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              "main part of what makes us human: compassion for the weak and high ethical standards"

              Meaning to take forcibly, at gunpoint if necessary, what one person has worked for and give it to someone else that can't or won't do the same. 

              You have a very different code of ethics/morality than I do, and I don't recall Jesus ever promoting that idea either.

              1. Oztinato profile image78
                Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Wilderness
                you have to give me more to go on than that! What do you mean take by gunpoint?

              2. Oztinato profile image78
                Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                As I thought: no examples given AGAIN.

            3. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Oztinato

              Maybe you mean Satanism, not atheism, who are into bestiality. Yes, Atheist generally love nature and animals more than the religious and think they know the difference better between "US and Them" Noak Arc has been found they say, yet, it seems they are still the dark in who really screwed the animals over.

              1. Oztinato profile image78
                Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Castelpaloma
                please read my response to Mowtown above.

                As I said, my main point is the way most online atheists here are ready to  criticize lesser religious sexual hangups when compared to the much more highly bizarre atheist aberrations.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  oowssp did not reed it all, I'm being over protective of those other millions of species.

    21. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 11 years ago

      Is there even anything in the Bible that actually says that sex outside of marriage is against God's rules? I don't think Adam and Eve were married.

      1. profile image0
        SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this
        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          You need to define fornication. It has several different meanings.

          Edit: And you need to provide the Hebrew/Greek definitions/words, as English may have a different meaning.

          1. profile image0
            SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hebrew word and definition for fornication: H2181
            זנה
            zânâh
            BDB Definition:
            1) to commit fornication, be a harlot, play the harlot
            1a) (Qal)
            1a1) to be a harlot, act as a harlot, commit fornication
            1a2) to commit adultery
            1a3) to be a cult prostitute
            1a4) to be unfaithful (to God) (figuratively)
            1b) (Pual) to play the harlot
            1c) (Hiphil)
            1c1) to cause to commit adultery
            1c2) to force into prostitution
            1c3) to commit fornication
            Part of Speech: verb
            A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root [highly-fed and therefore wanton]
            Same Word by TWOT Number: 563

            Greek word and definition for fornication:  πορνεία
            porneia
            Thayer Definition:
            1) illicit sexual intercourse
            1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
            1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
            1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
            2) metaphorically the worship of idols
            2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
            Part of Speech: noun feminine
            A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4203
            Citing in TDNT: 6:579, 918

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Thanks. That's what I mean. There are at least ten different meanings for fornication.

              Does the Bible mean all of them, some, or one?

              1. profile image0
                SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Each definition has something to do with unfaithfulness.  Unfaithfulness to your spouse, to God, to yourself, etc. . .

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, but not sex. There are at least three definitions that have nothing to do with sex outside of marriage.

                  I will admit though, that the Bible may have used different words in different places (and was just translated to "fornication")

                  But, there doesn't seem to be a restriction for things such as premarital sex. Even Adam and Eve weren't married.

                  1. profile image0
                    SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    But Adam and Eve were married.  Gen_2:25  And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

                    Gen_3:20  And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

                    1. janesix profile image59
                      janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Ok. You got me there. I thought she was just his helpmeet.

                  2. profile image0
                    SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    To address this part of your post.  The word whoremonger is not found in the Old Testament, KJV.

                    Eph_5:5  For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

                    The word whoremonger accordi9ng to Greek definitions is:  G4205
                    πόρνος
                    pornos
                    Thayer Definition:
                    1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
                    2) a male prostitute
                    3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator
                    Part of Speech: noun masculine
                    A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from pernemi (to sell, akin to the base of G4097)
                    Citing in TDNT: 6:579, 918

                    The word harlot is found in the Old and New Testaments.

                    Gen_34:31  And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?

                    The Hebrew word and definition of harlot is:  H2181
                    זנה
                    zânâh
                    BDB Definition:
                    1) to commit fornication, be a harlot, play the harlot
                    1a) (Qal)
                    1a1) to be a harlot, act as a harlot, commit fornication
                    1a2) to commit adultery
                    1a3) to be a cult prostitute
                    1a4) to be unfaithful (to God) (figuratively)
                    1b) (Pual) to play the harlot
                    1c) (Hiphil)
                    1c1) to cause to commit adultery
                    1c2) to force into prostitution
                    1c3) to commit fornication
                    Part of Speech: verb
                    A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root [highly-fed and therefore wanton]
                    Same Word by TWOT Number: 563

                    1Co_6:15  Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

                    The Greek word and definition:  G4204
                    πόρνη
                    pornē
                    Thayer Definition:
                    1) a woman who sells her body for sexual uses
                    1a) a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain
                    1b) any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust
                    2) metaphorically an idolatress
                    2a) of “Babylon,” i.e. Rome, the chief seat of idolatry
                    Part of Speech: noun feminine
                    A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4205
                    Citing in TDNT: 6:579, 918

                    1. janesix profile image59
                      janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      I suppose 1b might be considered premarital sex. The rest seem to just be about prostitution.

                      Edit: And number 3. Unlawful could be taken to mean unmarried.

    22. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      Sex is dangerous, no matter what you call it...
      every time it is tried.
      Christians are concerned with going to heaven. If you want heaven, don't have sex.
      Its simple.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Why?

        Some of the benefits outweigh the negative aspects.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
          Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          The benefits are not essential to life.
          Nor are they detrimental...
          but, it is like owning a gun. You must know how to used it responsibly.
          Many do not.
          Christians do not want to go to hell. They know that irresponsible sex can lead to hell.
          So simple.

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The benefits are essential to human life.

            No sex, no babies. No continuation of the species.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I was about to ask about your prior post that if you want to go to heaven then don't have sex.  You answer it here with irresponsible sex, or I am guessing that is what you meant when you said that.

    23. profile image0
      SirDentposted 11 years ago

      Pro 5:18  Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
      Pro 5:19  Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

      1Th 4:3  For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
      1Th 4:4  That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
      1Th 4:5  Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

      Exo 20:14  Thou shalt not commit adultery.

      Mat 5:28  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks. I think you've satisfactorily answered my question.

        1. profile image0
          SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          It wasn't me.  The Bible answered your question.

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Sure. But you did all the work;)

    24. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

      Uhhh, seems as if you obviously don't want to know... have you not been listening? Or is his opposition much louder???

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Oh, I see. The devil must be influencing me because I don't know what you're saying. That makes sense. Can you ever just be straight forward,and say what you mean?

        Why don't you use this golden opportunity to spread God's message, instead of accusing me of nonsense?

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Which aspect of his will are you concerned about?

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You're the one who said God had a "message". I was wondering what that was,according to you.

            Right now, however, I'm getting increasingly irritated with how you are treating me, insulting me, and I don't really care to talk with you anymore if you're going to act that way.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Insulting you??? smile maybe we should just get some rest and try again tomorrow. Im sleepy.
              God has many messages. But somehow, I think you already know.
              G'nite smile

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                The message I'm getting is that I have to trust myself.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  To know what God wants??? Or to know better than God, what he wants??? Or to be able to find the loophole and succeed at blaming God??? I am not sure what you mean.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Once again, I don't blame God for anything. I have no to way to understand what God wants or what He created us for. This is what I'm trying to understand.

                    As for trusting my self, I mean I feel God wants me to trust in my own decision making skills. To follow my heart. To choose good over evil. To have confidence in myself. I DO feel like I'm being tested. God seems to want me to make my own decisions, based on what I feel is right.

                    If I'm wrong and this has nothing to do with God, then what I am left with is a set of skills for discernment. More self confidence, and more respect for those around me. Either way, I win.

                    1. profile image0
                      Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      I can seriously get behind those words.  I do not believe that we are called to be brainless automatons who accept anything and everything at face value.  There is so much that draws us away from health and sanity.  I don't think a sincere search for God, and a true meeting with him does that at all.

                    2. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      To give over to not being able to understand what God wants or why he created us, is choice as well. All the info is available. All the tools at fingertips.

                2. profile image0
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  That's better.... personal trust and taking responsibility.

    25. no body profile image76
      no bodyposted 11 years ago

      Men sin when they are drawn away by their own lusts and enticed. Every person is a sexual creature to one degree or another. But not all are drawn away to sin in the area of sexual things. Each is enticed by the particular lust that dwells in them. I know people who must stay far away from alcohol but I myself have no trouble with it and I don't drink at all now that I am a Christian. My lusts are particular to me and if I am tempted by the devil or my flesh, it will be in the areas of my weaknesses. Christians must be aware of their particular sin so that they can erect as many barriers between themselves and that sin and them, that they can. Much of this concern is from a teacher's perspective. Others are concerned with these matters because they speak from experience and their hard-fought status as free from these things. I suppose that some are talking about sexual matters because they are working to free themselves and immersing themselves in it makes another trip down that immoral road easier. But I think that most are trying to spare others the pain that they themselves have experienced with these matters.

      1. profile image0
        SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Very well said.  Thank you.

      2. wilderness profile image77
        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I shall never understand why a person is considered to have sinned when the lust that God designed and built into them is stronger than the mind that God designed and built into them.

        Is it just definition, where nothing God can do is "sin" regardless of how evil it would be if man did it?  Is it just rationalization, trying (and failing) to fit the concept of God's perfection into the imperfect world He built?  Is it just a "I'm better than you because I didn't give in to that lust? (and we won't talk about my own sin)?

        How did God's failures get transferred to man?

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Aint nobody built no lust into nobody... wink its a lie designed to fool one into believing that he has NO choice; and doomed at the hand of God, predestined to fail. However, if one believes that, it is his CHOICE. wink

        2. no body profile image76
          no bodyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          God fails at nothing. But there is sin that has passed from one generation to the next since the first man, Adam. That is why Jesus came to die. In your way of thinking there would be no reason to send Jesus here to die for there is no sin. I say Christ came to earth to die for sin. He did not died for nothing. You would say that either Jesus lied when He said He died for the sin of the world or that Jesus did not exist at all and was made up of men's fancy and legend.
                 Now this is what makes no sense to me. Either you reject the Bible or you don't. I see you do reject it. But you keep on trying to figure out how I came up with my reasoning. It is not my reasoning. It is Bible and I believe it. Think of me as you will but at least you should know where I get my point of view.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            God fails at many things, the Bible is full of His failures.



            That is just one of many of God's failures.



            Nope, Jesus died as a result of Roman criminal conviction, whether he was innocent of his charges or not.

                 

            Is the word, "indifferent" not in your vocabulary?

    26. Oztinato profile image78
      Oztinatoposted 11 years ago

      Mowtown
      You missed my whole point: atheists who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. I wont play into the atheist hands and argue with you.
      I am defending religion.

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        If that is your point, I'm not the one who missed it, you are.  All I saw was an insistence to start an argument where someone here would defend infanticide and bestiality.  Decent people generally won't do that, and so, your point isn't missed so much as ignored.  Again, go fight with the people who are proposing these ideals as something wonderful. You just aren't going to find them here.

        When you can only defend religion by attacking atheism, you need to find a new tactic.

        1. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Mowtown
          I wont argue with you as its counter productive.
          However as I am arguing in Favour of Christianity I ask you to take stock and consider I am on your side.
          That is the reason for unfailingly reminding online atheists about their hypocrisy.

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Are you a musician?  Familiar with the term ostinato/ostinati?  You must be.  It's woven beautifully into the fabric of your forum posts. smile

            1. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              That's right: ostinato is a "stubborn baseline". Boogie falls under the classical term ostinato for this reason; as it is stubbornly but rhythmically repeated. I am an above average boogie piano player.
              I stubbornly pursue hypocrisy whenever I see it (even in myself).
              I think this is Atheism's big chance in history to make a positive contribution by building on the long evolution of the good bits of religious ethics: if they try to jettison all religion they will fail dismally in a rapid devolutionary spiral (as described above).

          2. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            So, you find one guy who you obsess about and use him as your role model for atheism. lol

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              A least your not obsess with ancient spirituality that is greatly and insanely repeated over and over with very little sound answers to back it up.

            2. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              If you actually read the info posted I gave a number of examples of entire groups of atheist who are acting the same way as Singer.
              Singer represents a hugely influential highly disturbed form of atheism which has many adherents world wide as outlined in my previous posts.
              I would love to give more examples but this is not the theme of this hub: my point here is that "atheists in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" in reference to the hypocritical premise of this hub.
              I find it quite comical that the word Singer amongst crims is the person who informs on his cohorts.

              1. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                An entire group of atheists....ok, name them!  Are "they" a cohesive group?  A group would be at least 3 individuals with same opinions.

                Is your purpose here to inform us with irrefutable facts?  Or to discredit atheism?  In either case, you have not yet succeeded.

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Just check wiki for the topic atheism and you will find copious lists of groups.

              2. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Anonymous poster, with Hubpages for more than a year, no hubs, no followers, nothing sensible to  contribute, just s..t stirring.....  you are a Troll of the first order!

                1. profile image0
                  Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I always hate to see people resort to calling others trolls. It comes off as a blatant attempt to discredit; for no better reason than that the person accused does not see eye to eye with the person making the accusation.

                  As much as it may pain you to give the guy credit; he does have a point. If there are those on the outskirts of what we consider to be reason and sensibility they do, frequently, consider their difficult stand to be in opposition to the other far end. They move into that position because they believe every choice made negating the 'value' of that far end opens a door to the other.

                  Think of the NRA. Think of discussions on abortion. Both far ends refuse compromise out of fear of where that may lead. I don't think it is unreasonable to say if you have a complaint about one far end it is hypocritical not to contemplate the stand from the other and attempt to understand how the views of one push the views of the other. Without attempting to understand, constructive discussion is not possible, debate is not possible because the term troll is thrown out in frustration so discourse was, from the beginning, nothing more than an attempt to promote conflict; which, correct me of I'm wrong, is one definition of being a troll.

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I fully appreciate your reply, Emile R and stand to be corrected if I am wrong.   It is not my intention to slander someone simply because they disagree with my views.

              3. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                No, you didn't. But, you're free to obsess about Singer and offer the ridiculous fallacy that he alone represents all atheists.

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I have repeatedly said there is a large odd powerful group of atheists supporting him. Look at his bio.

    27. Cupofsoup profile image59
      Cupofsoupposted 11 years ago

      And now for the Sophomore post.

      Again, for those who have no clue where I'm coming from, I'm a card carrying, conservative (or at least libertarian) minded Christian. With that in mind...

      I don't, and I can't imagine many other Christians, believe that atheists routinely promote Zoophilia or infanticide. That kind of sensationalism has more place in a tabloid than a serious discussion.

      I think the original question was why the focus on sexuality? As Christians there's a definite faith based component to the stigma we attach to infidelity and immoral sexual behavior in general. The faith grounded reason for that is that there is a spiritual component to sex (don't try to argue this point atheists, we've all had 'out of body' experiences' with our partners, not to be crude). Sexual interaction goes to the deepest roots of human's core, so naturally, in a faith were restraint and fidelity are prized, sexual-ism is going to seem sharply out of focus, even inordinately so.

      To the other point mentioned. In God's eyes, sin is sin. He doesn't tell us to focus more on sex. It's the humanity in us that does that as it struggles with a carnal point of view we try to wrestle down daily as Christians.

      Even Paul couldn't always do it. We're in good company, lol!

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Sounds good, Sophomore... wink

      2. wilderness profile image77
        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        You're right - "In God's eyes, sin is sin".  Not "sex is sin", but "sin is sin".  So where do the Christians get the idea that any sex they do not partake of themselves is sinful, while whatever THEY choose to do is not?

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
          oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          If Christians are hypocritical, then they are being hypocritical.  I don't think you can actually know that what you described is what is happening, but it surely does sometimes with some people.  Jesus also thought that hypocrisy was bad, and spoke on it.  He did so with authority too, he was probably the only one in the history of ever, that could! (With 100% honesty.)  For me, I wouldn't assume that Christians don't personally struggle with their own sins, or that they do either.

          1. wilderness profile image77
            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know...I have never had a Christian tell me that whatever form of sex they indulge in is a sin, but a great many have described all OTHER forms as sinful.  Or at least, what forms they will ADMIT to indulging in are never sinful...

            Maybe hypocritical, maybe not, I just know that I have never had a Christian admit to any sinful form of sex.  And I know that they often condemn sex that Jesus never did, under the idea that it is sinful (and again, they don't participate).

            1. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Wilderbeastiality,
              One hypocrite can't really comment with justification about another hypocrite.
              Think about it.
              I have given you logical proof of deep atheist hypocrisy many times but you still feel compelled to throw stones in your own glass house.

              1. wilderness profile image77
                wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Really?  While I've seen you post a few gross exaggerations about what you think atheists think or do, I haven't seen anything showing atheist hypocrisy.  Just your own wild ramblings that don't connect with reality.

                Do you think such things are common to most Christians, or only to those trying desperately to prove something that isn't true?

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  My point about Gödel,Occam, and German beasitial atheists for example have seen you totally dumfounded.

            2. profile image0
              Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I guess you were not privy to my confessions. I don't really want to rehash them, but suffice it to say, I have had sexual sin in my life. For about 3.5 years, I walked away from God. I never wanted to leave Him, I think I just hoped He'd rescue me. I felt His love even in the depths of my failure and understood grace more than ever, as I could clearly see that it was my sin that put Him on the cross. It has been a year now since I started walking with God again. I am getting stronger all the time.

              1. wilderness profile image77
                wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Sorry - you misread my post.

                "Christian tell me that whatever form of sex they indulge in is a sin" does not say anything about what Christians did in the past that might have been a sin; just what they do NOW that is considered sinful.  Unless you mean that you are still sinning sexually while walking with God?

                1. profile image0
                  Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  No, I am not currently living in sin. I did not cease to believe in Jesus during that time. I'm not sure what you're looking for. I thought your premise was simply that Christians did not confess their sin, but denied them.

                  1. wilderness profile image77
                    wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Ah.  A misunderstanding.

                    No, my point is that Christians do not believe that the sexual practices they personally participate in are sinful.  Only those they do not wish to indulge in. 

                    In that manner there is no need to confess as they have done nothing wrong.  Only others are sinning through sex, but  the Christians believe they are lily white, not participating in those sexual activities they call "sin".  "Sin" being defined, in other words, as only those activities they do not wish to indulge in.

                    Now, just as you say, many Christians seem to take great delight in exclaiming how "sinful" they USED to be, and will often declare that their past practices were sinful, but hasten to explain that they don't do it anymore.

                    1. profile image0
                      Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      First of all, why are you discussing the practices of the sex lives of the Christians you know, with them? This seems highly unlikely and very much like a contrived statement in order to make the 'point of the day.'
                      Second, does anyone you know, Christian or not, really want to discuss the things they are presently doing, that they feel are wrong? So if you just cheated on your taxes, Wilderness, and didn't share that with the group, can I then make the statement that, "The Atheists I know never want to share the things they're doing wrong, they only want to point the finger at others." I could keep going... I mean there was so much wrong with your statement I'm afraid I wont be able to stop if I keep going.

                    2. Chris Neal profile image76
                      Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      The part about "those they do not wish to indulge in" is an assumption.  Many Christians are exposed to the same temptations as non-Christians, and many wish to indulge in the same sorts of practices that many non-Christians do. That doesn't mean they don't think of it as sin.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Christians struggling with sin are likely not going to tell an atheist about that.  We know they do talk to people about it though.  It's very personal for them and sharing it with a pastor, counselor or friend isn't even easy much less an atheist. A lot would explain them not telling you about it, other than Christians wanting to turn a blind eye To their own sin while pointing the finger at others sexual sin.  Not denying it happens though and often. 

                  Setting a time frame where a Christian can share about sexual sin with you, in order to not allow for yourself to be shown an example the opposite being true,  kind of jumped out at me.

            3. Chris Neal profile image76
              Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              There's an interesting point. Do you think that Jesus said that sex outside of marriage, or between same sex people, or with animals, or with multiple partners at the same time, was okay?

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I think that he was silent on some of those issues.  Oztinato is repeating the same argument over and over and dying for someone to get defensive about it-in my opinion, because that defensiveness indicates to him a sort of consent.  As far as I can tell, the average poster on HP is a fairly decent minded person who would never defend bestiality as a viable sexual practice.  Google his user ID and find the word from which it is derived.  Then check out his multiple statements to Claire in another thread about "concern trolls."  It might enlighten you a bit as to his style. 

                He may be entirely sincere in his concern, but it's my observation that he's just itching to get someone to slip up and say they defend or consent to something they find indecent, regardless of religious persuasion.

              2. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Please Chris, indicate where anything of his sayings on the matter were reported in your bible.

                1. Chris Neal profile image76
                  Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I've gotten huge pushback on this in the past, but as I read Matthew 19:4-5, this seems to me to encompass an awful lot.



                  What Jesus was quoting was written in Genesis (Genesis 2:24)



                  Everything else was clarification.

            4. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I think I hear what you're saying here...let me know if I misunderstand.  A Christian will look at the sexual practices of others and call them sinful.  That includes even other Christians if those practices occur outside of marriage.  But they can pretty much engage in ANY sexual practice within their own marriage and see nothing wrong with it, even if the majority of society might call it deviant.

              Close?

              1. wilderness profile image77
                wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Close, but not quite.  The Christians I have spoken to simply deny that their own sexual practices, whatever they might be, are sinful in the eyes of God.  Don't forget, the Church has made up many rules itself, outside God's Word, but that doesn't make it sinful.  For example, at one time any but the missionary position was an abomination worthy of beating or death, and sex was ONLY for reproductive purposes.  That has all changed now (thank goodness), but many other practices are also kind of up in the air - not specificially declared sinful by the bible, but considered so by those Christians that do not participate.  Others (notably homosexuality) can be read as sin in the bible, or not as the reader chooses; straight Christians find it sinful, homosexual Christians do not.

                And no, within their own marriage doesn't have a lot to do with it - just whether they indulge or not.  It would be absolutely incredible if those millions of Christians having sex outside a marriage, whether married or not, all found it sinful but ignored that and did it anyway.  It would certainly put a different view on what it means to be a Christian.

      3. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        How the hell can you be conservative and libertarian at the same time?
        You have that christian opinion about sex because you count yourself christian and all your friends are christian. And if you held a different view you might fall out with you friends.
        "God" is the  crutch you use to convince yourself and others that you are righteous.  As a crutch it also comes in handy for whipping anyone who does not conform.

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I must have missed something in his post. i didn't see where he was attempting to 'whip' anyone down.

          I get what he is saying. Spiritual is not compatible with sexual. When you attempt to focus on the spiritual you separate your mind and body. Or, so they say. I tend to be very much more aware of my body when I attempt to release my mind. I guess I'm carnally grounded. However, the assumption most people have is that after death our minds will be released. We won't have emotions, sexual feelings, bodies, etc. There is no sex in the  next stage of being. If that is where we come from, and where we go to, everything that happens now is temporal and the very act does, in and of itself, separate us more so than any other action. Because we lose focus of anything but our bodies during that time.

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Ok... and is not the major, in fact ultimate, control when someone convinces us that "someone is watching you" when you actually let go and enjoy yourself?  The idea that "God" will not like it, that you succumb to your bodily instincts and deny that "spiritual" potential, that is where every religious contention rests.    Religion is man-made, so is belief, so is superstition, so is judgment, so is punishment - for the purpose of control over others.

            The fact that many individuals gain deep and meaningful support for their lives by having a belief, this I am not disputing.   It is people who exploit that inherent need for ulterior gain that I am against.

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              My primary problem with this post is the comment about others exploiting for personal gain. Are you not arguing in defense of your beliefs? If you 'win the hearts and minds' through your argument, do you not gain personally?

              Religion, on the subject of sexuality, does serve a purpose. It is simply an attempt to teach people not to objectify another human being. Across the board, all of the prohibitions point to this. Sexual desire is one of the strongest emotions we experience and the bottom line is that we are objectifying another human being through the process. Whether it be watching an x rated video, through masturbation, picking up another individual in a bar for a night of pleasure or simply staring at someone and imagining them in bed with us. We aren't looking at the individual completely, we are focusing on the outside of them. What we observe. We are seeing them without seeing them completely and reducing them to no more than our desire to gratify ourselves.

              Now, we can argue that religion goes too far. That it objectifies by telling us not to objectify. That's a valid argument. It does appear to focus way too much on the down side of sex. However, it exists primarily to point out the down side. It is up to the individual to understand the what and why within themselves. To focus on themselves and act in a manner that puts other individuals on the same level of respect they give themselves. Unfortunately, it is human nature to avoid self growth and attempt to focus on the lack of growth in others. I think, this thread is a good example of that trait in each of us.

              1. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Fair comment.  If this thread gives rise to expanded thinking that is a plus.

          2. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            What that has to do with who we have sex with I'll never know. Telling a teenage boy that masterbation is a sin is only causing guilt. It doesn't stop him.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              That is more  of a Catholic thing if I am not mistaken.  I don't find support for it in the bible , but mention it here because people often assume its a Christian teaching.  I think it does make it difficult when kids growing up learning things are so supposedly shameful.  No wonder resentment and confusion builds over time.

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Actually, it is Biblical. Something about not spilling your seed on the ground. Although, my husband points out that it also said better to spill it on the ground than the belly of a whore. He points that out when the religious get into the masturbation topic to point out that it could easily be argued that masturbation is acceptable.

                1. profile image0
                  Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  That was an interesting post to hop in on.

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    If you were brought up Catholic, in a Catholic neighbourhood, in Texas, and the Atheists came to town, with their free-thinking radical ideas, it's not surprising if you get very defensive about your religious ideals.
                    I don't see why someone who claims they have a strong religious faith, have to be so fearful of anything that questions that faith.
                    Oztinato seems to have just such an irrational fear.

                    1. profile image0
                      Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      I don't know if you meant to address me. Ive pretty much just read Emile's post so far... I don't know what Oz's statements were, nor am I Catholic. I am a Protestant and have many times found myself overly focused on sexual matters, if that is any help to you. Otherwise, I've got nothing.

                    2. Oztinato profile image78
                      Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      I don't fear atheism and I have repeatedly said there is a place for ethical atheism.
                      What we are seeing today with the New Atheism sweeping the world is not technically atheism: it is more like a cult of religious intolerance and an evolving odd patchwork of strange beliefs.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Would be a strange Old Testament law to cling to when so many others are dismissed.  I think it ties in to the procreation part  for the Cathilics and their ideas on birth control.  I learned recently how seriously they take it and their rules or ideas.  It's an emphasis I don't get. 

                  One way I heard one Christian leader put it was that all sec between a husband and wife is "ok", including things that avoid an unwanted pregnancy.  If I didn't know how serious they take it to the point of masturbation is a no no, I thought some others maybe didn't know. Not faulting people for choosing to align with those beliefs if they think they are Anyone with a critical thinking cap on would know what you just described is not prophecy, not how it works.  Setting up "test" like that, of course you will get those results.

                  So of course that wouldn't be prophecy.  It seems what we really have are people telling others prophecy can't even "be" and are using poor reasons for trying to prove it.  the best thing.  I knew about that OT verse, but I think that was for the Istaelites of that day and I think Jews mostly agree but I could be wrong.

                3. profile image0
                  SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I heard it differently than you when I was younger.  "it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than to spill it on the ground."   No matter how many times I may have heard that saying, it is not biblical.

                  The part about spilling your seed on the ground may have different implications that what we now see.  A brother married his dead brother's wife but didn't want to impregnate her because the child would be considered his brother's child, not his.  Just one other possibility.

                  1. profile image0
                    Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Are we all just giving our take on what we thought that verse meant?
                    I always thought it had to do with the fact that God's command to man, all the way back in Genesis was to go forth and multiply. It seems like not a lot of multiplying is going to be done under those circumstances. In addition, he gave woman to man that he might not be alone... seems like he is ignoring that gift and taking matters into his own hands (jokes aside) and ignoring the gift of God. For so many reasons I can't imagine that God is pleased with masturbation... although most of us would argue that it is an acceptable alternative to a myriad of problems, biblically we would have to say that God would have us learn self control before coming up with alternate solutions to certain issues.

                    1. profile image0
                      SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      I was only saying that it might not be what we think it is.  To be honest, this is a subject I have never studied on.  Gen 38:8  And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

                      Gen 38:9  And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
                      Gen 38:10  And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

                      "seems like he is ignoring that gift and taking matters into his own hands (jokes aside) "  I actually thought this was kind of funny.

                  2. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I think that in those days, long before it was known that the female contributed part of the biological make-up of the baby, it was considered that the semen was the only substance that went on to become the baby.  It came from the male and if you "spilled it" you were killing the potential baby.

                    We now know that billions of cells, from numerous parts of our bodies, are dead and discarded each day.   So the pleasures of solo sex are not the evil that you might be taught in church.  They do no harm to anyone, except the controllers of the church lose their authority.

                    1. profile image0
                      Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      You cannot place yourself in the stead of God.
                      You might find those things to be reasonable, and maybe to man's way of thinking they are.
                      I'm not saying you are in violation of God's will by having that opinion. I would say, however, that from a Christian's perspective, what pleases God and doesn't please God cannot be decided based on earthly arguments. It is very important to the Christian to live according to God's standards and to seek out *His will and not accept any or every teaching b/c someone says it makes the most sense to them.

                    2. profile image0
                      SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      I disagree that it was before it was known that the female had to contribute to the make up of a baby.  The custom was that when a man dies having left no children, the next brother marries his wife to raise children up to his brother. 

                      Are there studies on solo sex and what it does to a  person mentally?  Is it possible that the person who masturbates constantly, daily or even weekly might become unable to perform with a partner?

                  3. profile image50
                    idealisticposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    When I was a child, I was taught two different things regarding masturbation. people used that phrase and scripture regarding the man who married his dead brother's wife and was killed because he pulled out to teach that God would kill you for masturbating because it goes against the command of being fruitful and multiplying. Someone later told me that masturbation wasn't the actual problem. The problem was the lustful thoughts that entered your mind while masturbating and that it was only okay if you were thinking about your spouse when doing it..

                    1. profile image0
                      Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      However, lust will rule over you if you allow it. If you are thinking about your spouse, at least you're not cheating in your heart, but you are still lusting after something. Passion is a positive, lust is a negative, no matter who is the focus of that desire.

                    2. profile image0
                      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      At last!   You are getting to the reasons for my question at the start of this Discussion, i.e., the distorted attitudes to sexual matters.
                      The misunderstandings from a heath point of view; the idea that it causes psychological problems; that it wastes seed;  that god will not like it;  all these take you away from the healthy enjoyment and into the land of guilt!   
                      Loading you up with guilt allows someone else with ulterior motives, like the Masters of your religion, to manipulate you and your mind.
                      Think about it .

                  4. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Haha. I'll have to look that up. If he's wrong I'm surprised no one has called him on it. Probably too shocked to respond to him.

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                      Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Emile R

                      I think your great at handling these self love sins.

                      We almost wrote a book on it. lo

                    2. profile image0
                      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Why is it called the "seed?"   That was what went into the woman and came out as a child.   Before the advent of the microscope and accepted, scientific study, there was no way they could have known about the ovum within the woman, or that she could have contributed something of "God" (designated He, by the way) to the formation of a child.   Therefore, to spill that "seed" on the ground would have been an act of blasphemy.

                      Today, we have so much scientific knowledge to enhance our understanding of our world, our selves and the wonders before us, that this incessant concentration on dark and ugly guilt is so negative and destructive.

              2. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                So Catholics aren't Christians?

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What a strange reply to that.  I don't know anyone's heart more than anyone else.  That seems like you want to stir a pot!

                  I think we see time and again that man made rules and interpretations can sometimes hurt people as we see, so it's good for me to ask myself If I actually believe those things myself, and I don't again in this case. There is enough truth that hurts in this world without adding to it is my bigger point

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    All I can do is look at your words and try to understand what you are saying and it appears to me by this statement that you don't think Catholics are Christians.


                    See, you separated Catholics from Christians.

                    1. profile image0
                      SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      No.  She separated one teaching of Catholicism from Christianity.

                    2. profile image0
                      Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      She is separating Catholic from Protestant. We are used to referring to ourselves as "Christians" so when all of a sudden we are having to differentiate between Catholic and Protestant, it doesn't really occur to us from the get-go. It's not meant as a slight... no drama necessary.

                    3. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Oh I see, in part. When I separate them like that I am helping to signify the the Manu Christians in the world that dont hold to or answer to the Roman Catholic Church,  there are very big differences between them. 

                      Most of which I learned actually through atheists!  I mean that when they often give their reasons for rejecting the gospel or Jesus, the answers often boil down to man made teachings of the Catholics and their Church.  That and now living in an area that had a larger Catholic population than I am used to in other parts of the country.

                      Like I didn't know until a couple years ago that you are told what church to go to if a Catholic (maybe everyone knew that but I had no idea and was shocked!). That is one small example.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Since you aren't reading or understanding my posts, then repeat the same questions, I ought to not discuss with you perhaps. Funny, yesterday you were trying so hard to help prove I was putting words in someone's mouth,yet I wonder if you don't see your contradictions. 

                  Some Are here to really discuss and I  one of them.  I dont find you in that category based on your posts to me at least.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I showed you your words and asked for a clarification, which you don't seem to want to give. Why is that? Are you afraid one of the other true believers with chastise you if you say that Catholics are Christians?

    28. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

      Sex can be an all-consuming hobby. It can become addiction.  The more you give yourself to it,  soothing your soul's desire;  the more you want/need to give yourself to it. And the kinky kind is the "funnest". And it gets kinkier; more deranged; a drug. You think about it day and night.  It becomes your BEST friend. Aahhhh... But God is a jealous God. He wants you to give yourself to him. Not only you are affected by your lust. Sometimes defenseless old ladies. Sometimes defenseless young girls/boys. As a man thinketh in his heart; so is he. (Somewhere in scripture) He who sews unto his flesh; shall of the flesh reap corruption.  He who sews unto the spirit; ever-lasting life. (Also in scripture)

    29. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

      What you give yourself to; becomes your focus.

    30. profile image0
      SirDentposted 11 years ago
      1. Oztinato profile image78
        Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        SirDent,
        does that number include the new fashion of "after birth abortion" (infanticide). These numbers make Herod look like a boy scout when it comes to killing the innocent.

        1. profile image0
          SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Honestly, I don't know.  All I know is that just this one thing alone is enough to show that sex outside of marriage is bad.  Abortion is more than a medical procedure, it is the ending of a life.

      2. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        And if everyone  became a christian there would be no more abortions and everyone guilty of it would be saved -  bingo!!!

        1. profile image0
          SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          You forgot to say repent and believe in Jesus.

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            That is your christian story which I reject so no thank you.  I have "been there, done that."

            1. profile image0
              SirDentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              That s your right to do so.  No one can take that away from you.  Why do you try to convince others to do the same?

              1. Oztinato profile image78
                Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                They try to get others to do so because they feel hurt by God and often use the argument that "God did it" which logically contradicts there alleged disbelief.ie. if God did it there must be a God.
                As the great mathematician Kurt Godel proved with maths it is a mathematically provable necessity for God to exist.

              2. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                The only way in which I seek to change others to my way of thinking regarding the christian beliefs, is to turn from hypocrisy.  If you have a christian faith, believe there is such a thing as a "god" that looks down upon you from above and spanks your bum if you have done something bad, that is your prerogative.   If you believe that saying your prayers, in private or in public, will get you closer to that god, then again it's your right to believe that.   But:  take ownership for that.   Make it your property, totally your choice, it works for you, be true to that.  I am not accusing you, Sir Dent, of hypocrisy..... only those where "the cap fits, they should wear it."

                My position is that I do not accept the existence of such a god.   I do not accept that there is ANY consciousness remaining for this personality that is me after my physical death.  I do not allow for the possibility of "against nature" happenings 2000 years ago.  The very idea of a woman giving birth to a baby without having the influence of a male sperm to start the process off is UTTER nonsense.   The very idea of a man being killed and then being re-incarnated is not even possible in our modern age, let alone in the somewhat more primitive technical conditions prevailing in those ancient times.  (Please don't bring in the old cherry of people being resuscitated in our hospitals.  If they regain consciousness they were not dead in the first place.)  Thus, I cannot be "a christian."

                Personal beliefs can and do help many people cope with life in a way which would not be possible for them without the beliefs.   I honour that fact and would never try to break down that source of hope.  It would be an unloving thing to do!   As a person with atheist opinions I need to be flexible in the interests of caring about others, just the same as a person with theist opinions.   But superstition is just that.... no matter what disguising label you wish to apply to it.   I can live with it.... but don't let's deceive ourselves about the truth.   

                Within my atheism, there is ample room for love and caring.   Ample room for morality and sensitive ethics that consider fully the needs of my neighbours.  (I do not allow for "abortions of convenience!")  Ample room for the beautiful art which has arisen out of the religious believes of people down through history.   No room for illogical beliefs, but plenty of room for hearing about new discoveries in the realms of scientific research.   

                To belong to an Atheist Organisation would never enter my mind... I am a free thinker... I think!

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  JCL
                  here we go again; the atheist logic pattern:
                  1. God is a big man with a beard who lives in the sky
                  2. We can't see a man with a beard who lives in the sky
                  3. Therefore god does not exist.
                  How simplistic compare to Godel!

                  Ample room for loving and caring? Apparently from your defense of beastiality this could involve animals too! Certainly no objections to that or infanticide either from JCL.
                  The historical author of  Western love based philosophy is JC.

                  1. wilderness profile image77
                    wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Is it worse than the theist logic pattern?

                    1.I don't want to die
                    2.If a god exists, it will keep me alive forever
                    3.Therefore God exists.
                    How simplistic, compared to observation and testing!

                    1. Oztinato profile image78
                      Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Deleted

                    2. Chris Neal profile image76
                      Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Although Oztinato's summation of atheist thinking may be a bit oversimplified, it's not massively oversimplified from the objection I get from atheists, which is that they can't experience what I say I have and since I can't replicate it then I must not have experienced what I say I did.

                      Your summation, however, is a massive oversimplification and not even applicable to all Christians. My belief that the soul lives forever followed my conversion, it did not precede it.

                  2. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    " Apparently from your defense of beastiality this could involve animals too! Certainly no objections to that or infanticide either from JCL. "

                    Oztinato!  You KNOW I HAVE NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED THAT!

                    You repeatedly show your total lack of integrity in Hubpages, both here and in other hubs.  You are entitled to free speech and to hold opinions, but not to slander others.

                    An apology to me would be appreciated.

                    (This post has been edited in order to respectfully comply with fair comment as required by HP)

                    1. profile image0
                      Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Hey. I'd revise this before it gets reported.

                    2. Oztinato profile image78
                      Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      JCL
                      here are your own words in black and white for all hubbers to read:
                      "Any person who uses another person or animal for his/her own gratification, without the approval of that other person/animal, is guilty of a gross assault.   Obviously no animal is able to give consent to an assault upon it's body.... therefore I feel that no reasonable person should engage in such a thing."
                      You are clearly saying here if if it could be proved that an animal didn't mind then of course bestiality is OK.

              3. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                One of my biggest questions over and over to myself, when I see these forums and other things.

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
          oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Not sure why you would say that, and I am not sure I agree.  I think you aren't being serious though either there perhaps, the bingo! gives it away, lol.

      3. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        All innocent life, taken away.  It is the height of irresponsibility and I think evil.  Defenseless human life.  Yet people care so much about a tortoise, and cows, until cows can be eliminated, for whatever reasons, and sometimes the tortoises too, lol.  Oh wait, that is another thread.

        As for the babies, and the mothers that often regret or that buy a lie and feel confused later or not, the fathers that never get the chance to be the killed babies daddy, or the grandparents that would give anything to raise the child....  SO many more are actually hurt than the innocent baby taken from this world, while in the place it should really be the most protected.   We can never forget them, and be there for the young women that are often scarred long after.  They thought people were telling them the truth, lots and lots of lies.  They need love and encouragement.

        Ok I am done now.  Thanks for the reminder, it does happen everyday and I forget just how many. sad A sign of a slipping society if anything was.  We have lots of other examples too though.

        1. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Oceans, I do agree with your second paragraph, totally, but I cannot know all of the circumstances of any particular situation.   There are other factors involved from the mother's point of view, and I warm to that sort of need when trying to understand it all.

          I am equally skeptical of the efforts to bring the fetus to term that wishes NOT to be born because of so many deformities.  From what I understand, it is primarily the fetus that initiates a "miscarriage," not the body of the mother.   When you consider our human efforts to "save" such a fetus, yet abort perfectly viable fetus' that are the product of careless and casual sex, just for convenience, then this is a gross perversion, in my view.   But again, there are the feelings of others to be considered, so I (we) cannot be too adamant about the morality.

          1. Chris Neal profile image76
            Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Okay, now you've intrigued me. I was well aware (sometimes from personal experience) that many 'abortions' (in medical terminology) are what most of us would call miscarriages and a lot of them happen fairly early in the pregnancy, often before the woman even knows she's pregnant. Were you referring to something different?

            1. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Sometimes it happens early in a pregnancy.  Sometimes not.  I miscarried at 22 weeks, but there was no heartbeat at 18.  The procedure to remove the already deceased child from my womb would have been considered an "abortion."  It ended up that I delivered naturally, but would I have had an "abortion" if that hadn't been the case, given that my child had already passed away?

              1. Chris Neal profile image76
                Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                First, I'm very sorry for your loss. Although I have never carried a baby inside me, I do know the loss of a child very early on. Our daughter, when she was still in the first trimester, she seemed healthy until one time at an ultrasound they could find no heartbeat. They looked for a very long time, but they found nothing. The week between that ultrasound and the next one was one of the longest and toughest weeks in my life, and I know my pain was nothing compared to my wife's. The OB was urging Lisa to get a D&C for medical reasons, but she just couldn't do it. A week later, at our insistence, they did another ultrasound and they found a heartbeat. I tell you, I was never so happy in my whole life. Lisa had just been in such a daze that it took her several minutes to even realize what was going on. I cried, Lisa cried, the technician cried. Later, they said that they think there was a twin who died in there, and was absorbed into our daughter (which in itself brings up many questions.) How true this might be, I don't know, but it was a heck of a roller coaster.

                IMO, I think the procedure would not be called an abortion because the baby had, sadly, already died. I've heard doctors say that in medical parlance, miscarriages are often called "natural abortions" so when your baby passed that was when it happened. But again, I'm sorry for your loss.

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you for your condolences.  I appreciate that.

                  One of my biggest concerns with the pro-life movement is that they MAY not (can't say for sure) take into consideration that maybe not every "abortion" procedure does not include an actual termination of pregnancy.  Many are performed for reasons such as mine.  I had scheduled the procedure, after three more ultrasounds and four weeks of the most agonizing discernment I've ever experienced.  I was in labor already when I went to the hospital, so it didn't happen.  That's my only concern with the numbers.  I'm certainly not the only woman to have experienced this.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image76
                    Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    My experiences as a pro-lifer is that the overwhelming concern is the rise in the number of elective abortions. Although there are some who feel that surgical (or any artificially induced) abortion for any reason is wrong, the majority of us are more concerned with abortions that are done for what are usually called "lifestyle" reasons. One unfortunate side effect is that often the problems that the women who choose to have abortions (and sometimes choose is not really the correct word) tend to get swept aside. There tends to be, not really a demonization so much as a generalization and usually huge oversimplification of the mothers. I've known three women who I know for a fact had abortions (because they told me) and they were all different in how they arrived at it and how they handled it.

                    Although that being said, there is also a generalization and gross oversimplification of pro-lifers by the other side. Here I'm talking about the ones who actually do the talking in the press. It works both ways. Emotion tends to run high and in such instances nuance almost always gets lost.

                    1. profile image0
                      Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      I completely see your point, and do not have ANY argument against it.  I guess my concern is that you can look only at the number of procedures that have been performed, but you can NEVER know the reason for each one.  The choice to have, for instance, a dead child removed from my womb would only be recorded as an "abortion" procedure.  See what I'm saying?  Please, Chris, know that I in no way am arguing for abortion.  But when someone argues against it, it's important to know what they're actually up against.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Wow, what an incredible story.  Thanks for sharing it.  Interesting that you guys seemed to know, and what an emotional roller coaster it had to be. So happy they found the other heartbeat. smile

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Motown,I'm so sorry for the loss of your baby.  I can only imagine how difficult that had to have been.

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you, Oceans.  It was the hardest thing I think we've ever been through.  I appreciate the condolences.

            2. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, Chris, I was referring to that, but also to the dilemma we humans have built up for ourselves through being so clever with technology.  You might be surprised to hear me talking like this.

              Medical science and technology can be, and does get used for "rescuing" babies in circumstances which in the past would have meant certain death for the unborn fetus.   Those people closely involved with the maternity ward and intensive care unit will be much more knowledgeable in this subject than I am, so my views might be erroneous to a greater or lesser degree, but I will give you my feelings about this.

              In our pursuit avoid death at all costs, for ourselves and others in our care, we work hard to "rescue" the fetus which would in normal, "natural" process either be aborted in early pregnancy or, die in utero at some time before partition.   Is it morally right for modern medicine to apply all efforts to "save" that fetus?   It can certainly be the "right" thing to do from the point of view of the mother, the doctors, the relatives who are close to the situation.   But in so doing, it's possible to commit that child to a life of extreme difficulties arising from the defects it harbours.   

              For those of you who are strongly religious you might say it is "God's Will."   Is that the only way to look at the situation?   Are we who have no acceptance of the existence of "God,"  a valid point of view which we are entitled to, allowed to question the practice?   Is the saving of that fetus a loving thing to do?   Is it a selfish, egotistical thing to do, in view of the fact that fetus might rather have died before birth if left to its own choice?

              An ethical dilemma, I feel.

              1. Chris Neal profile image76
                Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I hope you understand I'm sincere when I say that yes, anyone can discuss this. I'm not one who feels that only a person with a certain point of view is allowed into the discussion. However, this is the line that  really caught my attention:


                I think either way we face a dilemma. Strongly religious people often feel that it is only natural for us to try to save life because we are made in God's image and that gives human life intrinsic value. But even beyond that, I think that even at best we run a real risk of a certain, ah, arrogance (if you will) when we use phrases like "commit that child to a life of extreme difficulties." As the father of an extremely autistic child (which by definition is a life of extreme difficulties arising from the 'defects she harbors') I don't think that if she had a choice, she would choose not to have been born. There are always cases of people who wish they had not been born, even among those who have no 'defects', and certainly I don't wish a life of misery on anyone (and I don't think most people do) but I think in a very real sense we are 'playing God' if we take it upon ourselves to decide whether a child should be born or not depending on the level of misery they are likely to endure.

                1. profile image0
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I can understand what you say from personal experience.   In the mid-seventies I was working in an X-Ray department where we were required to take X-Rays of children deformed by Thalidomide. 

                  I remember very clearly a young girl, about 12-13 years old, who had almost non-existent arms and legs, but a personality that was huge!   A beautiful person, and I remember at the time thinking, "Who am I to judge on the basis of outward appearance?"   

                  So I don't want to belabor this part of the conversation, we do share the same opinion here, I think, though from different angles.

              2. Oztinato profile image78
                Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                We could be destroying the future Stephen Hawkings of the world.
                Also many savants with 'faulty genes' have made important scientific and cultural contributions.

              3. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, Jonny, I totally agree. I've brought this dilemma up before in other discussions. We are, really, through our sense of self-importance in wanting to stave of death are doing future generations a disservice. We're propagating genetic traits that otherwise would have been weeded out by natural selection. Take an example that's not even about life and death, but rather a deformity. A deformity that makes an individual less 'attractive' and affecting this individual's ability to find mates. These kinds of traits in the past may have weeded themselves out, but now with plastic surgery we can physically alter this person to give them a much more conventional and socially acceptable look.

                The same goes for our advances in dental practices. We may be passing on traits of weekend teeth to future generations, where before these individuals may have found it too difficult to get enough sustenance to fuel them for the hunt. They may be taken out of the running for procreation because of their physical appearance or because of their lessened capability to provide. Where now, all of your teeth could fall out when you're 12 and it can be fixed. You can be given a set of teeth where hardly nobody can even tell.

                So where do you place the priority? On those living now? Or those to come? At some point we developed self-awareness and the capability to understand our eventual demise. We employ our brain to figure out how to end pain and suffering, how to fix, how to relieve and make better. To avoid death. Base instincts carried out further intellectually. So I think that is very much a valid question. It doesn't change in my mind between belief and non-belief because in either case, genetics work the same. We understand it well enough to understand the disservice we're doing. Are we denying a potential future advantageous genetic advancement that would have been realized through natural selection if we didn't intellectually decide ourselves important enough and smart enough to take the proverbial wheel ourselves? At what point is it too much and causing us to actually evolve a growing dependency on medical and dental practices.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Johnny, to be clear,  I am for saving the life of the mother in those small percentage of instances.  The reasons given for exterminating human life are often not warranted.  Severe and rare exceptions of course are there . 

            I think that is consistent with my views and have never thought otherwise.  It would be inconsistent of me to think any differently.  Which would show a problem there somewhere. Thanks for your concern, and response.

          3. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            This is as a follow up to my other post to this post of yours.  My understanding of miscarriages is that they are going to happen if they are going to happen.  A miscarriage situation to me, is not even part of the abortion debate, but a different topic altogether, and a very sad and tough one for the parents and extended family.

            To be clear, my heartfelt post was about the wanton disregard for human life that if left alone, would or could grow to be like you or me, and have a chance at life.  The majority of such abortions that take place like that, when you consider the reasons given, don't normally cross people's minds as justification for taking human life. 

            My brother in law and sister in law chose to let their baby go to term but they knew it would die upon birth, and had a mermaid syndrome among many other problems, no kidney development, and I would never judge a couple in that situation. They already struggled to have children, struggled with infertility.  There was serious debate over letting this baby go to term or not, and how cruel it would be.  They literally didn't know what to do, and decided to let nature take its course.  I remember driving quickly out to the hospital, across several states, when the time came.  They were told they would have some time alive with the baby before she died.  She was held, loved, talked to, but couldn't survive on her own outside the womb.  It was heartache, and no matter what they would have chosen, I wouldn't have judged them no matter what.  I got to see her in the hospital, and my heart broke, she was so beautiful. She was loved, and passed away in their arms but got to hear their voices for a little while.  Just a personal story that almost doesn't apply here but kind of does with your point made about deformities.  These are the toughest kinds of situations I think.  They had a funeral and a burial, her name is Rose.  I think she is in the arms of God now. 

            I fault the lies and evil, I don't fault mothers that are desperate, but if I can I would encourage them to think things through fully and not just in the interest of the innocent unborn child.  But for themselves as well, and the family that could give the precious little one a new home, etc.  They didn't ask to be born, but once conceived, a child is a new and separate life that if able to, usually wants to fight to live, and fight hard for it. ANY one of them could have been you or me.  None of us chooses it or avoids it, we are the lucky ones.  I don't fault any mother, I assume the best, and try to be fair to all parties involved.

            1. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              How could anyone argue with that.  Thank you so much for sharing with us.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Thanks Jonny, I appreciate that.

            2. Chris Neal profile image76
              Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Very well said. I'm sorry about your niece. That's heartbreaking.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                It was heartbreaking, and thanks Chris, I appreciate that.

            3. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I took a moment away from this subject after sharing my story.  To Oceans and to Chris: these are beautiful and wonderful stories.  I believe also that your niece is with God, Oceans.  Thank you for your story and sensitivity about our little jaunt off topic.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Aww, Mo, thank you so much for that.   It means so much to my heart, and for my family that there is hope.  What you said about her being with God, I think is true too.

                I was thinking the same about it being kind of off topic but Jonny seemed cool with it and understands as does everyone I am sure.   The other topic seemed to keep going on also so that was good. 

                Tough as some of these topics are, they can help to bring a quick perspective I think, to life.  Suddenly, lots of stuff that occupied my mind and daily stuff just isn't that big of a deal.  Things come into a little more focus. Thanks again Mo.

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I have no response other than a smile and a hug.  Greater purpose.  We don't always see it from our tiny little vantage points. smile

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Hugs and smiles back to you! Thank you.  Also, Happy Easter Mo, and to anyone else that celebrates it.

                    1. profile image0
                      Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      To you as well, Oceans.  I always think of today as my actual New Year's celebration...blessings to you and yours!

                    2. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Happy Easter!!! smile
                      Happy New Year!!! wink

    31. word55 profile image77
      word55posted 11 years ago

      They are human and as sexually aroused and inclined as any human is expected to be. The point is, it should be controlled. God created them with the tools to use. God said to multiply as Christians but in love between married couples.

      1. wilderness profile image77
        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        "God said to multiply as Christians but in love between married couples." 

        An extremely interesting claim, but can you back it up with scripture?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Dose the work for unbelievers too, multiplying that is.  Or are WE just over populating the world?

          1. wilderness profile image77
            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Guaranteed it will work, whether Christian or not, in love or not, and whether married or not.  We will ALL populate the earth unless celibate.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Or be gay, like Jonny

              1. wilderness profile image77
                wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                True, although even then there are ways...

              2. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Absolutely, CP.  And we can help to nuture those people who are born into this world.   Relieve some of the strain on parents.   I get a great kick out of being regarded as an older man who can offer counsel, guidance and support to younger people.

        2. word55 profile image77
          word55posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          The point that I made is based on the reading of The Old and New Testaments.
          1.Genesis 1:22
          And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiplying the earth.
          God told this to the 1st two people (Adam and Eve) on earth, before their fall by the deceit of Satan. God eventually sent His Son, Jesus Christ to sacrifice His live to give us a 2nd chance to live righteously for our own good and for what God had originally, created us to do. In order for us to succeed and fulfill His and our purposes we need to be followers of His Son, Jesus Christ and be sequentially considered Christians.

          To perform for the purpose of multiplying outside of being married is considered fornication.

          2 Corinthians 12:21 (As written by the repented Paul)
          King James Version (KJV)
          21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.
          This is a summary of scripture. I hope and pray that you understand. You must read the entire Bible and not just some of its scriptures.
          .

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Fornication
            Self sex, Adultery, Sex out of wedlock, Porn, Bi-sexual, Polygamy and Homosexual and etc and ect.....
            Shall we all hold hands together and go to Hell together?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
              Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              No thanks.

              1. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Kathryn, would you be willing to hold the hand of anyone who is homosexual?   Would you hold my hand?   Without fear of being tainted by association with "sinful" people?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  If she won't hold your hand, I will. smile

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Indeed Melissa! Welcome any time!

                2. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey! You wanna kiss??? No major for me. wink
                  I have come to the realization that love is universal. Christians are taught to love spiritual friend as well as spiritual foe. Neither are turned away or exempt.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                    Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Spiritual foe. That means most people on earth who are not Christians are enemies or have no good idea of what that core spiritual meaning is.
                    Wouldn't that make Christians the largest bigoted group ever?

                    I saw on youtube, a straight guy hold hands with a gay guy, wail they both walked the whole shopping mall together, . Never seem so my many people in such shocked before and they were told to stop holding hands a few times.

                    1. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Now WHY won't you stay on the subject? ?? It's like you wanna hit me all over at the same time. Hmmm... nah!!!

          2. wilderness profile image77
            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I might point out that in neither case was any mention made of marriage.  Certainly Adam and Eve never married and yet were directly ordered to reproduce.  So were their children, with the only possible marriage partners being their siblings or parents; a terrible sin of itself.

            Nor was there any mention of love being necessary in either area - while Adam and Eve (or at least Adam) were in lust, there is no indication they loved each other. 

            Finally, it is an absolute certainty that neither Adam nor Eve, or any of their children or children's children or children's children's children were Christians.  Nor is the any indication in Corinthians that only Christians should reproduce. 

            Your statement then seems to have no basis in scripture, except that people were to reproduce, filling the earth with humanity.  No mention of being Christian in order to do so, no mention of any necessity of being married (and examples were NOT married) or any mention of love being a requirement.  Only that God wanted more people, and required existing ones to reproduce.

    32. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

      Hey, Johnny!   
      Why do people hold hands? Usually because they are romantically in love. Adults will also hold hands in prayer circles. I would hold your hand in a prayer circle. But I will never be romantically in love with you. You prevent that possibility yourself!
      Right?

    33. word55 profile image77
      word55posted 11 years ago

      Hey Cgenaea,  I must compliment you on your response to the question. You've got it down right. My hat's off to you for all you said. I concur. Sin is anti-self. You go, go, go my sister and Happy 1st day of the week!

    34. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

      I return the blessings Motown2Chitown!!! Thank you. smile

    35. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

      Imaginary cat??? No worries then... wink

      1. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Your imaginary friend has wars with other imaginary friend. Feel sorry for your lack of peace and onesided way of thinking

        1. Chris Neal profile image76
          Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          cgenaea has an imaginary friend? I never got that from her posts.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You don't think an invisable man in the sky that watches everyone of us 24/7 and has commandment we must all follow, or you will burn forever is not an imaginary friend. Other predomate religious countries  have their own imaginary friend which causes most wars in human history. Then your God hate fags and many Christain pretent they don't and still carry7 on sceret wars upon them. Too bad Satan takes on too much of your responsibilies

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Ya know...that seems an awful lot of fire for thin air... think about that for two minutes.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                On the contrary, the closest to Godlike, is Imagination, Its dare our deepest soul, Or contrary to popular belief of the Lord , where he boxes your imagination and limits your thinking to a book. All you need to do is be over obedient, give your whole soul and worship him,  little bit arrogant would you not say .

                Please think for yourself, and don’t’ lump yourself into being Christ like.  Although I can do a great Elvis impersonations better than you can do Chris like impersonation, too bad both are died very young. Well ,…Christ was very old well pass due for his day.

                I can’t imagine the peace with Christian, they are world champion at wars, prison , slavery, murder, crime, greed, and Sodom and Gomorrah. There is a lot positive thing to say too, but peace is not one of them, yeh, can’t call them lame.
                Matthew 10:34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';"and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'

                How in the world will Yahweh/Jesus/God ever  love fornicators. Out of the top 6 worst sins in America, 4 of them are sex sins,
                1. If your love in your marriage is dead, then Adultery can apply, Atheist and many other religions have a better road record for marriage than Christian
                2. Sex out of wedlock, who has not done that, the ugliest under grade.
                3 In many Christian Countries Homosexual are outlawed.
                4 Porn, rather watch two people making love than killing each other. How many times do our kids get to watch people kill each other on film and games.

                What your have is a war against yourselves and others. If Christian really cared about peace and our natural environment as much as they do about our  personally sex life and killing people., then Christians would do more good than harm. That won’t happen in my lifetime because most of them will be spiritual rather than religious, if they are not already

                1. Chris Neal profile image76
                  Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Considering she doesn't know my mannerisms while everyone knows Elvis', I would think that a pretty safe bet!

                2. Chris Neal profile image76
                  Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this



                  Is it really so inconceivable to you that Christians can  and do think for themselves? Which is why they choose to try to be Christ-like rather than worldly?

            2. Chris Neal profile image76
              Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Do you honestly believe you know what I think, or are you just arrogant enough to assume all Christians are the same? Because either way, you are incorrect.

              I like conversation. Care to try some please?

              1. wilderness profile image77
                wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Wasn't the discussion about cgnaea's friend?  Not yours?

                1. Chris Neal profile image76
                  Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  It started that way, but when I said I didn't get that Cgenaea had an imaginary friend from her posts, he immediately switched to saying about me (Chris)  So, either he thinks he's inside my head or he lumps all Christians together into whatever he thinks we are. Either way, that's not really a conversation.

                  1. wilderness profile image77
                    wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I could see that from the post, yes.

              2. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Chris
                A Worldly Christian is Oxymoron

                Do you know, what these mean
                 
                The First Shall Be Last And The Last Shall Be First?
                I rather be wise than rich, I understand this better, buying sex sucks.

                We must lose our lives in order to save it?
                I not going to fear death and worry about the spiritual world that nobody alive has experience, good sex is living it up at best

                The Foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men?
                That I can not disagree with

                For When I Am Weak, Then I Am Strong
                When I’m strong it high energy when I’m weak it’s low energy and wont’ ever have sex then.

                1. Chris Neal profile image76
                  Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  "A worldly Christian is an oxymoron."

                  Funny, that's pretty much what I've been saying.

                  Are you comparing, contrasting, or linking the phrases?

                  You don't seem to think much of me.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                    Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm sure your  no better or worst than the next guy.
                    But your Lord, that is a different animal from another planet that nobody can really get a handle on.

                    1. Chris Neal profile image76
                      Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      All right. But you still asked me a question and then phrased it in a way that requires clarification. Were you just making a point? Because I didn't get it.

        2. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Saveth thy pity; you are the only fighter against the imaginary. smile
          I have peace that I myself don't quite understand. I'm grateful. My one side has been fantastically dependable. smile

    36. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

      Your fight is not with Christians.  You fight against the spirit of God. Explanation of biblical scripture is not judgment.
      Put down your gloves and pick up the sword. Then maybe you can explain too. wink

      1. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I do believe in the Spiritual age , yet with Christian road record. God would not choose their behaviors as an good example.

        Rule number one
        We don't talk about the fight club
        rule 2"
        rule 3 "

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Are you saying that YOU know what God would choose?
          Jesus talked about the fight club. He KNEW better...

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            NO ONE knows God like Cgenaea does!  smile

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              She must have superhighway hotline between her and God.

              My brother, who is a pastor, has been on continuous hold with God and can't  seem to give me any answers.

              1. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                He lives so far out in space that it's taking for ever to get super-fast broadband up there.

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                What questions are you asking him?  Are you sure you just don't like his answers?  I think a lot of people want answers that are satisfying to them personally sometimes, or else they are rejected out of hand.

                Not saying you are doing this, I don't know.  Was just curious your questions.

              3. Chris Neal profile image76
                Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Do you ask your brother the same questions you asked me? Because I'm still not sure what you're getting at. Are the sayings coupled, compared or contrasted? Yeah, I understand what each saying means all by itself, but is there some other point to the way you arranged them?

                1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  My brother is not interested in my Art, where I spent more time Art doing Art than he dose his Religion. Yet he claims I don't support his Spiritual journey, I do, yet spiritual is 99% unknown to all of us, what part dose he want me to understand without talking to me.

                  Asked him 50 hard questions from the Bible, he started to attempt to answers them, then told me I am too condescending, He did not speak to me until our Mothers funeral, where I announce that our mother has been a closet atheist for decades, yet she is spiritual, if there is a spiritual world I'm sure she he there. My Brother blew up and for the last 6 years only responds with Christmas cards with wall-mart messages.

                  Never have or never will say God is dead, nobody knows that.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    The 50 hard questions from the bible are answered.  It takes the spirit of God to hope to fathom them. The bible is a spiritual instrument. Flesh is inadequate in understanding the complete work.
                    The personality of God is needed. We must know his spirit to know what he means. I cannot know your heart. But people close to you do. Consider that.

              4. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Superhighway hotline it is. smile but most people just call it prayer.

            2. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Lol

    37. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

      I cannot show you how to put together the recipe for filet mignon if you are working with hot dogs and chips. smile

      1. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I'm a proven world class artist and been world class in a few other area's like sports, they won't allows us to eat hot dogs and chips.

        The Religious want us to be stuffed sausages. Or the church want us to be like mushrooms, who live in the dark and feed on sh_t.
        I've been refused by Christian big business contractors, Christian girlfriends, Christian family members and would not be voted for any high office. Why? because I don't eat their crap and live a lie.
        Why do Christian girls have sex with me, and never offer marriage, Why? because their hypocrites.

        1. Chris Neal profile image76
          Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          If only the world was so simple...

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Religion will never be simple, yet an individual can simplified-  simplified  and simplified . The 10 commandment can be boiled down to "Be honest" and ''Do not harm" most would rather fight than switch.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Make love, not war. Sex can't wait, love can, many simple rules like these most can achieve if applied.

              1. Chris Neal profile image76
                Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                You're saying that meaningless screwing trumps emotional support and involvement?

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Seems like all day long lately...

                2. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Usually  those who have meaningless sex are popping a lot of pills and drinking booze to patch up their screwed up emotions.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                    Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Nobody does that better than predominate Christian countries.

        2. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          You have SEX with CHRISTIANS??? LOL...
          What the onion is your point???
          You are not scoring points with sexcapades. smile
          You eat lots of crap...just not the GOOD kind. smile
          No hot dogs??? Still NO filet...
          We can do this till it hurts; and still...spirit and flesh work DIFFERENTLY.  You may ask 100 questions of the bible and not grasp a 1. You just AINT got what it takes. You may have BORROWED from the kingdom wink but that only wins a squirt or two; no CIGAR...

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            That mean most of the World population dose not have what it takes to understand or grasp what the Bible is saying. So give them all a express ticket to hell for being so stupid. I guess kindness is just not your Lords thing.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              There's a reason it's about belief and faith and there's a reason it says "lean not on your own understanding". It's not that it isn't logical or doesn't make logical sense, it doesn't mean it's impossible to understand, just not required. Many believers choose to accept and believe things they can't logically explain because they don't logically understand it. Others understand, or at least think they do. They'll be able to more eloquently express it in a more logical manner because it in some way makes logical sense to them. But understanding is not required.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, I may never understand the fear of your God. Do understand the most powerful force and the glue that holds the universe together -LOVE, NOT one God's greed can own it all and when this God is jealous of all others, it would be most unnatural and would divide our hearts.

            2. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              My Lord IS kindness. He planning a new place. There, people will be selected based upon the Chist-teria of their hearts. Is he there? will be the question.The bible says he never knew most of us. Never even knew... That is a powerful statement. I pray he chooses me. However,  you may change your mind in a flash. Depending on what you WANT. It only takes a second. Then BAM!!! Change course. They say Paul was kinda coerced into changing his mind. But that don't happen often. We get to have it our own way; or submit to him. I don't know why this is SO hard to understand.  smile must be in the bible somewhere... lol

              1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                There is reason for everything. If I experience a white bearded in the sky with puppet string on me with red dragon burning up the rest of the earth and This lord ask me to give up everything for him. Then YES!!!! I CAN UNDERSTAND NOW.

                In the mean time I see more harm than good from Religion, Atheist know the Religious knowledge better then other religious groups do and that  is also a good reason not to practice it.  Beside The arts really work well in mastering life for me and at keeping everything thrillingly happy.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, so what you call your happiness is all that concerns you? Well mainly, right? It is not surprising. I just hope your "happiness" never infringes upon or clashes with anyone else's (lest one of you will suffer and maybe God wants to prevent that). Selfish is probably bad for a reason

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                    Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Big difference from being self serve to selfish, the only way to being free is to have the ability to be thinking of others far more than yourself. I love my job because it serve other well, and self. It's like it's 50% about me and 50% about the rest of the world. Your Lord is selfish saying he has given you and the whole world  everything and wants you to only serve him.

                    1. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      He does not mind you serving yourself. It is your choice.  Certainly there is no harm in that... or do you have second thoughts occasionally???
                      Serve who you want. I think Beyoncé  is the hott thing these days... wink

                    2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Not sure I am understanding you correctly, but Jesus showed he served others and his Father in Heaven.  Its not about rejecting everything else when you follow God.  I think he means to not follow after other gods, or things that would take the place of god in one's life.  In so doing, comes the greatest satisfaction when you are working with your creator, in a sense.  He would happen to know what brings the most satisfaction long term, but allows people to choose otherwise.  We get what comes with our choices.  That is just how life is.  I don't think he would mind you enjoying life, serving others and him.

                    3. profile image0
                      Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      50/50? You honestly believe that?

                      Would you do your work if there was no gain to be had, for you? Think about it. You get personal satisfaction and monetary gain. 50/50 is a great stretch of the imagination and an ego building exercise.

                      I believe in what I do and feel that it will make my corner of the world a little better in the process. But, that doesn't make it a 50/50 proposition. It means I see a greater value in my endeavors as opposed to if I were sitting behind a desk and pushing paper. However, I don't consider my endeavors being 50 percent for me and 50 percent for the rest of the community.

                      We'd need some documented back up to believe your claim.

                  2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    When self is the only concern, its like trying to feed a stomach with a bottomless pit.  There isn't any real lasting satisfaction anyway, and people need more and more to give the temporary satisfaction they think they want over all else.  Its a cycle. and if we have a creator, he would know about all these things first, and what makes us tick.  Lines get blurred, and we want more, more, more........   People can believe lies, and seem to truly  not care.

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                      Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      A lie to protect yourself from harm, on the odd occasions, can be Ok
                      People who tell lies and don't even care they tell lies-is BS
                      America greatest pastime is lying, too much of that, is a waste of life.

                    2. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      More and more, love also becomes a self-serving aspect of one's life. "The love of many" HAS waxed cold... now love consistently asks the question, "What have you done FOR ME lately?" Nobody recognizes God because he is not "present" nor is he "catering"
                      He must be "non-existent" because he has not signed his name to any gifts. smile The bible predicted our current situation.

        3. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I'm really sorry to hear that this idea you find it hard to conform with has been such a destructive force in your life. I can certainly understand you having ill will towards it. That's got to be difficult. I've been on both sides of that, I can understand how you feel from your side and how they feel from theirs. There's no easy answers here. Though I am a Christian, I have some rather unconventional views that make my family squirm. I see the worry in their eyes. They have a particular idea that I don't conform to. It's difficult when you feel your put between maintaining bonds in your life at the cost of abandoning your identity and principles. When you lose bonds for sticking to who you are, it feels personal. It feels like a rejection of who you are at your essence.

    38. Oztinato profile image78
      Oztinatoposted 11 years ago

      In response to the misinformation posted on this Hub I have cut and pasted the following in formation for the enlightenment of all regarding the atheist beastiality movement in Europe.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20523950

      28 November 2012
      Germany's ruling coalition is calling for a ban on bestiality - or the practice of having sex with animals.
      The German parliament's agriculture committee is considering making it an offence not only to hurt an animal but also to force it into unnatural sex. Offenders could face a hefty fine.
      A final vote will be held in the Bundestag (lower house) on 14 December.
      Germany legalised bestiality (zoophilia) in 1969, except when the animal suffered "significant harm.
      But Michael Kiok, the chairman of the pressure group Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information (Zeta), said he was going to take legal action to fight the proposed changes
      "We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification”....Michael Kiok

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Ozzie. No one has said bestiality in this forum for eons. Follow... wink

        1. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I thought Wilderness posted regarding the situation in Germany and challenged me to prove what I was saying?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            oztinato

            You do seem very interested in Animal relationship

            On the Jerry Springer show he had 12 Unbelievable People Who Married Animals

            Maybe you want to start a thread or hub on the subject.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I recall a time when people talked about people will be wanting to marry their animals, and some others thought that was absolutely crazy!    What a ludicrous idea, right?!   Well here we are!  May not be legalized, may not come with benefits.........  Could that ever change?  Is that just crazy talk?  I only mention it because of what you saw on the show, people are strange creatures! (And especially on that show.)

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I recall a time years ago (though it probably goes much farther back) when people talked about others will want to marry their animals, etc.  Everyone said, Aww, come on, that is crazy talk!  If desire and self is the thing driving the bus at all times, then why not?  (This is not my view! Just making the observation)  i just couldn't help but remember thinking, that is silly!   Yet people are silly sometimes, aren't they?!

              1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I saw a beautiful chicken around a corner, a day ago.

                Really love animals, just not really late at night.

            3. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Castlepaloma
              this unpleasant topic shines a bright light on the hypocrisy of atheist arguments about alleged Christian sexuality. look at the contrast.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                I'm not atheist, yet my guess they would do better at loving animals in the right way.  Most Atheist love nature, they are not supernatural beings with sexual sins beyond belief.

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Its just that they turn a blind eye to what their cohorts are trying to achieve.
                  When good people do nothing..... etc

      2. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        For the love of Pete!

        If you are truly, truly concerned with those who wish for bestiality to be legal (or illegal, for that matter), please go find them and adamantly plead with them, or battle them if you must.  You seem, again, to be either missing, dismissing, or completely ignoring the fact that the average HP forum poster:

        1. Finds it an abhorrent practice.
        2. Chooses not to discuss it.
        3. Doesn't see it as an issue even remotely related to religion and their interest in HUMAN sexual matters.

        And, egad!  Lay off the silly little personal barbs.  It's really not appropriate, unless all you're really trying to do is be snarky, disagreeable, or mean. 

        Like Genaea mentioned, while you were absent, no one mentioned the subject.  What does that tell you?

        1. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I notice that many people here were unaware of the enormity of the contradiction between an allegation that Christians are prudes while ignoring what atheists are up to.
          I will continue to take every opportunity to remind both atheist and atheist of this enormous atheist hypocrisy.
          If you don't like it don't read it and pretend it will all go away in a puff of smoke.

        2. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          PS
          I will repeat again that I was challenged to produce evidence of these abhorrent activities as occurred in Germany.
          Please read these threads carefully for the sake of fair and unbiased argument.

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I've read every post in this thread.  Unfortunately, you seem to be entirely focused on the thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and actions of participants who are supporting things that are deplorable...oh, wait, none of the participants in this conversation is doing that.  So, it might appear that you are exhorting the wrong people with points that are completely irrelevant to this conversation.  I've seen that called "concern trolling" elsewhere.  Again, if you must fight the good fight against these things that are so abhorrent to you, you might want to do that against those who hold them forth as new and wonderful ideas.  Those people do not exist here in this forum, which, once again, is neither the last Christian mission field nor the great atheist think tank of the world.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Impressive. It lacks the knife twist that I would have added in there somewhere... but impressive none-the-less.

              Just a little more work and I shall pass the torch to you with confidence smile

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Oh, I need long years of training to meet the standard.  You'd be doing us all a disservice to not complete my formation.  big_smile

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  PS
                  I am on many other hubs discussing science, Gödel, philosophy, art, music etc.
                  Any personal attacks will be dealt with.

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    When you feel that I have personally attacked you, you are well within your rights to deal with it as you choose to.  I refrain as much as possible from doing so, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe I am incapable of such things.  Certainly, I have targeted you more than once regarding your efforts to insist that this conversation IS about something it isn't.  I've not attacked you personally, however, as that is not my style, for one, and I don't know you well enough at all to make the attempt if I were prone to that type of interaction.

                    As regards your other discussions, that's great.  Those aren't the ones in which I've encountered you.  So I've addressed you here.  With nary a personal attack to be seen. 

                    As to who I may or may not have befriended, I often disagree with them and highlight those areas if disagreement with a great deal more passion than you've seen from me here.

                    1. Oztinato profile image78
                      Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      I don't agree with your style at all, but your are free to do your thing. So let me do mine and get stuck into those who defend such things as feeding babies to hyenas: if the hyena example doesn't raise your ire as a Christian I can't fathom your attitude. Or didn't you read about the hyena theory posited here?

            2. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Mowtown
              it is my democratic right to respond to people who challenge me on facts.
              We have had people here defending feeding babies to hyenas, nudity of strangers in front of children, beastiality, etc. Are you blind to this?
              I realise you have made friends here with some atheists but don't let it seduce you into accepting these abominations as a topic worthy of cold calculated discussion. That's not my style. You should allow me to express my opinion.

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                It's interesting that you feel that I've been seduced into letting this be a topic worthy of "cold, calculated discussion" when I've reiterated countless times that I find it unworthy of discussion period.  It's an abhorrent subject which does not have a rightful place in a decent conversation regarding human sexuality.  I'm surprised that you don't see that.

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  If I didn't point out the hypocrisy of the premise of this hub here I wouldn't be doing my duty to the debate or to society.
                  As I said if you don't want to read about it just don't read it!

    39. profile image52
      Elise Mealorposted 11 years ago

      The bigger questions is why do Christians believe it's ok to judge these people that "sin"? There's only one judge and I say let Him judge when the time comes. Until then, we should love and respect all human beings like the Bible tells us to do. Maybe the Christians have forgotten that part of the Bible. It's sad really. I don't want to teach my children to hate and judge. I want to teach them to be patient and to love no matter what and let God be the judge as intended.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Unfortunately, some do see standing on the true statements of the bible as judgment. Many do not see that it is the bible that judges the heart.
        One says, I lie because it is convenient. I say, but the bible says it's wrong to lie. Believe it or not; more often than not I then hear,  who the hell are YOU to judge me???
        Bible scriptures do that sometimes... smile people attribute the message to the mouthpiece. Not the source. Bible...

        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          My brother is against gay marriage and held a few big gays street protests
          I confronted him on it, then he just ignores me or pretests to be OK about gays.
          Why don't I see Christian confronting other Christian about GOD HATES FAGS posters and protest across the Country. Often the answer they give  is God hates fags, we don't.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            God hates no one.

    40. profile image0
      SirDentposted 10 years ago

      First thing I want to point out is that the originator of this thread is an Atheist, as far as I can tell.  I also would like to point out that what happens in the bedroom, should be kept private.

      Gay pride parades are not private. 

      Gay pride parade photos of public display

      Lewd and crude behavior takes place at these parades.  The GLBT community wants us to accept them as they are and allow them to marry but not just marry.  They want us to allow them to continue these parades with them dressed,(many non dressed is closer to the fact), in vulgar articles of clothing. 

      Groping one another in public where children are watching because our children need to learn to accept them. 

      How many straight couple parade dressed in similar attire?  How many of them grope one another in public in the presence of others?

      The Bible says sexual immorality is wrong and is a sin.  I cannot go against my beliefs no matter how much anyone protests.  That is a fact of life that no one can take away from me or anyone else.

      To address Castle's post about Westboro church.  Find me anyone on this thread who condones what the Westboro Baptist Church does.  After you don't find anyone who does that, search back and find out how many have spoken pout about that church. 

      Lastly, Jesus came to save all men from their sins.  He will not force you into submission but will give you the opportunity to come to Him. It is not the Father's will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2Peter 3:9.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I would not want to see an atheist parade,(boring). The Easter Parades and Santa Claus Parades, just do not get what that has do with a virgin birth in a barn, maybe Christian should protest that. Selling more fairy tales and or that brings up "Gay Parades", why shall it be illegal to love each other, be proud of the most important task in the world "The behavior to love and be gay." Stop going to Gay parades, if you don't like them, or is their a little gay in everyone.

        1. profile image0
          SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          You completely missed the point. 



          Why should anything like this be allowed in public especially with children present?  it is lewd and profane.  No child needs to see this but the gay pride community condone it and encourage it.

      2. wilderness profile image77
        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Ever been to Mardi Gras?  Seen the big parade there?  Seen the nude bicycle ride in Seattle?

        Now ask "How many straight couple parade dressed in similar attire?  How many of them grope one another in public in the presence of others? "

        1. profile image0
          SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I had never heard of the nude bicycle ride.  It is just as vulgar as the gay pride parade.  People have no shame anymore.  Mardi gra is no different. 

          There are still laws, in West Virginia at least, that say that indecent exposure is punishable by a fine.

          1. wilderness profile image77
            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The people there obviously disagree with your assessment that their behavior is indecent.  What makes YOUR statement true but theirs false?

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Perhaps a fair point, so what is your definition of an indecent bike ride or gay rights parade?  What would those look like if they WERE indecent in your opinion, by your definition?

            2. profile image0
              SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              How many years ago was it that indecent exposure was a law?   People have become more vulgar as times goes by.  Private parts should be kept private just as private matters should be kept private. 

              Atheists talk about morals almost constantly.  What kind of morals does a man or woman have when they go out in public to display their nakedness?   Do they even think that little boys and girls might see them?  Do they even care?  Obviously, they don't care.  There is no shame in them.

              Anyone who condones such acts are just as guilty and should likewise be ashamed.  Where is the line drawn that goes from it all being OK to not being OK?  Should a man and woman be able to have sex in the sight of people in a public place because it doesn't make them ashamed?  Same question goes for those who are "gay." 

              The Bible tells us to be modest in our apparel.  Even for just this reason alone, I cannot support the gay pride parades, which I happened to check the schedule and found out that there are 137 planned gay pride parades scheduled in the US and Canada this year.

              1. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                SirDent, yes I originated this particular discussion.  But please understand I am not "an Atheist."  My understanding is a-theist, not theist.  I could never worship a theoretical god such as yours.
                Concerning children witnessing nudity, yes, in public, they can be totally accepting, totally at ease, unashamed, unharmed, when the adults are!.  It is your embarrassment that you are trying to prevent, not theirs.  Please be honest with yourself and us.

                1. profile image0
                  SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you for considering me a liar. 

                  Now to get to the point.  You say it is OK for children to witness nudity and the lewd acts at gay pride parades.  Those same lewd acts are not taught to children, why not?  After it is all over, the same children are not encouraged to have sex at all. 

                  This is all my opinion only.  if it is OK for children to watch acts of sex, why is it not OK for them to have sex?  Surely, you can see what is wrong with this picture.

                  I apologize for calling you an atheist.

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    It is your focus on "lewd acts,"  not mine.  Did I say anything about sexual acts in front of children?  No - but if you were able to discuss and explain to children what they were seeing, objectively, without  so much emphasis on your own discust, then the children might come away from it better informed and better equipped to deal with the issues.
                    Back to my title of this discussion - are you not demonstrating my point very clearly?

                    1. profile image0
                      Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      To be fair, wouldn't you starting the thread, creating and debating the issue, insinuate that you are equally if not more concerned with matters of sexual nature?

                    2. profile image0
                      SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      I take it that you would be OK with performing sexual acts in front of children as long as someone explains that it is a sexual act?

                      The point in the OP was speaking about how Christians focus so much on the sin of sex instead of other social injustices around the world. 

                      Now, to be fair, you, a non believer, opened this thread expecting to hear from Christians.  When we speak to the topic you started, you merely call us dishonest. 

                      How do you explain to a four year old the acts of homosexuality between two men or two women?  What is wrong with you that you would want it explained to them at that age?

                    3. Oztinato profile image78
                      Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      That's right JCL: all you did was justify beastiality and infanticide!!

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Commenting on one part of this.  Should Sir Dent have said, a "not theist" started this thread, or an "a - theist" started this thread......?

                  I claim TRUE ignorance on this more almost than the other topic of nudity, etc.  I get  what an a-theist is or a non theist, but we have been saying that for hundreds of posts.... an atheist this... an atheist that.... So just wondering where I have also been wrong? 

                  He apologized to you for something we all do, all the time, and I am totally missing something here.

                  1. profile image0
                    SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    I imagine we should just call them unbelievers from now on.  What else can we do?

                    1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      I often do that actually, but I think you are right.  Not out to offend, and I am just surprised at the offense taken, in the sense I truly don't understand.  What else do I not know about?  Evidently a lot?

                3. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  The legal definition of an adult appearing in the nude in front of children by an adult other than their parent in certain circumstances  is "grooming" and is part of paedophile prosecution evidence.

      3. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        All pride is against God. No one has a right to "puff up" Jesus was meek and lowly. Until you go selling stuff in the "church" wink But to be PROUD in sin??? A new form of anti-Christ.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Your sure proud of your God, more than anything I'm proud of, although have not harm anyone.

    41. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years ago

      Time out here for a second...   Here we are discussing different sides to a point that I think ALL are really ON the same side about.  For instance, picture a young girl or grand daughter, or niece in the park one day.  Say up comes several naked men on bikes, or you come upon them while taking a break and drinking from their water bottles, etc.  Come on now everyone, do you really not have a problem with the little girl seeing grown, naked men having a grand ole time on their bikes, never mind a parade full of all kinds of naked people doing all kinds of gestures, groping, acts, etc. 

      How about a young boy and or girls, it doesn't really matter, playing on a playground and a bunch of naked men and women come along jogging.  Do you all really mean to tell me you don't have ANY problem  with this?  Never mind if they were doing lewd acts in public?  Let us please be honest! Its hard to take anyone half seriously, when they are seeming to pretend that true exhibitionist behavior is no big deal, especially WITH children looking on. You can't take your personal exhibitionist views and put them in the public eye when others truly have a problem with it.  It is why some families that don't have a problem with it, can go to a nudist beach, colony, etc. where nakedness is welcomed, even with their children or go camping, etc.  Its a totally different story when you are minding your own business and have to stay indoors to protect the eyes of the young ones from all kinds of stuff that we all know happens in gay pride parades, etc. (This in my opinion, has NOTHING to do with the beauty of the human body, nor shaming of a naked body.  This is above and beyond folks, not people discussing those folks taking art classes painting naked men and women.  It is treating something that can be lewd, OR beautiful, AS all beautiful ALL the time, no matter what.  It depends on the particulars here I think!  Take hard pornography, vs.  two people that are in love having sex, two TOTALLY different things!  Am I wrong here?)

      Young kids are totally innocent, and if not brought up in a home where everyone is naked all the time, it kind of freaks them out, and I wonder at the lack of sensitivity to those individuals?  (And like they are ODD, rather than the norm in most societies other than the ones we see in National Geographic.)

      People that are balking here, also don't insist on going to work, the grocery store, corner mart or bar, or getting gas in the nude, FOR A REASON.  Come on,....  This one is over the top for me.  Some consistency in light of reality and our day to day behaviors might be in order.  Or else it seems to be very "anti the opposite side" when you are arguing for something you aren't really likely against.  I could be wrong, and you guys could be naked all day long and all night long, and if so, I will stand corrected. (Am I wrong here?  Just tell me, I will stand corrected.)

      1. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I had to sleep with my brother until age 16, he was age 11. I saw him naked one time with my Father watching too, He cried so loud because I saw him naked. I should have known then he would have grow up to be a pastor. Fear of Nakedness.

        I respect people indifference, also I live and let live. If Gay want a parade and people are aware of whats going on, let them. Naked bike riding is a bit much for those indifference people. Give naked people permits to ride wild like all animals, (for we are animal too) in certain areas and make others aware.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
          oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Castlepaloma, somehow that makes me sad to hear the story of your brother when he was 11 and cried so loud!  Part of that could have been his age and what he was dealing with then.  It can't be easy to see your big brother that you respect and your dad see you naked especially if by surprise!  Good grief, poor kid!  Anyway....   All people are a little different, we ought to not shame them for nakedness nor for not liking to be naked in front of anyone.

          That seems fair too about making others aware of the naked bikers pedaling through town like wild animals.  Your comment there struck me as funny.  I think people were taking issue with the groping and strong sexual gestures in front of children possibly looking on.  I think a lot of people do just explain to their kids what is going on.   Sometimes you see stuff, sometimes you don't.  Even kids who have parents that explain in ways that are extreme one way or another, kids can and often grow up thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions.  Its still good to guide them as you can, and not promoting hate and bigotry is good, but also explaining things is good if it seems fitting or if they ask.

        2. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Only our bodies are animals. Our souls are spiritual and we are not in fact just animals. What is appropriate for a dog or cat is not appropriate for a human being. We don't eat our own faeces or devour our young or publicly display our anus. If we do we then lose our human status.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            lo

            1. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              People who want to ride bikes with their naked exposed backside/anus revealed for everyone to see have some kind of problem. I think its called exhibitionism.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                There are people with great fear of nakedness and sex sins. Yes underneath those feathers or fur or scale or clothes, all animals including us were born naked and have drive for sex, as nature as sleeping and eating.

                There are people who have a huge fear of HELL, demons, God, maybe a high price church can help them.  These people are raised to be over obedience and be fed like mushrooms, into the world of fear.

                Whats that like,? I only feel love for the World.

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I am against all non Love based ideas; including the man made constructs of hell and damnation. These ideas are not from God.
                  But the "Dharma" (rules) for animals are not human Dharma. We are meant to grow into higher states of being, to be different to animals. It doesn't mean we should be racked with guilt if we make a mistake or see someone naked. It just means we can rise to a higher form of life where these things are left behind. We will all need to leave these lower animal instincts behind at death but we can prepare as we get older to rise to a higher level of consciousness. This is why I take a holistic scientific view of the religions and take whatever is love based from each and discard the man made fear. Hence reincarnation replaces hell as it is love based.

        3. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Just a further consideration on this topic.... it seems to be presumed that nakedness = sexual.

          This is not the case universally.  People who enjoy the out of doors life in a nudist camp go there simply because it's a fantastic way to live.... without clothes on, loving the fresh air and sunshine (and being in the rain naked is a wonderful experience, believe me!) be totally unembarrassed by the sight of other naked bodies, people of all ages, grand parents, grand children, male, female, disabled people, people who were born with, or acquired, bodily deformity, you name it.   It is a natural instinct to survey another person as one approaches, to assess the potential for union, of course.  That does happen with most of us, and it would be untruthful to deny this..... we are all human animals, just one of the species of ape.   And if you ever lived amongst people who were normally totally undressed in their every-day life, then you would most certainly be out of place if you did not accept their ways.

          When nakedness is witnessed in a situation where everyone else is clothed (covered up, if you prefer), then the difference can be a shock to the unaccustomed person.  It is the difference, the unusual, that causes the natural reaction.  Most species of animal are born with this instinct.... to be wary of the unusual.  It's a survival tactic that protects one from possible threats.   Therefore, I am not knocking individuals for being against nudity, particularly in public. 

          However, I see it as wrong to have a phobia against the naked human body in every case.  There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about it, surely?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            It was all caused, over a healthy apple.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              The fruit was innocent.
              The culprit is the MINDset received from disobedience.
              There was a reason that God covered them up after the fiasco.
              Now, naked is PRIVATE. Eden is no more.
              It is super easy to let your mind do all kinds of WRONG stuff whilst viewing privates. It's in no one's BEST interest. It's unnecessary temptation.
              People who follow Christ know that it is wrong to tempt their viewers because God don't like it. We got enough issues.
              Plus, prancing naked in public is a form of rebellion; a deviance; a plea for attention; and a good way to catch a cold. wink

            2. Chris Neal profile image76
              Chris Nealposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Not at all. There were tons of apples, and other fruit as well. Health was certainly the concern but not physical health.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                What do your have, if not your health?

                God who created sex, then damms us for having sex with sex sins is not healthy

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I think God knew people would or could get carried away with their lust and that it can hurt things, people, families, life (if left unchecked). Certain kinds of lust are never satisfied and it can become an addiction that seems to have no satisfaction and some people never stop chasing for the satisfaction no matter what.  If people don't check their own lusts, or never think they could ever cause a problem, that is part one of the problem sometimes I think.  We have become a world where, "I want THAT, so I ought to have it! Or, an equivalent to it, and now!  Or yesterday perhaps.)

                  To another point, God also would have obviously created sex and not be a "wet blanket on that parade" like some makes him out to be! lol

                  So if believers are right, they believe in the one that created sex in the first place.  Maybe we should be thanking him, and not making him out to be a prude or something.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                    Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Thank God for sex? You mean only in a christian kind of way?

                    1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      He thought of it first.  He would have created it like everything else.  You seem to like it a lot. So I am making some observations is all.  Like many things, a good thing can be taken to extremes and then we aren't doing the best for ourselves and often others.  I am not speaking on that here so much now as wishing people thought things through like this.  I bet many have not.  They think God is a big meanie, just wanting to take away all of our fun.  Sometimes I think we are more like kids than we want to admit.  Everything has rules and we comply all the time to make our communities a better place, like even on HubPages.  We might think it mean that they tell us how to post in certain ways only "or else..." we lose the privileges.  Assuming that is always fair, this is why we have as great of a community in part, as we do here.  Yet when its God, omgosh, he is so mean for having rules, and we don't get mad to the same degree and defy other powers over us like him.  God lets man choose, and that includes what comes with the choices though, not choosing what we want against his will, AND getting all the benefits of those that do choose his will.  Its tough, and he gives a long leash, and people are very lusty creatures at times.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Regarding a phobia of the naked human body, no I don't think that is something good.  It would certainly create more of the same.  I don't think there is anything inherently wrong or evil about it, not at all.

            One could make the case that God thought it a great idea as he started out the garden first like that. (I know you won't agree as we differ on the possible truthfulness of the texts, but just making a point perhaps then the authors, etc.) The whole naked and not ashamed thing was a good thing.  Perhaps it will be like that again one day, but it would be hard to picture when we are so used to it otherwise.    The whole idea of clothing might be to hide something people feel ashamed about, but not necessarily about their nakedness perhaps?  Just thinking through the keys here, lol.  Feeling exposed, vs. not, I don't know.  Fair questions.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Too many kids watch people being killed on TV, or for real on youtube. Or Dad playing all kind of kill games on vidio with their kids.

              Butt, when it come to seeing friendly weapons, They go ape sh-t

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Friendly weapons meaning body parts? Why do you think that is?  As for actual people getting killed, that isn't cool. 

                In movies, some are more ok with war movies and not sexually explicit ones?  Why?  This is kind of the core of what I think some are speaking of here. 

                Kids killing nazis or zombies in games vs people showing their naked bodies in sometimes crude gestures mimicking sexual acts, could seem like two very separate things.  (Also people are paying attention more in general, with the way this world seems to be going cuckoo.)

              2. Chris Neal profile image76
                Chris Nealposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                What do you mean by 'friendly weapons'? If that's a euphemism for body parts, that seems to me like more fuel for the fire rather than an attempt (as you often claim) to bring understanding and open people's minds.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Sex is not only for reproduceing babbies ( or Christians in their minds of one world order)

                  It's the greatest pleasure on earth and used responsiblely for bonding realationships or releasing stress and so on.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Sex is for our enjoyment. He wants commitment first. None of that bouncing around atop whatsoever; withersoever thou goest. Enjoying ONE...that is the rule. As we know, I am guilty. Do I now decree a new understanding of what God SAYS ideal is??? Nuh-uh... truth made me free. And who the son sets free... wink

                  2. Chris Neal profile image76
                    Chris Nealposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Please don't take this the wrong way, but is English your native language? I don't mean that derogatorily, it's just that sometimes the way you phrase things sounds like a translation, and I don't understand what you mean. What in the world does "( or Christians in their minds of one world order)" even mean?

                    However, the rest of that, as long as it's within the bounds of marriage, is totally Biblical. Referring to it as "the friendly weapon" however does acknowledge that a lot of people use it to intimidate others. And unless you're in a nudist colony, the sight of naked men walking around is intimidating. And for the men who do it in places that are NOT nudist colonies, if they really think it's not then they are either staggeringly naive or breathtakingly self-centered.

                    1. profile image0
                      Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      It's always so odd to come in on this thread after having not read any of the earlier posts. I'm wondering to myself why men are all of a sudden walking around naked and how this conversation got to that point. I am not going to worry about it though. I just found out my sears membership ran out. I really have no idea how I got a sears membership, but I obviously have some serious issues to deal with in real life.

              3. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                You mean friendly weapons like the bible? Sword of the spirit? smile
                Tell me about it...darn apes.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  My  DNA is 99% biologically closer to chimps than to the sword spirit of separation. I like the looks of George Bush, except I think chimps are intelligent.

                  Call me a dirty ape, you would be 99% right, just remember the three finger pointing back at you too.
                  We were all born naked , the born again-s are a lost lost link in the bushes.

    42. Cat333 profile image59
      Cat333posted 10 years ago

      Hi Johnny. I think homosexuality specifically receives more attention than the worldwide "cruel" practices for a variety of reasons. One, most people (Christian or otherwise) are largely followers, and while they may not think what they're told to think, they will THINK ABOUT what they're told to think about. So there are cultural and political reasons why homosexuality is a greater focus.

      Second, the current transformation of the cultural definition of homosexuality from "sinful", "abnormal", etc. to a "desirable" or "acceptable" alternative creates a "backlash" by some, "concern" from others, etc. Since most people agree that the cruel practices are "wrong", they don't create the same sensationalized attention. The cruel practices SHOULD be much more alarming and need to be the greater focus. Of course some of the "sexuality" sins would also be the cruelty around the world - sexual abuses, sexual slavery and trafficking, etc. But if we are talking strictly of homosexuality, then we can draw a line between that which is sexual and that which is cruelty.

      Third, people (Christians and others) will often target those sins which they are less likely to be guilty of themselves, so homosexuality becomes the sin of focus for many (other sexual sins such as sex outside marriage in general, adultery, lust, etc. do not receive as much attention as homosexuality). In this way these people may feel better about themselves, etc. Conversely, some people will target those sins that are hidden within them - so many of the most homophobic people have greater homosexual tendencies than others.

      Fourth, some people are full of hate and look for any excuse to hate, and they will most often hate in ways that they can "justify" their hatred, in order to preserve their own sense of decency. If their day encourages hatred of racial minorities or women, they will be the targets. If a day or group encourages hatred of homosexual persons, they become the target.

      While we find violations of God's law of love in all of the above, the fourth is where we find the greatest violation. Jesus Christ has already paid the price for all our sins, so we are now in the day of favor and grace, and our message is one of love and reconciliation to God through Jesus. We know that whether we sin in this way or that way, we are all the same essentially, and no one is in a position to look down on or judge others. So whether we enjoy homosexual relations or whether we lust after someone at some point in our lives, both have been defined as "sins", and most all of us are or have been guilty of sexual sins. This doesn't mean that we redefine any of the sexual sins as "okay", just because we can't seem to help but engage in them. It doesn't even matter if homosexuality is a "choice" or is inborn or is a combination of cultural and biological factors (e.g., some girls/women who are abused by men may be "pushed" toward lesbian tendencies; boys who are sexually abused by men some studies have found are four times more likely to become "gay", so that perhaps their identity is affected, or simply the possibility of gay relations is presented, etc.). I may have biological and cultural factors involved in many of my own sinful tendencies (sexual or otherwise); we are all the same. It is through Jesus Christ that we conquer our own tendencies and through whom we become the "righteousness of God".

      In Christ we are all ONE and there is no longer even male or female. How then can there be "gay" or "straight" in Christ? Homosexuality is only a temporary thing - only for a little while here on earth. We know the elderly are more asexual than teenagers, so even on earth our sexuality is fading away. In heaven, we are told we will be "like the angels" in matters of sexuality - we will not "marry" - either the opposite or the same sex persons.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry Jonny,
        According to (space)Cat, you will never become a non sexual angel in the after life.

        Guess your stuck being an angel here on this planet, to us earthlings.

        1. Cat333 profile image59
          Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

          People don't become angels. Angels already are; that's what they were created to be. The only way in which we're told we'll be "like the angels" is specifically in that we will no longer "marry". Angels aren't children of God if I understand correctly, so it's better to be a human who goes to the Father than an angel.

          How do you know Johnny won't go to heaven? What do we know about what God through his Spirit will reveal to him, or what choices he'll make even up to the last moments of his life? ANYONE can have their spiritual eyes opened. That's not for you or me to judge. God alone knows if his name is written in the Lamb's "book of life" because God alone foresees the future and knows the final choice Johnny will make, even as God alone fully knows Johnny.

          About your other post, I have a question - Have you seen studies that suggest most atheists love nature, or that there is any difference in atheists and theists in their love of nature? Yes, atheists would engage in more "nature worship", but believers often LOVE the beautiful nature God has given us and are truly thankful and appreciative of it. You can hardly get me inside, I love nature so much!

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Hello Cat, your points one to four are very well thought out and articulated, thank you for sharing.  I have thought of a couple of those things like our cultures push to talk about it in the news, in politics, etc.  It makes sense, and on down to how some Christians find it easier to focus on sins that aren't their own pet sin, which I think is one of Jonny's struggles, if and when there is hypocrisy from Christians on the matter. 

        I just wanted to say thanks for sharing, these were some new thoughts I don't think had been brought up yet but make sense.

        1. Cat333 profile image59
          Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks for the kind words, oceansnsunsets!

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I never believe you guys until Gay is legal in all predominate religious countries. It will be the majority of the spiritual people rather than the religious who will change the negativity toward Gays and sex sins.

            Then we can honestly say, Welcome to the Spiritual Age.

            By the way sex is Spiritual.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              What do you mean not believe you guys?  In what way are you not believing Cat?  Or me (in the sense of the posts you are responding to there.)  Gay is legal in the states, its not outlawed to be gay.   I think you mean homosexual marriages?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Actually, it depends on what you define gay as. If you define it as simply being attracted exclusively to the same sex, it is legal. However there are quite a few states that still have laws on the books that make certain homosexual sexual acts illegal. So in those states, it's technically legal to BE homosexual, it's just not legal to have homosexual sexual relations.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  melissabarrett

                  Not allowed homosexual sexual relations,? seems like a law against love.

            2. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Look forget about the gay issue: its now passe and is technically legal in the West. Lets work on stopping the atheist buggers int the west instead.
              I am not against gays. I would even hold hands with JCL if it didn't get that beard in my face. Its not a big deal anymore. I held hands with a monk from Sri lanka while we prayed in public. So what??

      3. EncephaloiDead profile image55
        EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Very true, it is followers of Christianity who are creating that focus by telling us homosexuality is an evil sin, hence homosexuals should not be granted the same rights as everyone else.



        That would be more along the lines of a "religious definition of homosexuality" as opposed to cultural.



        Yes, a much greater focus is need on the intolerance and bigotry created from Christianity towards homosexuality, for example.



        Yes, and homosexuality is not even remotely the same thing as sexual abuse, slavery and trafficking, etc.



        Or, more precisely, Christians don't target 'sins such as sex outside marriage in general, adultery, lust, etc.' because they are guilty of those sins themselves, which means they would be hypocrites. And, since they are guilty of those other sins and still go out of their way to target homosexuality, they are hypocrites from the get go.



        That certainly does appear to be what Christianity along with other religions are encouraging towards homosexuals.



        Don't hold your breath. wink

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I personally am guilty of many-a-sin. I used to not be "saved" wink
          However,  spirit and TRUTH requires that I see myself as I am according to the standard set for me, so that I am aware of when/where I fall short. So-called illegitimate children; two broken marriages; and other stuff I am guilty of are ALL sinful. It is wrong to say that since I am guilty of sexual sin, I cannot be fully aware that it is wrong. I may also go a step further and declare to others that I was wrong; it is wrong; they are wrong if they follow.  Risk of hypocrisy enters not. That thing arises when I say "Shoot that woman! She has two bastard babies and two husbands divorced; and grab them scarlet letters to paste on her casket, STAT!!!" See???

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
            EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            And, I am not. Notice that your issues are the result of believers not being taught morals and ethics from their religion.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              If any man says he has no sin; he is a liar. Which is ALSO sin. That's in the bible too.

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                I won't argue with you that it is in the Bible. The question is whether or not it is of any import. We find it isn't.

                We can look at other holy books that don't consider the same things as sins, but may also have sins in their gospels that aren't in the Bible. In other words, lots of holy books have things we aren't supposed to do because it offend the god of that religion.

                So, if there are things you and I both do that aren't considered sins in the Bible, but are considered sins in other religions, does that make both of us liars?

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  My only response can be; there is ONE true God. I listen only to what he says is truth. To him homosexuality (not homosexuals) is deplorable. But so's lying; and killing; and hypocrisy.
                  The "other" book is not mine; nor does it have any power over my life. Jesus is my guide; NO OTHER.
                  However if biblical instruction is of no import to you; that's ok by me.

                  1. wilderness profile image77
                    wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    How do you know?  That there is only one god out there?  That's a pretty bald, forceful statement considering you can't have the faintest idea if it's true.

                    1. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      No more forceful or bold than your assertion that there is no God. wink however bald or forceful though; it IS my truth. And the truth of many others. I know it is true. smile

                    2. Cat333 profile image59
                      Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Truth is a person - his name is Jesus Christ. When you meet him, you will know Truth. I hope and pray that this takes place for you, Wilderness, on this side of things. But everyone will see the Truth and every knee will bow to him.

                  2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Exactly, which just so happens to be the God of your religion. Hence, you are a non-believer in those other gods, just like me. You don't accept their sins as your sins. The only difference is that I am also a non-believer in your god and don't accept your sins, too. That is the hypocrisy of a believer who calls anyone a liar for only the sins they accept. smile



                    There are lots of things deplorable to other gods, too, but that doesn't stop you from doing them because you don't accept them as sins, just as the rest of us don't accept your gods sins. smile



                    Yes, you should take very careful consideration of those sins. Of course, if you are committing other sins from other religions, you may wind up being judged by those gods, too.



                    Deciding what religious book has power over us defeats the very validity of the religion itself.



                    That's nice, Jesus is not the guide for billions of other people on the planet. They have their own guides.



                    It's ok by me that other religions, gods and their holy books are of no import to you, as well.

                    1. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Now THAT was HI-LA-RI-OUS!!! LMAOROTF... smile
                      The FACT of the matters are set. Believe whatsoever God that strikes your fancies. Or believe only in you. No ay over here... wink I am totally ok with your choices for you; and even your disabilities to choose since that is currently the case.
                      We can just see who can "snark" best... your turn. wink

              2. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                If she said everyone makes mistakes, she would be correct

                When she said everyone is a sinner,
                first off - most people are not Christians.

                1. Chris Neal profile image76
                  Chris Nealposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  If God exists, then whether someone is a Christian or not is irrelevant. All are sinners. Christians and non-Christians alike.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                    Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Please do not call me a sinner, I have only two simple laws, Be honest and do not harm.

                    How can a Christian honestly say to a gay person? “I love the sinner but hate the sin.” Having ten commandment and 1000s of other laws is a group egos that kills." “uncivilized headhunters” from those epic missionary fantasy stories.
                    "Mistakes don't kill patients or kills live and let live people. A big difference from a one-sided God’s sins

                    1. profile image0
                      SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      The same way a believer can say the same to a thief, a murderer, a fornicator, an adulterer, etc. . .

                    2. Chris Neal profile image76
                      Chris Nealposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      If God exists, that is as irrelevant as what I do or do not call you. If God exists, not one single human who has ever lived is off the hook. If God does not exist, then (depending on what standard is used) you may very well be the nicest human on the face of the Earth.

                      If they are truly Christian, it's actually pretty easy. And yes, I do mean honestly.
                      Group ego and true Christianity are not the same thing. I know that to a lot of people, they are, but that's not the case.

                      That's one of those statements where I'm not quite sure what you mean.

                    3. Cat333 profile image59
                      Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Castlepaloma, you ask "How can a Christian honestly say to a gay person? “I love the sinner but hate the sin”? In the same way we can say that we hate gossip but love the one who gossips. We hate lying but love the one who lies. We hate lust but love the one who lusts. We can hate any and all sins and love all those who engage in them (which is everyone). We can hate our own unholy behaviors but love ourselves as well - I really hate selfishness, but as a human I am at times selfish. I could tell you worse things I hate about myself, but who knows, you may judge me; you may not distinguish between the sin and the sinner, as you don't believe we are doing it.

                      The Spirit within us (that is, the Spirit of God who is placed in all who will receive him) is grieved by all that is unholy and unrighteous in the eyes of the Creator whose Spirit we have. The more we allow ourselves to be filled with the Spirit, the more we follow his lead and abide in him, the more sensitive we will be to that which grieves him. I am grieved (not so much angered, but actually saddened) by lies and gossip, though this was not always so strongly true. In all honesty I am more grieved FOR homosexual persons than BY their behaviors due to many factors, just as I am more grieved FOR various others targeted. Still, the Spirit within me is grieved at the push to redefine homosexuality and intentionally defy God's decrees. The Spirit is grieved at the turning of people from him and his ways, though it had to come in order to fulfill the prophecy and the coming end.

                2. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  You do not have to be a Christian in order to be a sinner... sin is an equal opportunity concept. smile All will know... Just some will figure it out too late.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                    Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Oh my God, Guns and Gays, are you threatening again. We are all Christian sinners, no matter what. lo

                    1. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Rest your mind... no threats... we ARE all sinners; not all Christians.

        2. Cat333 profile image59
          Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Within many countries, our cultural definition of homosexuality had matched the religious one until recently. A couple of examples of how we can see the cultural definition has been changing in recent times - homosexuality within the media world was once either absent or negatively portrayed, but is now applauded; the DSM (the big book with all the psychological disorders) used to include homosexuality. Then the cultural definition changed and it was removed.

          Until someone is perfect, they have no business feeling superior to or accusing anyone else (of course no one is or will be perfect this side of things). We are told that "at whatever point you condemn another, you condemn yourselves". So then those who have targeted gay/lesbian persons are really condemning themselves, because they are guilty of the "same things" (even if that means guilty of their own sexual or other sins).

          That being said, condemning behavior is different than condemning persons. We all engage in many, many condemned behaviors. We know they're wrong, we may or may not try to engage in them, but we are all human and all sinners. Condemning people is not okay; condemning behaviors is - we all condemn many behaviors, and if someone tries to condemn the condemning of behaviors, they are engaging in the very act that they are condemning. It is not to our or anyone's benefit to redefine anything God has declared as sin to be okay. I understand and sympathize with the world's philosophy that homosexuality "hurts no one" so it is okay. I once justified many of my own behaviors in this way. Yet it is US we hurt with these behaviors that supposedly hurt no one, and it is the Holy Spirit we hurt when we do the things that grieve him. Perhaps an unbeliever has no real reason to avoid indulging in homosexual or many other tendencies, but a believer, who is the temple of the Holy Spirit and who is to be holy therefore, and who can grieve the Spirit most especially, has great motivation to avoid any and all things that God has defined as impure, unholy, wrong, etc.

          Homosexual persons are NOT unique. It is just as hard to fall in love with a man or woman who is married and deny one's own love or lust because adultery has been declared by the Almighty God as wrong. It is just as hard to be a pedophile by nature and to deny your own urges because you know such actions are wrong. It is just as hard to discover you are married to someone either you don't love or who doesn't love you, yet to strive to improve the marriage because divorce is wrong in God's eyes. It is just as hard to be a teenager and avoid sexual activity when it's all you think about. If you have an addiction to pornography, it is just as hard to deny yourself your "drug" of choice because you know God sees it as unholy and wicked. And even for those who aren't tempted in any sexual way (few as they may be), they are tempted in many other ways.   

          A great deal of attention is already placed on "the intolerance and bigotry created from Christianity towards homosexuality", Encephaloidead. And much of this attention is warranted, since too many have taken a judgmental, condemning attitude toward homosexual persons (or much worse). Those who are most angry about the push for acceptance of homosexuality have themselves to thank for such a push. If homosexual persons were not unduly and specifically targeted, if they were not being hurt, there would never have been the needs there have been regarding the changes in cultural perceptions of gay/lesbian persons. Believers who follow the Spirit agree that NO ONE should be mistreated, that there is no difference in any of us because we all fall short of God's glory, and that we are all declared righteous the same way - through faith in the one who took our place on the cross and rose again to make us right with God. 

          I agree that homosexuality is not even remotely the same thing as sexual abuse, slavery and trafficking - homosexuality is similar to the multitude of other nonviolent sexual sins we almost all have engaged in, while sexual abuse, slavery and trafficking are similar to all the violent offenses regardless of a sexual component.

          I see that ALL people are hypocrites, whether believers or unbelievers - it is a human tendency, unfortunately. The labeling of Christians as hypocrites seems to come more with a personal agenda of those who don't want to hear that anything is "right or wrong". I notice continual hypocrisy in unbelievers just as in believers. More self-awareness is an important key to avoiding hypocrisy for everyone.

          Other religions (including a "Christianity") may encourage hatred toward homosexuals, as you say Encephaloidead, but true Christianity is about love, mercy, forgiveness and RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR ALL THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. Those who preach a condemning gospel do not preach the good news gospel about Jesus Christ. In this, again, I am not saying the BEHAVIOR of homosexuality is not condemned; it most certainly is and who are we to redefine God's decrees? But we all do or have engaged in many condemned behaviors, and we are not to condemn the person engaging in any condemned behavior, but rather to see our human similarities and the One who is the solution for all of us and all our condemned behaviors, whatever they may be.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
            EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            You may want to research the DSM to understand the only reason homosexuality was included is because of the Christian church and had nothing to do with cultural definitions. You can read about it here:

            http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_s … ealth.html



            Christians are condemning homosexuals, that is the bottom line.



            Please speak for yourself, I am not within those religiously defined categories.



            You're free to avoid whatever you want and how you want to define it, but your own motivations are not the same motivations as many others, hence they do not apply to them.

            However, the condemning of homosexuals by Christians is most certainly behavior that needs to be engaged, especially considering they have the same rights and freedoms.



            And, while those things are hard for some, it is very easy for homosexuals to fall in love with each other and never have the urge or need to engage in adultery, pedophilia, divorce and addictions.



            If you take guidance from your holy book telling you not to mistreat people, that's fine. Many of us, on the other hand, use our minds to reason not to mistreat people, therefore not needing to fall short of Gods glory or even to give it any consideration.



            And yet, Christians are going out of their way to focus on homosexuality instead of sexual abuse, slavery and trafficking. Curious behavior, isn't it?



            Allow me to present your words from above:

            "homosexuality is similar to the multitude of other nonviolent sexual sins we almost all have engaged in..."

            While hypocrisy maybe argued as a human tendency, the hypocrisy we are referring to from believers is the hypocrisy of preaching intolerant gospel while engaging in "nonviolent sexual sins" themselves. If a non-believer engages in those "sins", they first of all don't even acknowledge them as sins and secondly they don't preach it to others or condemn them. This is the major difference.




            And yet, Christians are condemning homosexuals, which completely contradicts your claim that Christianity is about love, mercy and forgiveness.



            We are people who don't believe or accept in your God or His condemning, hypocritical decrees, that's who we are.



            Sorry, but your "One" is not my solution, nor is it the solution of billions of other people on the planet. If you can understand this, then you might also begin to understand why Christians shouldn't condemn homosexuals.

            1. Cat333 profile image59
              Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Why all the stereotyping, Encephaloidead, whether about Christians or homosexual persons? SOME Christians condemn homosexuals and some are very outspoken about it. I see many of us viewing homosexuality as just one more thing people do against God's decrees - we are no different, almost all of us have at least lusted after someone. We all do the very things God has instructed against. Why try to make homosexuality so unique, or even stereotype and try to make "saints" out of homosexuals? We are all guilty of the same things, in one way or another. 

              There is no hypocrisy in God's decrees, whether or not people are hypocrites (and they pretty much all are, to greater or lesser degrees).

              You condemn behaviors, whether you admit it or not. People condemn any number of behaviors from lying to murdering to cheating to judging to gossiping, etc. etc. etc. Because someone condemns judging or gossiping, do they then condemn all those who ever engage in judgment or gossip? No. That's pretty much everyone at some point or another. You can see clearly that there is a drastic difference in judging behavior and judging a person.

              I understand that people in their weakness have targeted homosexuality (which I believe to be because in this way they could pick on something they didn't have involvement in and so they elevated their own pride). Yes, you are right that this is hypocrisy, as they do generally engage in their own sexual sins (and certainly their own sins of some form). Homosexuality should not be targeted in particular and in my opinion the greater error is on the part of those who target them. So if I were asked who had committed the greater sin - the one who engaged in homosexual acts or the one who bullied or targeted a homosexual, I would say the bully's behavior was the greater sin because it was a greater offense against the Spirit and law of love. This does not mean I'm saying the behavior of homosexuality is acceptable in God's eyes; yet any bullying is a clear violation of love and is absolutely not acceptable.

              You say, "And yet, Christians are going out of their way to focus on homosexuality instead of sexual abuse, slavery and trafficking. Curious behavior, isn't it?" Yes, I think it relates to the controversy, the sensationalism, fears, pride, and so on. The matters of sexual (and other) violence should absolutely be top priority. Put simply, humans are messed up. And no it's not the "Christians" in particular as you stereotype, but that is your own judgment. Other groups of people are absolutely no better than anyone else, and they prove it continually. That is exactly why we all need a Savior.

              We all fall short of God's glory, even if not in the area of mistreating people. I need guidance in many areas, but mistreating people isn't so much one of them. We don't look to God's Word because we are more prone to sin than anyone else. We look to God's Word to know his heart and his will and because we find Life and Truth - we find Jesus Christ himself there. And he is our solution to this human problem we all share, whether we see it or not.

            2. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Yes there are many Christians condemning gays but there are many atheists who are not bothering condemning atheist beastialtiy. That is hypocrisy.
              I personally do not condemn gays.

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Without the spirit of God within; it is difficult to accept that the gift is free.
                You reap what you sow. When you hold judgment and animosity; it makes it difficult to not feel judged. I cannot judge a soul for spit. smile My err is bright within the mirror. But I owe no man. All to him, I owe. I can stand and know truth. My own included. It is essential that truth is most important. It takes the YOU out of the equation. It's not YOUR truth... wink
                Parrot.

              2. Oztinato profile image78
                Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Many but certainly not ALL Christians condemn gays. Its usually the outspoken hypocritical ones trying to make the news.

              3. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                oztinato

                Do you have this obsession for Noah Ark animal orgies?
                There are Christian who marriage their pets. All you would really have to do is stop feeding your pet for a week and you become Jesus.

                Spirit of God sheep herder did not have rippers back then, because it would alarms the sheep. There are 30x more Christians than atheist out there, If you just started a bestiality thread, I know you find more faith head doing animals. We have almost a 1000 posted already on this thread, lets leave the million of other species alone. Jesus must feel like throwing up over the human kind.

                Don't want to open up another can of worms, can anyone have sex with a can of worms.
                ARRRRGGGGG OWWGGGAAAK
                Don't hold that thought.

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I am concerned that atheists are in denial and not speaking out about these things and other things sch as legal infanticide which ave directly sprung up out of modern atheism.

    43. Oztinato profile image78
      Oztinatoposted 10 years ago

      1. this Hub's premise has been proven to be hypocritical in view of the extreme atheist prudery exhibited here to even the very smallest sexual innuendos made by theists after alleging that Christians are prudes!
      2. this Hub's premise has proven to be hypocritical due to the unexplained contradictions between atheist concerns about alleged insignificant Christian sexual views as opposed to the extremely unpleasant and even highly illegal sexual practices that many (but not all) atheists themselves are either advocating or not standing up against.
      3. this Hub's premise has proven to be hypocritical due to the refusal of atheists to answer any questions regarding any and all of these contradictions, choosing instead to respond to questions and criticism to the said premise with barrages of vilification.

    44. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago

      Yes oceans... SirDent just made me realize (again) that it is not sin that sends us to hell, technically. We would all be damned.
      Grateful for grace. Grateful for the sacrifice. smile

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Well with respect, I think it is sin that does it.  Its not really a different answer, but technically correct to the question asked, and the question was how many sins?  I think if we aren't perfect, if we have sinned once, that is enough. 

        He answered it from another angle, which I also see as being God's terms to being reconciled to him forever.  I am not disagreeing. I am totally grateful for the sacrifice, God didn't have to do that.

        As for hell, and the other question brought up, I need to clarify something.  When I say that I am not sure people will be on fire for eternity, that is me not being totally 100% convinced with all scripture taken together.  We can take some scriptures, or some others, to make one point or the other. 

        It is true, that Jesus spoke of hell, and not just a little bit, even more than heaven.  What is in question with some is the eternality of the fire, vs the person being on fire for eternity.  For me personally, I would err on the side of caution and assume the worst, though it isn't what drives me at all to respond to God, but my love for him does that, and Jesus.  I can't in good conscience say for 100% there is no eternal torment, but I used to be so sure before.  It is scary to say that though because if I am wrong, I can't bear that I shared something possibly incorrect.  So my thought is to err on the side of caution, to others (well and myself...).  Hell is a place with everlasting fire, and the teachings indicate being there forever, but their consciousness, being alive through that eternity are not 100% for sure to me.  To me, it matters not as much as being separated from my maker for eternity, vs. being dead.   All of this said, because of Jesus' own words.  He spoke of it more than heaven, if I am not mistaken, so its NOT to be taken lightly. 

        If you thought I was in opposition to Sir Dent, I think we are not.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          All points taken. smile
          Just so you know, I had no notion that you disagree with the spirit of God. The ideas of heaven and hell can be tricky. It is definitely there cuz Jesus said so, as you mentioned. The particulars do not matter one bit. One who does not follow God is usually very leery of the place, at times obsessively so. We can all guess why.... but WE have not learned much about it because we press toward "the mark"; not the place that we hope like hell is NOT there. wink
          Sin is mental FIRST. It begins in the mind. It behooves us to let this mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus. Then when we do those things we would not; (Romans) we have an advocate. So do we just continue in sin? Heavens no, but when we pretend we have flesh smile and slip, he catches; patches the wound; gets the "ointment;" and makes us white as snow again. All because of our faith. smile
          We are NOT condemned.
          All that is scripture. Christ followers are favored. It makes me tingly. smile
          Please do not ever be hesitant about speaking to me on a presumed disagreement. We are family. Since we have the spirit; we know how to "argue" w/o foolishness. ♡
          And if we disagree; I know it won't be about a major point. We are saturated in spirit. We know truth.

    45. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago

      Somebody is feeding babies to hyenas??? OMG... who do I call??? Is a trip necessary? This is a conversation about CHRISTIANS having problems with sexual matters you say...??? Oh!!! Wrong page... edit* - consider THIS Christian's ire RAISED.
      The poor will be with us always.  No, not dirt poor. Think spiritually. Or don't...

    46. Oztinato profile image78
      Oztinatoposted 10 years ago

      Mowtown
      I can sense some general animosity to my line of argument but I forgive you.
      So what did you think about the argument in favor of hyenas feeding on
      live babies? What is your Christian reaction to that awful defence of infanticide given by your atheist friend?

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I saw him relating a story, not defending a practice

        I've no animosity toward you, just your chosen topic of discussion.  Regarding infanticide, it's abhorrent and disgusting.  My faith isn't the only thing affected by the practice.  My sense of humanity is also.  If I truly believed any human being thought it a "good" or "decent" or "moral" practice, I would speak against it as an abhorrent and disgusting practice.  What I'm not willing to do is to join in accusing another human being of "defending" a practice or condoning it, simply because he made mention of it in response to another human being's (read, your) continued insistence that it be the topic of conversation.

        1. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Motown
          Thanks for your response.
          You will just have to accept that I DIDN'T see what you did and that I saw a person putting forward an unacceptable defense of infanticide as if the bite of a wild hyena is an acceptable way of disposing of unwanted babies.
          I find such complacency about infanticide very common amongst most online atheists.

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Infanticide is not a sexual sin. It's murder.  One of the other things jonny was saying was more of a concern.  You seem to miss that connection, but it's most likely because we see things differently.  And jonny isn't an "online atheist" any more than you are an "online religionist."  He is a person who asked a question that you have thus far chosen not to answer.  Rather, you've poked and goaded and baited and battered him and his other respondents until he at least afforded you the courtesy that you've denied him, which was to simply address your point with his acknowledgment that the practice exists.  Hardly a concerted defense of it, and certainly not complacency.

            1. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              See my other comments below.
              Sorry you feel this way. A debate is only a debate.
              Have you heard of the word collusion? Its a legal term. Its an ethical failure.

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Oh, perhaps the issue is that one of us thinks this is a debate, while the others thinks it's a conversation.  I generally don't feel a need to win in a conversation.  Eh.  Carry on and enjoy.

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Its a debate its not social media or a chance for a giggle. There are strict hub rules for these debates. You have alleged my points are debatable and off topic hence its a debate. Ethically speaking its wrong to make public allegations about broken hub rules here as it could deluberately lead to collusion.  Hence castlepaloma colluding public  with you on your allegations.
                  Its not ethical nor christian.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    You have only a couple of answers for every debate; Godel, infanticide and bestiality. You have yet to offer anything else. Obviously, you don't follow any rules for debate.

                    1. Oztinato profile image78
                      Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      What about total bigotry towards religion? Let's not forget that!!!

            2. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              When I try to address sexual sin I am attacked. When I dare protest against infanticide I am vilified. When I disagree very strongly I am again personally attacked etc.Such attacks are not debate it is just giving low blows to an opponent. It isnt christian
              or ethical but might stem from misplaced loyalty to a friend. Not entirely without merit but it creates a blindness to the truth.
              Can you please calm down and stop attacking me?

          2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
            EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, that is exactly how all atheists behave. roll



            No, you don't and you know that is entirely false. Obsessing about it doesn't make it true.

        2. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Ok folks, it is time for me to give a couple of comments.... I have not been absent, just watching and waiting for others to come in and comment.  My discussion/argument with one particular person about a week ago seemed to be hogging the Forum and not allowing others to look in with their comments.  As a result of stepping back, this has allowed others to have their say.

          There has been a lot of biased talking, trying to discredit me by twisting my words.  So please allow me to cut-and-paste a little of what I said about my experience in Africa, 40 years ago.  Please read it carefully, and tell me if I have given the impression that I defended infanticide.

          Oztinato recently wrote a question to Motown: "So what did you think about the argument in favor of hyenas feeding onlive babies? What is your Christian reaction to that awful defence of infanticide given by your atheist friend?"

          He was referring to this, which I wrote 3-4 weeks ago:  "When I was in East Africa 40 years ago, I got to understand that if a woman gave birth to a baby that was deformed, and she was just not happy with it, she was likely to leave it outside at night, for the Hyenas to take.   Now, this sounds, to us, a horrific and evil thing to do.   Yet when you think about it reasonably, there was no facility available to nurture or treat such a deformed being.  There was probably a belief system there linking some kind of devil worship with those deformities.   A quick bite from the wild animal brought virtually instantaneous death to the child.   Problem solved for that mother and her community, without anyone standing over her with a placard "EVIL" in their hand.

          There are different points of view for each of us, in all manner of situations in life.   Usually there is no one-fix-for-all and we need to look at our needs much more closely, with love in our hearts, if we are to grow as a human community."


          Is someone who has a fixed religious and dogmatic view, it is unlikely they will have time or inclination to see the humanitarian aspects of such a story.   Other things I saw at close hand in that country were men and women crawling around on their hands and knees, begging.  These people were the victims of poliomyelitis.  Few people would befriend them, not even willing to touch them, or treat them like human beings.   I saw poverty.  I saw all manner of diseases that you are unlikely ever to encounter in your lifetime.   The childrens' ward in the hospital had something like a 50% mortality rate.   It is arrogant to believe that we have all the exact answers to the problems of people in other countries, when we cannot sort out our own.

          Thus I ask, is my willingness to consider the real needs of those people tantamount to "defending infanticide?

          1. profile image0
            SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I am sure only one person decided that you were condoning infanticide.  No one else said anything against you in that capacity. 

            Yes, it is arrogant to think we have all the answers.  It is not arrogant to know that God has all the answers.  It is when we fail to seek Him and His knowledge, that we fail so miserably.  (I stated this knowing you are not a believer in Him.)

            Edit  The same goes for the bestiality comments made by that same person.  No one else thought you were into that either.

            1. wilderness profile image77
              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Curious, but what was the reason for making the statement (if we don't seek a god we fail) if you know it will be rejected as drivel?

              Is it for other readers, to reinforce their belief system?  Your own?  Surely not to convince who you are responding to that it is true...

              1. profile image0
                SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                First off, I did not say, "a god."  I said, "God."  There is only one no matter what you or anyone else believes or don't believe. 

                I made that statement because the truth needs to be told, no matter who accepts or rejects it.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  lol That is exactly the same thing every other believer on the planet says about their god and every other believer on the planet throughout history.



                  There is no truth in your god being the only god people believe. It is not a matter of accepting or rejecting, but a matter of simple common sense.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
              EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              If we compare our knowledge to Gods knowledge, we obviously know a great deal more than God.

              I don't see anything in the Bible about evolution, gravity, photosynthesis, galaxy formation or even the Periodic tables. There's nothing there that provides us with any knowledge of anything.

              1. profile image0
                SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                If only the blind could be made to see.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Science helps people to see, religion blinds people to this fact and many other facts, facts that are not present in your religion or any other.

                  1. profile image0
                    SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    I have not mentioned religion at all.  I mentioned God.  The one true God, not the many false gods that others believe in.

                    Jesus healed the blind, the lepers, the paralytics.  He loosed the tongues of those who could not speak and opened the ears of those who could not hear. 

                    How many blind people have been healed of their blindness by science? 

                    The incessant need to know how things work cause a person to not be able to see the beauty of it actually working.

                    1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                      EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Again, SirDent, just a tiny bit of common sense shows us you believe exactly the same thing as every other believer throughout history, whether their god was Zeus or Thor or Mithra. No difference.



                      That is just superstitious nonsense.



                      Many.



                      That is entirely false, it is the one how doesn't know how things work that cannot see the beauty of those works.

                    2. Castlepaloma profile image76
                      Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Sir Dent
                      organized superstitious and lots of hear say

                      Other people have been known to heal some of the blind, the lepers, the paralytics.

                      Has Jesus ever regrown a limb?

              2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Of course you don't. Even when things are specifically pointed out in great detail you refuse to acknowledge it, though it's undoubtedly there. As I'm sure you'll refuse to acknowledge any of the following.

                First off, the creation account. I've shown you how it correctly describes the geological and biological formation of the earth, described from a surface point of view. But let's look at the order in a little more detail. I want to draw your attention to the fact that it specifically speaks about 'light' first, before everything else. Light, as we now know, plays a significant role in quite a few things. Things we presume the authors of Genesis could not have known.

                The order in which it describes things shows to be insightful beyond what people of that age could have possibly understood. Think about this ...

                1. heavens (sun/moon/stars), earth, oceans, light (day1)
                2. atmosphere, earth's water cycle (separate waters above/below) (day 2)
                3. land, plant life of land (day 3)

                Okay, just there. The significance of the creation account to speak specifically about 'light' at the beginning should be recognized here. Because everything that came after that requires light. In fact, look at the order of things listed above....

                atmosphere (day2) - formation required 'oceans'(day1) and 'light'(day 1), both specifically mentioned before
                earth's water cycle (day 2) - requires both 'oceans'(day 1) and 'light' (day 1)
                plant life (day 3) - also requires 'light'(day 1), atmosphere(day 2), water cycle(day 2), land(day 3)

                Then comes day 4 where it says the sun/moon/stars were positioned in the sky. Well, before this happened the entirety of the earth's land masses were situated around the south pole beneath the planet. Any life on that land would experience 6 months of day/6 months of night. In fact, it was probably the cold temperatures because the land masses where beneath the planet that caused the mass extinction of life on the continental shelves that then led to the Cambrain Explosion. This is the era when those land masses moved back to between the poles where they're still positioned today.

                And what came just before this in Genesis? Plant life on land. And what did that accomplish? That meant that photosynthetic organisms, plant life, was now directly in contact with the atmosphere, rather than in the sea. This comes just before it talks about the sun/moon/stars. They were already created, because this is what they meant by 'heavens' in verse 1, however before plant life on land the atmosphere, while it allowed light through (translucent), the sun/moon/stars were not yet visible because the atmosphere was not yet transparent. So they knew to say plant life on land before the sun/moon/stars became visible.

                After this comes life on land. This is significant too. As we know now, the evolution of life on land needed the 12 hour day/night pattern to establish our internal biological clocks. So it knowing to mention how the sun/moon/stars were 'positioned' in the sky before life on land is significant.

                As for 'evolution', it's covered. The two major components of that 'be fruitful and multiply' and 'according to its kind' being represented. It correctly shows first the emergence of sauropsids (reptiles/birds), then synapsids (mammals) separately and second.

                And all of that's just in the first chapter. If you don't see anything, it's because you already have your mind made up that there's no value because you've already passed judgement on what the book is and what it has to offer.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  lol It is? Where?



                  You may have done that in your own mind, but that's as far as you have shown anything remotely similar.



                  Is this supposed to be a joke? It's hilarious. Completely ridiculous, too. lol

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    "Is this supposed to be a joke? It's hilarious. Completely ridiculous, too."

                    What a vague response. You could use the exact same response to just about anything. Nothing specific to what I said. No particular arguments or assessments about what exactly you find ridiculous about it. Just as I said, even when something is pointed out directly to you, you refuse to acknowledge it, which is why you see nothing in the bible. You don't want to.

                    1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                      EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      I see the words written in the Bible. You are trying to pigeonhole them into reality and they are coming out as complete nonsense. There is no response to that other than laughter as it shows a complete lack of logic and reason, and someone who is so steeped in their fantasies, they no longer have a grasp of reality.

                2. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Headly
                  its these odd responses to logic that gives me good reason to effectively criticize most on line atheists: they are just not that good at logic for people who claim to be scientific.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    You really might want to invest in a dictionary, or at the very least, learn how to use one. Your definitions of words leave much to be desired. Look up logic.

          2. Chris Neal profile image76
            Chris Nealposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The short answer is, yes. The long answer is, I can see your point of view and although I've never seen such occurrences in person I've read many variations on the same thing. What you've expressed is actually not unnatural, many cultures (including, historically speaking, many Western ones) have had similar practices. I'm not stupid and I'm not insensitive (as I don't think you are either) and I have no doubt that these were heart-wrenching decisions, especially for the mothers. Speaking as a man who nursed his cancer-stricken wife until she died, and who has a severely autistic daughter, I actually have some first-hand knowledge about these difficulties, although I wouldn't dare to compare my western, relatively well-off life to a poverty-stricken family in Africa. But the emotions and the deep thinking and pondering, these I can relate to.

            In one sense you are correct, although I think you are equating 'religious' and 'dogmatic.' A fixed religious view, and specifically Christianity, with its emphases on the worth of each individual and the specialness of all people in the eyes of God, would tend to form a rather rigid view on the worth of life and whether the utilitarian view of exposure is tantamount to infanticide. And let me be unequivocal that it is. Although the history of Christianity as it's been practiced is certainly not free of bigotry and blood, the theory of it, and as it has been practiced by many such as Cory ten Boom and countless volunteers who go to war-torn and famine-plagued areas and try to help, is in direct opposition to a more utilitarian (and dehumanizing) view. The extremes would of course be seen in Nazi Germany, or the Chinese one-child policy (which I have seen advocated in this country and it is stomach-turning.)

            That doesn't mean it's easy. And that doesn't mean that I'm not aware that it's easy for me, as a middle-class American who never wants for food, to 'preach' to a family (and often single mother-led family) in the middle of famine or war, about the need to protect every child. I know it would sound very different to me if I were in the middle of such events. Nevertheless, letting your child be eaten by a hyena, no matter how 'humane' it might be, is still infanticide.

          3. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The examples you've given here go a long way toward why my viewpoint is what it is. What you speak of, regarding young born with afflictions, how they are handled in this example is very similar to how they'd be handled in the wild. The same wild that we evolved from.

            The human concept of morality is an interesting thing. Because of our capability to reason, we are able to conceptualize our own mortality. We, all being humans, can sympathize with the pain and suffering of other humans. So our morality in regards to other species usually hinges on how capable we imagine they are of suffering.

            This is why I see the themes of the bible being exactly what would be needed for our species, which in my mind adds validity to this being an actual representation of an actual God. If we did indeed evolve from the wild, and evolve these brains of ours, then the need would arise to somehow establish morality. If we truly are willfully capable of choosing our own behavior, if our behavior is indeed willful and not just the 'natural' culmination of our brain chemistry, then we, unlike any other known species, choose our behavior differently than any other creature.

            Because it's something beyond pure 'natural instinct' that decides how we operate in these difficult situations, then something must be established. Some kind of value for human life and sense of morality. Like this situation where a young one is born with some affliction that will lead to a life of pain and suffering for the child, not to mention hardship for the parents/tribe, the choice they made in this example is very much like how it would be handled in the wild.

            We humans, with our well-meaning intentions, are actually detrimental to us 'naturally'. Take deformities and afflictions that we are now able to correct with medical advances. The way it was handled in this example, those genes are removed from the pool. The way we handle it nowadays, we deem that baby being deserving of a better life, we find medical ways to ease that child's life, to acclimate that child back into the world, where he/she then grows up, lives as close to a "normal" life as possible, likely gets married, procreates, now future generations have this same affliction in the gene pool that otherwise would have been removed because of how we chose to handle it 'logically' and 'compassionately'.

            So which is really the wiser decision? Which is the more compassionate? The one that helps this one child? Or the one that spares future generations the same fate?

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Is there another option as well, one where we see it play out most often?  I mean an example where a child is allowed to live, and doesn't procreate if it is a TRUE deformity that is passed on to future generations?  If those people are marrying and procreating, I would think it is very rare.  In the sense that it most likely won't happen, do we err on the side of making SURE they don't get the chance to procreate?  I see your point of view, not sure I agree fully in the sense that it is worth the ending of a human life over, when you don't know that you are achieving some higher moral good (which is an opinion anyway.)  It gets a little scary.  I know of many disabled people that can procreate because their condition is from another reason other than genes.  In the example given, he said that a mother could just not want it.  What if they lost a leg, or were deprived of oxygen at birth and have cerebral palsy, having more to do with preemies, etc.  Not genes so much.

              Its a complex issue, wanting to think about it from all sides to be fair to ALL involved.  That little baby could be any of us back in the day, left out for hungry hyenas.  When thinking about it like that, do we consider it any differently?  (some might not, but trying to think of all sides, considering what is being considered, the ending of that life through a VERY unpleasant means.)

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                The intent of this is more an exercise in thinking out the differences between how things play out 'naturally' and how we thinking humans change things. Like in the case of our medical advances. By correcting deformities and things caused by genetic information, but not fixing the genes, we are in a sense passing on to future generations a genetic problem that would have otherwise removed itself from the gene pool where no individuals from future generations would have it to deal with. So, in a case like that, our medical advances are making future generations more dependent on that medical knowledge. Nature, with no consideration for the individual, has a way to deal with this kind of thing, whether we find it cruel or not. But with our evolved minds we tend to place more importance on each individual, which I'm not saying I don't agree with, but it alters how things play out. So, when usually these faulty genes would have been removed from the pool, we propagate them into future generations by trying to help the individual, thereby creating future generations with individuals who will have the same problem, overriding the natural course of things based on where we 'logically' place value.

                It's more a matter of thinking out how things have changed since our minds evolved to this point where we feel we're ready to 'take the wheel' in our species future evolution so to speak.

                1. profile image0
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Headly, thanks for putting all that into words... I have been lying in bed these last couple of mornings, (very early in the morning, you know, like many of us do, ruminating over the question(s) and thinking backwards and forwards, repetitively) trying to understand and see this issues for real.  It's not easy, even less easy to put it all into words that really mean what I feel.  I don't see there being a one-solution-fits-all.  I know there is something not quite right, whichever way I look at it.  The tendency to want an easy answer, all wrapped up in tinsel to make it acceptable, does not ultimately lead to "the truth," only stopping where it helps me to feel comfortable,  So, there is more work to do.

                  I have formulated a reply to Ocean's questions some way back in the thread.  I had to think over this reply carefully, too, because in the past my words have been misconstrued and  I don't want to muddy the water even further.  So, when you read it, please don't think I have everything fixed and sorted.  It's an ongoing journey for me.

                  Hopefully, in half an hour I will get it ready for posting.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I guess I looked at too many of the details in Jonny's original revisiting of this question.  One of the issues was the Mom might not have wanted it, and it might have had a problem, deformity, or some such thing.  As for nature, everyday nature also is very busy "taking care of" human life that isn't optimal to survive in the sense of miscarriages.  I hate to put it like that but you know what I mean and I am going off the tone in your post there.  I hear what you are saying, I think I really am.

                  Thing is, this is kind of a different topic, with respect, to the question I think Jonny was posing.  I have no problem with going with the natural flow of a conversation, but he posed it in the form of a question if I recall.  He asked if he was defending infanticide.  Yikes, a tough question for sure, but I answered it honestly and others chimed in too.  Its just tough.  He went after it and wanted feedback.

                  This answer from you and the original one I responded to takes a little bit of a different path from some of your other posts, just observing.  I mean that often you are making a distinction between nature and materialism, vs humans and their evolved selves that include a consciousness and ego, etc.  You have weighed in many times on the value of the things and differences between humans today and animals and simple nature.  I am reminded here of the discussion about human nakedness and covering up etc.  This is so much more serious in my eyes, and I am certainly not trying to minimize or maximize anything.  Just noting that when speaking of human life for me, a LOT of the peripherals necessarily fall to the way side, in order to defer to the greater good, the more  moral, the human life and the esteeming of it.

                  I am just sharing with you where I am coming from as you responded and I haven't gotten back to this until now.  Thanks for your response though, even if I am not sure I think this addressing head on, the other question fully.  You perhaps weren't intending to, and perhaps its difficult because of the fact you guys are friends and there almost aren't many more difficult kinds of topics to weigh in on that are of such huge consequence.  I mean when a friend might be on the opposite side. 

                  We are very far along in our evolution.  I don't know why the need to step back if that is what some might be doing.  One last thing, I almost expected a weighing in on the fact their location and culture, as that weighed in on the older conversation some too about clothing, etc, how some today still don't wear them and possible reasons why.  How would that have a parallel to this situation, it might explain more, but then it might not.

                  With all the problems that come with modern medicine and technology, while not ignoring those, their presence can't make me put down the higher moral priority that I see in place as needing to be maintained.  The "other" lesser problems even though they are BIG, are less of a problem than the loss of life altogether is a problem.  I would rather deal with the other "problems" many times over than deal with the problem of losing a human life and especially in the manner of death by hungry hyena.  I hope my views are making sense.

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Oceans, I have just come on to the computer, it's 6.20pm here now and I have read you latest post to Headly.  I hear maybe a note of disturbed confusion in you post.... is this true?   If so, there are a few points I'll try to put into coherent context.

                    We are not permitted to state the obvious, the honest feelings, for fear of offending people.

                    Where is this heightened fear of death coming from?  Isn't there an aspect of Christianity that sees death as not something to be feared, but something with which to be comfortable?

                    In times gone by, when there was much less ability on the part of doctors and science to delay death, then death itself was just a "part of life."  Everyone saw it; knew it up close because so many children died early in life.   60 years of age was comparatively very old, and most people had gone to their grave by then..... and they died usually at home.   Most people had close encounters with it, before it became their turn.... yet today, we hide it, we deny it, we live in fear of it, when instead it should be allowed to take its natural course, while we get on with living life to the full.

                    If there is disagreement with this, lets hear down-to-earth alternatives.

                    1. profile image0
                      SirDentposted 10 years agoin reply to this
                    2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Hi Jonny,

                      This topic and this this story and the questions that follow are super multi faceted and seem hard to all address because they are weighty issues and include human life and the ending of one.  So this could be the reason for the disturbed confusion in my post, depending exactly on what you meant.  Bear with me, and forgive me if i step on any toes in my answer, but you asked and seemed to want a genuine answer, right?  I like you and respect your manner in the forums and the way you conduct yourself, and hate the idea of upsetting anything.

                      What did you mean by we are not permitted to state the obvious, the honest feelings for fear of offending people.  Is this how you feel when discussing things with me?  I sometimes feel that way also with all, believe it or not and even with my lengthy posts that seem direct. I actually do hold back some, and worry about offending. 

                      The question about heightened fear of death is a curious one to me.  In Christianity, yes we need not be uncomfortable with death. There is incredible hope in Christianity, a hope of resurrection which Jesus showed will happen actually and showed by example that it isn't just a spiritual soul kind of thing.  (Understandably a whole other set of many possible discussions there, but keeping on track...)  In fairness though, how does this fear vs embracing of death apply for the purposes of this conversation?   Still, God has given us our lives now on a planet that is dealing with what we are, including death and decay.  I think life is the most precious gift of all. 

                      Life is the conduit to which we are anything, know anything, can express anything, and pass on love and more life though various ways.  If not for life, from a materialist worldview there is absolute nothingness, from eternity before and after.  So THIS is the spark, the bright spot in an eternal before and after darkness, the air breathing and blood pumping LIFE we life in an amazing body.  We each experience it from our points of view, but SO does everyone else.   I look at every person almost like a library (at least), they have a set of experiences and knowledge and feelings and when they die that goes with them if not recorded somewhere. When an elderly person dies, you can no longer access their stories,wisdom, contributions, knowledge about ALL kinds of things.  There are a unique fingerprint on civilization and the universe, then gone.  If we lived to be a 100, it is STILL fast. 

                      So how can I take that chance, of very same fullness of life from any baby? You and I get to have it.  Yet I can't even just allow for a baby to get to have it, even if imperfect their little body is strong and their natural self fought HARD to even get the chance to take a first breath!?  Its absolutely amazing and astounding to me.

                      It is hard for me to understand others sometimes but I do try and even in looking at a person with a 180 degree opposite view of me, I STILL don't understand how we can't give the bare minimum allowance to a human life.  To me, even if I were a materialist only, life is STILL a miracle, and something  would I think be sacred because its not like I am choosing to throw away a batch of food I made or created, or junking an old car.  We can make all kinds of things, but the process of a human life seems something super sacred to me.  We can't make a human.  We can cooperate to make a new one but the process is totally OUT of our hands.  That process is an amazing miracle too. Like I am super wowed by it.  I know you think its the influence of my worldview or views or religion that might cause me to feel all these ways.  Especially about the sacredness of life.  I am not sure that is the case, but also don't deny it HAS at least some influence.

                      We already know that you and I are fairly different in regards to all human life.  I just think the case needs to be made with ideas that can override that the living breathing human life is worthy of ending in such a manner. (A baby to hyenas.)

                      In the meantime, I would hurt if natures course took my baby through a miscarriage, but I could accept that much more than this.  Or if my baby was born and then died later at a young age through complications.  That is me living within how nature takes its course.  We have children's hospitals here, and I have been in them and they would break your heart and show hope also for what goes in and out of their doors every day.  Those parents LIVE for each day with their babies or children.  They live and go on to live amazing lives, or lives of struggle, and some succumb at age 1, 7, 15, you name it.  How can we take a day away?

                      One of my nephews that came too early, and they couldn't stop my sisters labor with twins 17 years ago.....  We were told he wouldn't live through the night.  I just saw this morning on her facebook a picture of them both at a La Crosse awards banquet, he does amazing in the sport, and is taller than she is.  I know of others with parallel stories and for this reason I will never say lets just allow for death, when we don't know. They KNEW it might be a long life of pain and struggle.  It has not been for him, he couldn't be a happier healthier more well adjusted kid, that does very well in regards to being a strong human being.  I know I am rambling but these are the reasons for some of my views which you ask about. We can't just put babies out for hyenas because WE make a call even VS a doctors "call" because we have been wrong and so have doctors. 

                      So the question about death being comfortable or not to me doesn't apply really as its not about that for me.  Its making a total judgement, and not on a weed in our garden or a pest.  Why are we making babies we won't be responsible for anyway?  Why do people get the idea we can shirk our responsibilities SO easily? 

                      If I have not addressed your points and the crux of what you are trying to get at, please ask me. Death is still just a part of life, and I have no problem with that.  I don't even really believe in keeping someone on life support, and we took my dad off of it when he was dying a few years back.   My sister couldn't bear for me to not be there and had them keep him alive, which was questionable.  Its a long story but I got there and we were crying and they took him off the ventilator and it was "time"......  holding hands and crying my dad opened his eyes and looked at all of us as if to say, "What is wrong with you all, did someone die?"  I kid you not, lol.  He went on to live for several more weeks and had another birthday party and it was amazing and awesome.  He was too young, way too young to die from his condition.  His life fought hard though and every day was precious.  I say that because we chose to let life take its course after a couple days on a ventilator, I am not "keep them alive at all costs." 

                      The baby in question, in my mind, was not allowed to have a natural course of life play out.  If a HEALTHY or WANTED baby had been left out for animals, IT would have died also.  What is more natural I think is to nurture a baby and love it, and give it a chance.  There are too many particulars with this story that makes it a bit more crazy and allows for some here to assume the worst..., like it will have sex and procreate and pass on its bad genes, which is kind of polluting the pool.

                      What is being done has a word for it, and it is happening because its not prime or optimal, and as seen in the healthy vs not wanted or healthy baby, we are putting a value on its life.  To minimize what comes with that, I think we are diverting back to ideas that more comfortably "deal" with this story.  Not for the baby though.  To me, it is as if only our views matter, not all humans views matter.  Now I have just repeated a lot of what I said before in different ways and made it long.  Sorry, but I am trying to answer. I am obviously passionate about life and my connectedness with humanity as a whole and its beautiful tapestry.  I know I am idealistic sometimes, but I really think some minimize human life even from the point of view of a strict materialist or physicalist view. 

                      You, speaking about a person that got to live to the ripe age of 60, or even children dying early in life, or dying at home in times past..... ALL actually, I think, weigh in for MY view.  I think that they got to have what we aren't allowing this baby to have.  To me, this isn't denying ANYTHING, but doing the stronger thing to take it head on, it isn't fearing ANYTHING.   Its the stronger route I think to take. 

                      I am baffled by all of this. I am more baffled than I think you may be at me.  See, HERE is the thing.  Look how you ended what you said.  "when instead it should be allowed to take its natural course, while we get on with living life to the full."

                      Yes, living life to the full. Only for some?  Not for all?  How does not allowing everyone the chance to live their life (equal in value to yours and mine) to live their life to the full, allow YOU and I to get on with living OUR lives to the full?   So see, I agree about living life to the full!  I really do.  I think it is you that maybe does not, or may be not willing to admit you mean only for YOUR life, if you do? 

                      (now you see why I made the disclaimer earlier on?)  If you don't want to respond I understand.   We could just be that different but that is not the end of the world to me and I hope not for you. I am not even trying to get you to change your mind.  It has occurred to me some may not have thought about all that is really entailed.  We can sure be very egocentric at times, all of us.

            2. PhoenixV profile image68
              PhoenixVposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              I think the wisest and most compassionate decision would be to spare future generations of warped minds contemplating some eugenics program, rather than the warped bodies. Because what is wisest is only decided by the living and what is compassionate or more accurately uncompassionate is never decided by the ones on the wrong end of some rationalized eugenics. Let us spare humanity of those that actually consider eugenics as their infallible opinion/option, shall we?

            3. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              I think there is a way for us to test what is most compassionate in these situations.  If any of us were ever deemed by our society as "unfit" in any way shape or form, which mentality would you hope was "in charge?"  The side that says its ok to do what animals in the wild would do and or what is easiest on them, or the side that would allow for life to be granted even though there was some question about that or not. When I say, deemed unfit, I mean to the degree that you were left in or put in a situation where sure death was a result. 

              I can't help but think of examples in history, where the idea of helping the gene pool some was also an idea in the backs of some people's minds.  I can almost say without any equivocation, that those people would have hoped for the compassionate "LIFE" option.  They had no say in it, very similar to how this baby would have no say in it either.  They were human beings, that weren't hurting the gene pool, and in fact if you are going by brains and ingenuity and survival skills would have helped it many times. 

              I say this in effort to expand the thinking perhaps, and/or to think about it from all sides.  I saw also the idea put out that the mother maybe just didn't want the baby.  It wasn't specifically expressed it would have a life of pain and suffering.  This is assumed it seems to me, and if the opposite were true, and death would come as it sometimes does for these people, why not let them live while they can.  I can hope this would be done for me, my loved ones and my friends, family, neighbors, anyone.

              1. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                I do not have an extreme fear of death itself.   Yes, of course, like any other living form, I will instinctively try to avoid death.  That is natural and automatic, built into my genes, beyond my control to a large extent.

                But the fear of what will happen to my consciousness after the fact of death, in the presence of some judgmental Super Being, is what drives the motives of most people who believe in life after death.

                The fact that you can subject an individual to "hell on earth" does not seem to matter.   Add to this the fear that you might suffer hell fire and damnation for considering otherwise, this gives further weight to the saving of another human's life.   This would point to a selfishness in such a thought-process.  Please tell me if you, or anyone else, will act in a totally unconditional loving way.  Is altruism universal?

                We humans, in regarding ourselves as so superior, allow our needs to reap havoc on the world around us, in a way that would be totally disrespectful of a creator that had "made" such a beautiful world.  I try to see the way in which my life is an integral part of the whole tapestry, and try to conduct my life accordingly.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I was hoping for some more response to my points, like what if the baby is you or your family member?  Is what this mother did still ok, the death by hyenas?  The REASON for this question in part is because if you are right, then it MUST be ok to take the lives even of those you love, if someone deemed them unfit in any way.  I have a gut feeling deep down, that you don't think that is true?  (Or am I wrong in this?)  In other words, if your views that I think I am getting a better feel for are true, then OTHER things must be equally true.  Simple logic comes into play.

                  So its hard for me to open my mind more as you are encouraging if I don't have all the details.  Like do you not see yourself as superior to animals?  I ask because of what you say above and in other posts.  Its not about an extreme fear of death I don't think. 

                  What do you think of what Hitler did?  He had what he thought was "great reasoning" to do what he did, and thought he was doing the world a favor. 

                  Do you esteem good things people do, and say some things they do is bad? I have seen you suggest some are not open minded for example, or display bigotry, so I know this answer.  So I know that YOU think some things are better than others.  Who are you to say that though? On what basis?  Why should anyone ever consider any different view than they hold, if I am hearing you correctly on the other hand?

                  When I am not sure that a hell on earth is in store for a person, how can I then take their whole life away!?  This is not an established part of even the story you told, right?  Yet it is being invoked that people are doing something "bad" by NOT letting the baby be eaten alive.  Do you not see the inconsistency?  When in doubt, why is it suitable to take a life, ever? I am being ABSOLUTELY dead serious when I say, it is NOT my belief in God that drives me to want to save that baby.  You seem so sure it is SELFISH to NOT take its life? Am I reading you correctly there? 

                  What did you mean by the unconditional loving way, or altruism question you asked?  This is a tough subject for sure, and to be able to fully understand, have patience with my questions please.  In a sense, I am understanding less and less so far, but getting a clearer picture in another way.  Thanks.

          4. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Jonny, I am so glad you shared this because it sheds more light on the stories I have been hearing from Oz over the last several weeks.  As you have seen, I have defended you a few times against what I think is very extreme distortions even without seeing the exact posts he was talking about. (He COULD be better about quoting exact things himself, if he wants to be taken half seriously.....)  In short, I could never believe you would defend infanticide and beastiality based on what I have seen from you. 

            I want to answer you sincerely and honestly with this post with the question at the end from you.  So here is my first question I have to ask before doing so.  Do you defend in that case, the mother that puts her baby out to be eaten alive by hyenas?  (Looking at this by looking at the facts of the matters, and the wording, etc.)

            1. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Oceans, thanks for that, and for your moral support.  We will not agree on everything discussed here, we don't have to, the world is big enough for all of us.

              This discussion about the way a mother might "deal" with that situation.  I make no absolute judgment of that situation.  I am not qualified to, not worthy to make such a judgment.  I have been born in a relatively lucky environment, even though it was in the middle of a shocking war that caused so much horror, cruelty and strife.   I have never gone really hungry.  Never gone without parents to look after me in my formative years.   More recently I have had a fairly successful, though oft-times lonely life.  Currently I have sufficient food for my needs and sufficient good friends around me.  So, how could I relate to a mother in a very primitive situation, without access to modern medical care, without the ability to think beyond the traditional superstitious culture which she has been brought up with?

              Well, I can relate to her.  Because I can be aware of her humanitarian needs.   I am not making a judgment on her because of my own religious bias.  I am not declaring her bad on the basis of a set of rules that are laid down in the country of my birth, or my adoption.   I am seeing her in her bona fide condition.  She has, in my opinion, the right to take what action she sees as correct.   To make any other judgment would be arrogant. 

              I know, it horrifies people who have been reared in comfortable "civilised" surroundings, with a religious view which prevails and directs the way we "should" think and act.  This particular religion is also full of its own superstitions.  Death it seems is something to avoid at all costs.  It is something with which to threaten others, to control and command, even to the extent of interfering in the lives of people in other cultures, which we don't fully understand or accept.   Compare this with a culture where death is accepted without sophistication.  It happens. 

              Yes, you and I are totally protective of a child, it comes as a natural instinctive reaction if we hear a child in distress.  I have no problems with this, it's within me.  I cannot even run over a rabbit (a nuisance pest here where I live) on purpose, only if it's be sheer accident.  But I cannot sit in judgment of that mother, therefore, in response to your question, Oceans, I support that mother in her choice.

              Maybe you will say that this last sentence contradicts my first sentences in this post.  So be it.  You now know clearly, I hope, where I stand.  So be it.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Ok, thanks for your response Jonny.  I will respond honestly and kind of matter of fact at first, in a black and white sort of way with the information I have been given.   I appreciate first of all that you make no absolute judgement of that situation the mother is in, and you said you are not qualified or worthy to make such a judgement.  I too have been born in a lucky environment, and am so thankful that I haven't had to deal with that.  That said, we are all so different, and like you said there is plenty room for us in this world. 

                As for Oztinato's accusation that you support infanticide, and with your response that ultimately you defend the mothers choice (please correct me if I am wrong here!), then you do seem to be defending infanticide in at least that situation.  Maybe similar ones, maybe only sometimes, etc, I don't know those answers as I am not caught up or you haven't shared them. 

                Now IF you don't support or defend infanticide generally, then it seems Oztinato is getting you on this one example, this one technicality but I have to be fair to all sides when I say, he isn't wrong.  He is leaning heavily on your one example and running with it.  He has been a stinker for sure in this forum, and I don't defend it, but he isn't wrong about this case.  I am sorry, but it seems to be the case.

                While this may sound judgemental to the mother, I think there are better options, like the mentioned childrens hospital, where there is a 50% mortality rate.  Who knows what can lie in the future for a child!  Maybe it won't be so bad, but here is my take on it.  I feel I am no position to take ANY life, young or old, sick or deformed, etc.  About the only example I can think of is a dear friend or my husband on some battlefield where they had just blown him to nearly smithereens, begging me to end their excruciating suffering as they lay dying anyway.  Short of something crazy weird like that, I can't imagine taking on that role, nor supporting it. 

                I can't assume so much about the baby even in this case, as it was also said, "she may not just want it" or something similar.  I have been on trips to orphanages in Mexico to help out and it broke my heart, but those kids are getting a chance to live.  If we cut a life short, that is that, its the end.  I find life so sacred and amazing that I can't bear it. 

                The other thing that caught my attention is the assumption that on the first bite the child feels no pain.  I don't know about that. sad  I think wild animals just start tearing such things apart with their sharpest teeth, whether the face, the limbs, the neck, I don't know......   This isn't fair, it seems to me.  It just isn't, and I have much more respect even for the bewildered and scared mother that leaves the baby in some marketplace, or at the orphanage door, or the hospital steps, church, whatever. 

                I have several reasons to support why I think as members of our societies, we want to go down a path of nearly rationalizing away the taking of life, because I think it actually can come back to bite the very ones that hold that view ultimately, say when they get older and sick, etc.  Others have other views, and depending on who is in power, we have seen already in the past what some did that thought some were inferior in health to others.  I think back to the scene in Schindler's list where they are coming around for inspections of people, making them walk or run around naked to see who gets to live and whose time is up.  The women were helping each other poke their fingers to get blood to rub on their cheeks and lips to make them look more rosy and healthy looking.  sad  They had to put on a good show, and not look like the death warmed over that they looked like.  This idea can run a course that may not turn out favorably for the very people that might esteem it in certain occasions. 

                I know you don't judge the mother, and the community, but what about the life of the baby?  Why does he get the harshest judgement of all in that case?  One more thought too.  It would be sure death for even a healthy baby in that situation, left to be eaten by a pack of wild hyenas.  So what is happening it seems, is the making a judgement call on the life of an invalid or deformed person (or whatever the ailment is.) 

                So I think what we have is that some endorse infanticide. 
                Some endorse it sometimes
                Some endorse it only in extreme situations
                Some never endorse it,
                (Here insert other options I am not thinking of.)

                I have to never endorse it.  The only time I could waver would be if it meant saving a thousand other babies or something.  Have you seen or heard of Sophie's Choice which I never saw and never want to.  She was told to pick one of her children, and she couldn't.  So both were going to be killed.  She had to pick one to not lose both, or some such horrifying thing.  Those cases happen next to never, but I mention them all the same.

                There is a little bit of absolute judgement going on in this situation you shared, that the village dealt with.  They made an absolute judgement on the life of that baby.  If it were me, and I can't imagine it, but if it were, I would have to take my chances, even if it meant getting kicked out of said village and facing the elements myself with my baby.  So with respect, I have to take the other view, and understand that with that would come the wagging of many possible heads and what I (if that mother) would be bringing on myself.  Call me weird......

                I do see where you stand, and if pressed, this would be how I would answer.  I thank you for sharing it, these are some of the bigger types of issues that come up in these forums that OUGHT to really be thought through.  I think we think our world can't face what we have in history.  Its good to think about these things, and also where the ideas would or could lead to in the future.  Its a path that has repercussions you may not want to consider.  Like we get old and "useless, sick, breathing precious air, taking up space," etc.   Its only as good as the powers that be are good.  Unfortunately, lots of people aren't.   I wonder that you think its my views on God that make this the case, and I don't think it is, nor my country of birth.  There are plenty here that would agree with you, and in fact there are early stages of suggesting overpopulation and the rest....  I see this woman in her condition as well, this is why I say what I did about possibly having to pay with a lot of my own grief to not kill my baby, whatever came with that.  I can't think more about one human life over another, and judge it based on its deformity or sickness. sad  Its about living then not being alive.  This to me is huge.  We I think talk big about it because we aren't that one.  So in regards to the golden rule which many think is a good thing, I fall to that.  Even to the person that says, "if I was that baby, I would want to die,"  how can they make a judgement based still on that. 

                As for bunnies, I can't kill them either, and they are a nuisance and ate my grape hyacinth flowers the other day.  I catch spiders in cups or an ant and put them outside, so I am a huge sap that way. 

                So while the particulars matter for that story which is so sad, I think I lean the way I do because of my overarching views about human life.  Our world is sometimes getting away almost from viewing it as sacred, which I find odd, while for the animal world it is increasing.  I mean humans vs our feathered and furry friends.  That concerns me, and the views on it all matters I think.  So there is a long answer.  Hope it explains where I am coming from, and open to talking about it more, of course.

                1. profile image0
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Oceans, as always you give a lot of thought and care into your replies, and I thank you for that.

                  From yourself and from others I hear what I think is fear:  of death itself, of being punished by a god because of "our" (humans') innate evil nature.  I see a concentration of effort towards maintaining the lives of us humans in preference to all the other species around us.  I feel we have placed ourselves up on a pedestal, to be seen as god's gift to the world, superior in status, entitled to avail ourselves of any and every resource we can find and a right to deprive other species of such resources if there is any competition.

                  If a dog was born deformed, there would be total acceptance that it be "put to sleep," a comfortable euphemism, and the same with every other "lesser animal over which we have dominion." 

                  And yet we will fight tooth and nail to "save" the life of each and every human, regardless of the suffering we might bring upon that fellow human simply by preserving their life. 

                  Yes, I will hear yourself and countless others, immediately accuse me of promoting Eugenics.  I am NOT promoting it.  I am just asking you to give further thought to this and try to consider where such anthropocentric tendencies come from.   In my view, it comes from a belief in a creative god having made us superior, and therefore we are entitled to occupy that special seat of favoritism. 

                  Yes, there have been studies that seem so show that societies who believe in the existence of a higher Being seem to be more compassionate and successful societies.   I don't know if these findings are totally proven, it is quite possible they are.  My own opinion is that no such higher being exists except in the minds of man.  This you know of me already.   So I can only put my views here in the hope that more people will open their minds sufficiently to see where their opinions come from; what drives their thoughts; what background knowledge and upbringing has led them to believe what they do.   And, further, how such leanings of thought affect them in their daily lives.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Sure thing, Jonny, and glad you are willing to read my posts.  I think I hear what you are saying here.  If I may, I think this is not a religious idea, the saving of humans say over another animal like the dog you shared in your example.  People of all stripes think like I do here, and we have seen that shown in this thread.  It very definitely is not just religious people or theists that are worried about punishment.  I think every person puts themselves up on a pedestal, everyone that is alive I mean.  Take you for example haven't you lived your whole life looking out for yourself and your interests over anyone else's? Human or animal?  Does this mean you look at your self as superior in status?  Yet you look out for yourself and I am not saying that is wrong, its normal.  Its in us to do that.  Most people if there was one loaf of bread left in their country, would not give it to the dogs or birds, they would give it to their family.  This is something I think is true, so I have to disagree with your initial points.

                    Does the idea that an animal could be put to sleep, mean the same to you as a human baby?  (That you make the distinction there?)  I don't know so I am asking. It almost sounds like its half a dozen of one, six of the other.  Let me know before I respond more on that one.

                    I still don't get the assuming the deformed or unwanted baby will have a life of suffering for sure, and how that even if it did suffer (many people do that weren't deformed, and are still happy to be alive), it may STILL want to live over dying. 

                    Jonny, don't you put yourself above every animal?  If not, and you or an animal had to die, are you saying you have no problem offering yourself up for the animal so that it can live and you not play "favoritism" with a human (yourself in this case?)  With respect, I have not seen an argument from you showing how this is true, the idea of people creating a god is what is at the root of all of this.  Especially when most of those that don't believe in God would likely not agree with you. 

                    I actually think I am getting a little more of a feel for how you think about your own life and that of others, though I wonder if it is consistent across the board.  If you wouldn't mind answering my questions, we can then know, as I don't want to assume.  I am going so far based on what you say though. 

                    One more thing, you seem to suggest people need to open their minds more, but do you mean to consider things like the mother who put out her baby for the hyenas story?  To consider that as true?  Do you not see how, that when you suggest others have a more closed mind, that you are showing you are also closed to other ideas they may have?  I alluded to this before too.  I am picking up on some things that feel rather contradictory in nature.   It concerns me a little, because I know you think you have good views, correct?  If that is so, and the rest of what you are saying is all true, then you have to let go of your own good views and embrace others.  Or else are you not opening your mind?  Do you see what I am getting at?

                    1. profile image0
                      jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Sorry, Oceans, I made another post before seeing your later reply, so was unable to address your questions at that point.  Please bear with me, it will take a while to answer everything there, but will do my best.

                2. profile image0
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Hullo again, Oceans.  This has taken me a lot of time and thought, coupled with some considerable emotion too, and it is far from a complete answer to all your questions.  I have only been able to write a few thoughts down for further consideration.

                  So here is a more complete response to your previous post:

                  "Take you for example haven't you lived your whole life looking out for yourself and your interests over anyone else's? Human or animal?"
                  Answer: no more, no less than the average person. I have put myself last on the list several times; purposely denied my needs in favour of another person or animal. Been selfish sometimes, yes.

                  "Does the idea that an animal could be put to sleep, mean the same to you as a human baby?"
                  Answer:  I question our preoccupation with human needs, although of course we will tend to fight more for our own species than others.  This is an inherited trait amongst some gregarious creatures.  One difference I immediately think of is between a male chicken and a male duck. The rooster can be very protective of his hens and their chicks, whilst a drake will likely fly way and leave his flock to their fate.
                  If we have, as humans, a tendency to be predominantly looking after ourselves at the expense of other species, this could be seen as creating many of our problems.
                  Why should we consider a puppy less important than a human child?  If the puppy is allowed to live, it will not destroy the world ecology.  I am not so sure about us humans.
                  I am asking this as a hypothetical questions, rather like yours, not stating what I would do in any circumstance.

                  " ...don't you put yourself above every animal?  If not, and you or an animal had to die, are you saying you have no problem offering yourself up for the animal so that it can live and you not play "favoritism" with a human (yourself in this case?)"
                  Answer: I doubt if I would spare the animal in lieu of my self.

                  "With respect, I have not seen an argument from you showing how this is true, the idea of people creating a god is what is at the root of all of this.  Especially when most of those that don't believe in God would likely not agree with you."
                  Answer: Some believers, some non-believers, have the ability to look beyond popular presumptions.

                  " Do you not see how, that when you suggest others have a more closed mind, that you are showing you are also closed to other ideas they may have?"
                  Answer: Yes, sometimes I do contradict myself...fair comment. My main concern is that so many of the adamant, condemnatory things that have been said against me, have been totally intolerant of different points of view.

                  My major point is that there is not necessarily one code of conduct that suits every situation everywhere in the world, amongst widely different life circumstances, cultural climates.

                  There are religious and cultural influences upon people like a woman in rural Africa, just like there are religious and cultural influences of numerous kinds in America.  To presume that one group is superior to the other is false and arrogant.  Christian people have tried for many years to impose their beliefs, which are full of superstition, on other cultures which have their own superstitions. 

                  I watched a “4 Corners” program last evening, showing gross abuse of young boys in Pakistan.  One young man being interviewed said, “Wives are just things that you keep at home.”   I found this shocking.  Both pedophilia and that cultural attitude to women I find extremely wrong.  Yet someone here might ask, “How do you, jonnycomelately, decide what is wrong?”  How does a christian person decide that I am wrong for being a homosexual man? 

                  Perhaps we all, including myself, have to be willing to say, "I don't have all the answers."

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    This is certainly a heavily nuanced topic. I fear I can sometimes come off cold in my analytical approach. My guide here between "right" and "wrong" isn't so much religion-based, as much as it is based on what is observed in nature. Nature is harsh. But we are as we are today because of how nature is. That harshness played a role in realizing what we are now. We are nimble, able to jump and balance and run, able to fight off infection, because those who could not didn't live. Just outside my door there are dead baby birds who fell from their nest. Clearly not yet able to fly. Surrounded by broken eggs of others.

                    To me, this environment that we all live in, it forces us to confront these kinds of things now and again. This is a primary reason why I find the concept of free will so significant. While most of us find ourselves in environments where we're shielded from these kinds of decisions, there are many who are not. My mind always goes back to the neurological test I read about where those giving the test posed an impossible situation and asked their subjects to decide what they'd do as they monitored brain activity. The situation they gave was that you're a mother with an infant from a tribe in Africa. There is a murderous michete-wielding gang hunting you and your tribesmen. Your baby will not stop crying and will inevitably lead that mob to you and your tribesmen. So, what do you do? Do you do whatever it takes to silence the baby to spare your tribe from being hacked to death? Or do you spare the child at the risk of everyone, including you and that child, meeting a grizzly fate?

                    What's interesting is that you can actually see in brain activity the conflict. Two separate regions of the brain 'light up' contemplating this. It's like two equal sides of an argument going on in the same brain. Conflict that can be observed, physically happening in the chemistry of the brains of the subjects.

                    It's no doubt a difficult situation. So, what would be the "most successful" outcome speaking in an evolution sense? A mother who is willing to smother her baby in that situation would prove to be the more "successful" in evolution terms. Because this action would lead to the most survivors. Then again, if the people in this situation did not also have the evolutionary predisposition to protect their young, they likely wouldn't exist to be in this situation. So which is "right"? Here we have two conflicting survival instincts, one that works for the situation, one that seemingly works against.

                    My initial foray into this topic more had to do with the impact our logical thinking brain has had on how we develop and evolve moving forward. To me, I find life absolutely precious. Kind of like I brought up before as far as my homosexual friends. What saddens me most is that, because of the life they lead, their genes will not be represented in future generations. Certainly in this modern age there are options, and I hope they pursue these options. They would make incredible parents and I have no doubt would raise incredible kids. These are highly intelligent, highly charismatic, highly respectful and thoughtful people. When I think of all the generations that it took for them to exist, and how those genes that have been carried for countless generations up to the present so that I could know these people, it deeply saddens me that their genes may not be passed on. I think of all life that way. When you think of all the years, all the struggles, that realize any one of us being here right now, ending a life is beyond tragic. Those genes that they carry, those genes that made all their ancestors successful up to this point in this cruel world, it's truly a tragedy that that chain comes to an end. And when you think of how many have come the same distance, only to bring with them genes of hatred and everything else that creates these kinds of situations, I find it truly tragic when some who bring such favorable traits to the table end.

                    Life is undoubtedly precious. The fact that we are capable of creating life truly baffles me in topics like abortion. To me the issue more has to do with a serious lack of respect for that capability than anything else. When I think of all that life is on this planet, and that we are capable of continuing the story, it humbles me. It makes me think of the Walt Whitman line, "O me! O life!… of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless… of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?” Answer. That you are here – that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. That the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?”

                    How powerful is that? That in this one universe, we all get to contribute a verse? Verses contributed before are what make life as we know it now. The verses that we each contribute make the world that future generations will experience. So in that light, I see the genes of those friends of mine absolutely precious, and I find the thought of them ending saddening on a deep level.

                  2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Hi Jonny, thanks for answering some of the questions.  One thing came to my mind a few times actually ever since I left those larger posts about the mother feeding her baby to the hyenas.  It helps me to get a little perspective and wonder what you think about it.  It was when you said you have a hard time running over even a rabbit where you live, even though they are pests.  I had to laugh because its the same way here.  A question that it brought to me is, "why does it matter if you kill a rabbit then, why would it be hard for you to run it over?"  The answer might get us a little closer to part of the points I was trying to make or get to.

                    This isn't going to be easy or any simple solution for how different we kind of are on the topic of infanticide.  (Looking at it purely by definition and response to an actual story that happened then taking a stance.)  In fairness, I did see you say in another post and I can't recall to whom at the moment, but you said that you couldn't take a human life, that your ethics wouldn't allow it or something like that.  (Not verbatim)  So see, this puts the whole thing in a conundrum of sorts for me because that particular comment is more in line with how I think and believe.  Again, the question again in that case would be, why does it go against your ethics if it does in that case, and not in a case of a deformed or unwanted baby in a difficult situation in Africa?  So in some ways I have more questions than answers, but still appreciate the whole conversation because it got many to think about these incredibly important issues. 

                    I wanted to be clear that I am not working out of fear for self when I speak of things like, "what if it was you or me?"  I mean I WOULD be afraid if someone was about to kill me for a defect I had or my baby. What I am getting at is that ideas have consequences, though they seem so harmless.  Whole societies can shift morally and in very real life and death ways.  They can change almost on a dime!  History teaches us this.  That is one side, to avoid gargantuan mistakes in even recent history that have been made by people that should know better.

                    The other side is purely moral, ethical.  This is ALL still while avoiding a possible god or belief in one.  Many people take ethics classes and rage in debates on either side over this stuff. 

                    You mentioned possibly being selfish and inconsistent at times, and I am too, we all are.  The point of showing inconsistencies at least to me, is that they point to where we are not being fair sometimes even to ourselves in our thinking.  Ironies and inconsistencies show "glitches" in our reasoning I think.  We take the paths of least resistance sometimes, and we don't want to be judged, and we all want what we want!  This world so obviously doesn't let us live like that, but we sure choose it when we can.  I think its part of being human.

                    I think many also believe in the golden rule, outside of any kind of scriptural connotation.  There is a reason for this, but we need to also be careful that its not just so that we always win.  I can't awaken some things in people by myself, even if I wanted to.  I can want it for them, very badly, and try to reason how I can.  At some point I have done all I can do.  Some have come to a conclusion that it feels the best, actually, to give to others, whether life in this case, or food, help of any kind, etc.

                    I don't know how to think any differently than I do on this topic, and its hard to budge when I haven't seen a better way.  By a better way in this case I mean in a way that "all" are safe with my view, I can't harm any ever in the way of contributing towards possible thoughts of their death in any way, shape or form.  Morals matter.  Our world is much bigger than us.  We need to empathize with the less fortunate, but even if we can't, I have to trust that we could when it comes to their living or dying.

                    Killing our eco systems, well that is currently being worked on and debated furiously.  Dogs don't kill it, but what if the person killed were to have some amazing solution too for said world, or a disease within it that was killing you or someone you loved, or helping your air you breathe, etc. 

                    I think I must just be really different than some, but then not so different than many others.  This particular topic hits me in my core.  I often feel like an alien on the planet, crazy as it sounds, for as different as I can think and feel about so many things.  I am not kidding, when I look around an see and hear what I do, and then see the responses.

                    So thanks again for the discussion and your willingness to ponder my thoughts and share yours.  I think I ought to stop here but can expound more, but will type a book here before long again.  I would be looking our for your life Jonny too, no matter what.  I would do whatever I could to save anyone I could.  I have to go for a bit but maybe can respond to more later.

                    1. Oztinato profile image78
                      Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      You see a person like Hitler convinced himself he was a good guy as he liked dogs and would never hurt and animal or even eat meat.  The actual truth was however Hitler was in deep deep DEEP denial and tried to justify the cold blooded murder of children by showing everyone how much he loved animals.

          5. Oztinato profile image78
            Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            "A quick bite from the wild animal brought virtually instantaneous death to the child.   Problem solved .."
            That's certainly a defense for infanticide under certain conditions. Trouble is of course predators go for the entrails first and hyenas would then slowly rip apart a child limb from limb.

            1. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              And the shock, and the cold, would make that child insensible very, very quickly.

              1. PhoenixV profile image68
                PhoenixVposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                So you think shock and exposure would be equivalent to anesthesia?

                1. profile image0
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  It is you who are reacting with shock and horror.   I merely show that there are other ways of looking at the situation.   

                  You are trying to justify applying judgment to a tribal situation with your western-style principles.   You are behaving like the Pharisees - "letter of the law."   Are you able to consider other possibilities beyond your treasured principles?

                  1. PhoenixV profile image68
                    PhoenixVposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    A human child is not a "problem " to be "solved" by "hyenas".  It does not seem to be a question of morality or judgment but the total lack of empathy for a child, here, in my and your world, today.

                    If one were to think about it reasonably, as you say, I could see where a village might conclude that someone that is unable to have empathy for a victim, a human child victim,  is worthy of being fed to hyenas.  But the more reasonable thing would be to have them medicated, permanently.

            2. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              JCL
              when a person has their entrails ripped out they can remain alive for quite some time. In this case they will remain alive until the hyenas slowly  rip them limb from limb.
              The notion that this kind of death is a pleasant  Disney Land ride is utter nonsense.
              We are talking here about the cold hearted brutal first degree murder of an innocent child.

          6. Oztinato profile image78
            Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            There are no "humanitarian aspects" at all to the hyena story.
            If a sane person did that in the West they would be jailed for life without parole. To even consider justifying it is morally criminal in itself and is certainly reason for relentless ethical argument (which I guarantee will be provided by myself ad nausea if necessary).
            I am completely at odds with such arguments on every level and I haven't a shred or even a tiny morsel of respect for such bizarre propositions. They will not be seen as sensible debate arguments as they have absolutely no credibility or morality and will always be treated with utter disdain and ridicule.
            Furthermore I find that most (not all) on line atheists share this dulled sense of ethics due to the cafe/Seinfeld style experiment of disbanding all religious thought  for a confused patch work of 'ethics" that defies belief in its illogicality and utter reprehensibility.
            Total religious intolerance? Infanticide? Dare I say it again? Beastiality!
            These monstrosities are the growing tip of modern atheism and the "new black" of the very latest atheist authors.

            1. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Haha.... how often do you wear white, Oz?  Every Sunday, or all the time.   Does it really suit you?

            2. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              We are not talking about a sane person in the West.   The world is bigger than you or your country, or your religion.  Or your point of view.



              So your mind is totally closed to any other point of view, absolutely?   



              Generalising and painting a group of people with a particular tar brush is surely biased and unreliable coming from one who is so intolerant of different opinions.

            3. PhoenixV profile image68
              PhoenixVposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              A eugenics program via wild animal actually being suggested and debated is one of the most disturbing thing I ever saw.  I am not sure what is more disturbing, the ones suggesting it or the ones entertaining it like, they are debating higher taxes.

              1. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                All I am really saying is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else who is not directly involved with such a possible situation is in a position to interfere.

                I have never suggested a process of eugenics.  I have never said that I have witnessed, or been privy to, such an incident.  I do not know if such occurrences still happen.   I DID however see an immediate jump to judgment of people like yourselves who seem to claim a monopoly on morality. 

                Your judgments are not water-tight, because you don't know the details of the circumstances.  Your presumptions are based upon your belief system, and you regard that set of beliefs as superior, incontestable, absolute and final.   And it seems you cannot see beyond that set of beliefs to even consider other possibilities.

                I can only hope that you apply equally strict judgments on your own life and dealings.  Oh - but I forgot, you can get forgiveness if you don't, and get a clean slate to go and do it again.

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  A calm conversation about the pros of the hyena method belongs solely in a jail for the incurably criminally insane and is not a fit topic for serious discussion by sane moral people, atheists or theist or agnostic.

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    And here endeth the lesson from the Gospel According to Oztinato.  Absolute and final, and no one else is permitted to believe anything different.... so there!  smile

                    1. Oztinato profile image78
                      Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      This conversation has proved my point about the deadness of certain atheists supposed empathy and weird ethics. Its not hard to sense the incredulousnees of the hubbers here at the direction the new atheists are heading. I am glad its being recorded here for all to see.
                      The wonder of it all is that the atheists in questio  cant see the sociopathic abberant argument they are so calmly making to the public.
                      It shows the power of the net to expose the sickening train of thought begun by such fanatical bigots as Dawkins and the perverted Singer.
                      Go ahead new age atheists and sing your song about the glories of infanticide.

                  2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    But, this is not a jail and we're not criminally insane, yet you obsess about it. Why is that?

                    1. Oztinato profile image78
                      Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Enceph
                      I agree with the first part of your statement but I dont agree with the second part as by law those who defend murdering children are technically criminally insane.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  (Long.)  I don't think anyone was really talking about interfering, and not sure we could.  You brought up the question about the defending of infanticide and in this case, death by hyenas and exposure. 

                  I don't think it was you that brought up the helping out of the gene pool in future generations, but some do take support for that story to mean that as we saw.  (not you.)  That is more of a eugenics idea though for sure.  Cleansing of the gene pool, which has supposedly been used in the past to justify some scary stuff.  Infanticide or murder are still biggies though, and eugenics is kind of related in this case because it seems part of the possible justification is the ailment of the child, its deformity, or lack of desire for the baby, etc.

                  Jonny, I think you touch on here what I was worried this might really be about.(In part.)  The looking for harsh judgement from people about something, and how they might be basing it solely on their belief system, etc.  Saying one set of beliefs is better than another.  Isn't that what you are kind of doing also, in bringing up the story in the first place, or this thread?  Your views, you are saying, are superior to someone else's, and then we discuss that, in essence. I'm not saying just you do this, but we ALL do this.  Everyone that has any issue with another's view is doing this, aren't they?  Like a "looking to be judged" while not really seeing its being done in the doing of it. (Maybe?  This is what it almost looks like.)

                  It feels not totally fair to me in this sense, because the example given now is a baby being eaten alive by hyenas, and if we judge that behavior being allowed, now being judged by you saying things like "you have the monopoly on morality, etc." (paraphrased).  This infants death is actually a VERY intense kind of issue to judge people on in this regard, because you are talking about allowing to "let live or not", and then making a judgment yourself it seems to me, if we don't agree?  (Let me know if I am wrong here, and I will stand corrected.  Feeling out the waters so to speak.)

                  All of us have input and opinions on this, and I think some are not as brave to speak out on it for whatever reason.  I couldn't not respond.  These are things discussed in ethics classes in universities, and much less serious versions of parallel stories.  Its not necessarily people being judgmental because of their religion at all.  This is a human issue, a societal and sociological one, that includes all kinds of things which we should consider like the culture, etc, as you said.

                  I just hope its not about supporting a held view about others and their judgmental ways.  Do some have an automatic view of people that they are out to judge and have the monopoly on  morality?  Does anyone?  How can we know?  Doesn't everyone think they really do have the best views on what to do in any of these situations?  We know the details as much as you gave them in that case.  That is what I was going by at least. 

                  The best moral test I know to apply is to think if it was YOU, or your relative that was being considered for extinction by that means.  Would it be ok THEN?  If NOT, why not?  What if you got in a horrible accident, and became disfigured a little or burden to family or society, or if you had a family member, niece or nephew, etc.  Is it ok then, and if not why not?  The deed is the same in the sense it is the actual ending of a life in this case, dead and done, then we have the means.  I want us to all be fair that we aren't looking to judge others for defending such a situation.  Its not like judging almost anything else on the planet almost.

                  The other possibilities you want people to consider would be to also support the woman as you did right?  Is the baby worth less than she?  What if that baby grew up and was a lot like you, perhaps?  With insights to share and wanting to talk about things that matter, etc?

                  I think all that have weighed in would also not do that to their own children or others, I hope.  I don't think this is a hypocrite type of situation, and not sure how it can be suggested that it is if it is. No one is going to do that that I know of, then go ask forgiveness and do it again, etc. (like you said there.) That seems to be shifting back to much lesser things, but the judgement of it comes from the more super extreme example.  Does this make any sense?  Regardless, its a heartbreaking story for sure, and I don't envy the situation and lack of conveniences we have.  Like I said before,if you don't condone similar things in other situations, then I think it is a technicality you got pulled in on.  The other part of me is having a hard time believing we are talking about if this is ok or not, like it was said before, almost like we are discussing a problem like taxes.

                  I know you wouldn't ask if you weren't looking for real and honest answers.  I am not often "liked" I think because I can say it like it is, but you can always know I will be as honest as I can be with you while trying to consider everything.  In this case, the ending of a life for me it the dividing line which doesn't feel like a lot of wiggle room is given for a reason.  WITH that view though, comes an idea of common protection for all people everywhere if it were to have anything to do with me or my views.  I know many problems come with it, and I would rather take those on too. We have more time to figure things out in that case, and can't undo a death we may regret or something.  Ugh, another long one!

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    I do not want my life to be continued beyond the point where I lose consciousness and cause an inordinate amount of resources (human and technical) to be expended in order to keep me alive.

                    I am happy to leave all behind, having done my best.  There is no one "on the other side," waiting for me to arrive.  That moment of passing I will never know, never remember.  Why should I fear that.

                    Several times in my professional life I have been wrong in my judgments.  Having seen people being kept alive whom I felt were most unlikely to survive and therefore it would be kinder to let them go.  I was wrong.  I remember a young person who had been born with gross defects caused by Thalidomide.  No arms, no legs, but a beautiful person shining through, despite the deformities.  So how could I be totally adamant and say we must play god and make the decisions in every case?    Obviously I cannot. 

                    I can only ask those who are most critical of my view points to not be afraid of considering other points of view, other possible alternatives to the status quo.   You don't have to change your mind.  Just be open to consider.

                    1. Oztinato profile image78
                      Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      JCl
                      is this the delicate facade over the hyena theory?

    47. Oztinato profile image78
      Oztinatoposted 10 years ago

      PS take your time and pray about it.

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Every moment of my time is spent praying.  It's the one thing I can do that doesn't cost anything.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Hi! smile one more commonality between us! FREE prayer!!! Great concept...
          Also...
          Just got a job just outside Logan Square,  been riding through almost daily. You jump into my thoughts... well, you and Italian ice wink
          Have a great day!!!

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            We have more than we realize, I bet. big_smile

            The job is great news!  And when I can afford to pay attention, I'll shimmy on up that way and we'll have one icy Italian party! smile

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Looking forward to it! (You can't pay attention EITHER? smile I'm starting to think we're twins!!!)
              Until then... see you here smile

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Why didn't I get to be the skinny one?!?!? wink

        2. profile image0
          Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

          You are a good multi tasker.

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Not really.  I learned while I was in the convent that everything we do that seems to pull us away from prayer is an opportunity to be mindful of God.  Every task can be offered as a form of service to others in out efforts to take what we've gained from our private prayer time and share it.  That's all.

    48. Oztinato profile image78
      Oztinatoposted 10 years ago

      I admire your devotion and loyalty to others.
      However this is a personal attack on me yet again and has nothing at all to do with the hubs topic.

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        To whom is this post addressed?  If to me, then I'm sorry, but you've imagined an "attack" that doesn't exist.  My post is, however, on topic, just not on the one that you've chosen to address in opposition to the OP.

        1. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Mowtown
          Its here in black and white for all to see and judge. We have to live by our words.

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Then it may be seen and judged for what it is.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        agree with Motown, often off topic

        Atheist Animal molestation is something you can share on your own thread.

        1. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Its directly related to the hypocrisy of this hubs premise. This is why atheists object to it. It is a topic linked to the debate.
          Personal attacks are certainly not on the topic and neither is public collusion.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Who is personal attacking you?

            I did not get my membership to the Atheist club. Since Atheist is a Religion now, can you write your taxes off on it, like they do with the churches?

            Forget that idea, I just can't repeat "God dose not exist" a million times over.

            1. Oztinato profile image78
              Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              "Many atheists religiously follow atheism": this is a grammatically correct and logical statement which makes it a true statement.
              I would gladly make a list of the personal attacks made and by whom but it would be a waste of time. Apparently I'm a " vulgar Texan"!!

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Not by definition and not in reality. Sorry, that is entirely false. Try looking up religion and atheism in the dictionary, you might notice one is a lack of belief in the other.

                1. Oztinato profile image78
                  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Enceph
                  using religiosity adjectively is quite grammatically correct.
                  Many people follow money or football or even science religiously.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Oh, I see now, "grammatically" correct, just not logically, reasonably or realistically correct.

                    1. Oztinato profile image78
                      Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Enceph
                      if you read my post (several above) I started off  by saying it is logically AND grammatically correct.

    49. Oztinato profile image78
      Oztinatoposted 10 years ago

      There is no justification for feeding a living baby to hyenas in either east or west or north or south.
      I used the idea of western law to try to highlight the insane absurbity of this revolting proposition.
      I am always open to ideas that are ethical and sensible not to such bizarre murderous behaviours.
      The majority of on line atheists share this stomach churning insensitivity to human life which is a stark warning to society that the cafe/seinfeld cheap "ethics" are totally failing to deliver any vague semblance to empathy or compassion or love or any other sane human value.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
        EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        The vast majority of us here would agree with you. What's your point?



        That is so ridiculously wrong, it's laughable. Seems you know very little about atheists.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I find a big difference between Christian morals and ethics. If your talking about a group, who has created more, sex sins, slavery, and murderous behaviors.The Christian are World Champion.

          On a personal basis's, my Mother was an atheist and she love us 3 kid equally. Where my pastor Brother had done a great job at separating us, As so is the JOB of Jesus to separate us by a a sword.

          The worst downside of many atheistic from my experience is in the spiritual and cynical side of life. Every person or group, we all have ups and down sides

        2. PhoenixV profile image68
          PhoenixVposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Thus, a claim that dogmatic religious beliefs are the/a reason for rejecting the idea is proven false.

          I think some people are incapable of empathy. In a social setting or social arena, their inability to have empathy causes discomfort. That discomfort and the cause of that discomfort is then transposed, to others. They have an inability to show empathy, so it must be someone else fault eg its their religious beliefs, or,  it is not rationalized in the way they want it to be rationalized, THEY must have a closed mind etc.etc etc.

          There is an adage: Never require another human being of something that you are unwilling to do yourself. Should a mind that's unable to exhibit empathy be considered "deformed"? Would humanity be better off without them? Just posing the questions are indicative of aberrant thought process and is obviously contradictory ie getting rid of someone that has no empathy is not very empathetic.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
            EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            lol How does that work?



            That would be a mental disorder.

            1. PhoenixV profile image68
              PhoenixVposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130307041054/villains/images/5/5f/Virtual_Interactive_Kinetic_Intelligence.jpg



              V.I.K.I.: Do you not see the logic of my plan?



              http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/74305.gif

              Sonny: Yes, but it just seems too heartless.




              That's where Sonny the Robot becomes very close to being - human.- That is how a human can actually make the claim of being human.

              1. profile image0
                Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                You're real, right?

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Can you expound please?  Hope  you don't mind my asking, lol ,but I am just not familiar with this.

              3. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you?

      2. Oztinato profile image78
        Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Encph
        I am in great doubt as to whether or not most atheists would agree.
        I have spoken to hundreds of online atheists and they frequently agree with such awful practices. Many DIY atheists have been using the "washing machine: method to dispose of babies. This can be checked with the high number of newspaper articles describing this practice.
        However as you have commented sensibly on this hyena issue I am forced to thank you (as much as that hurts).

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
          EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I seriously doubt that. But, I understand your need to fabricate such stories to defend your faith. Quite typical.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            At age eight I charged my friends 2cent to visit my wildlife zoo in our basement. I learned all animals love, a hyena are a wild dog like wolves, or coyotes. If you raise it up from a pup like every other living creature, gave it love and food they will love you back and not harm you.

            Christian are a different kind of animal, if don't love Jesus first and above all living creature on earth, they will hate you. Or they will love you like their enemy such as unbelievers or believers of other Gods and faiths. They condemn people marriage out of Christian wedlock and homosexual relationship out the nature's law of love. Sex is mostly used to bond people in love, or they keep trying along with kissing a lot of frogs until they meet their mate. If Christians are anti social toward most other people having sex outside their tiny box of faith.

            Then they can kiss my loving as_me no Christian questions and I will tell no lies.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              I find it sad so many accuse all Christian of hating.  It seems clear it is because I some that hate, but the whole lot is lumped with hatred.  This seems illogical and factually inaccurate to me.

              1. profile image0
                Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                That's true. That's like the saying "Men are dogs" or "Evolutionists have no faith."

                1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  God must be a man, no women could screw things up this bad.

                  King James     and OT     words mention in the Bible
                  Faith      2          245   
                  Forgive    28         16   
                  Hell            31        23   
                  Hate       71            16

                  I dont' have the word hate or hell in castlepaloma books. Maybe it's block out of my loving circle and will forgive anyone within reason for their mistakes without giving them a brainwash or showing them any hate or a place to go for pain forever

                  More interested in getting closer to the truth by evolution than having faith in an imaginary friend. Who fight with other imaginary friends along with people who don't believe in their imaginary friend that are claimed to be real.

                  In the world about 85% believe in evolution, it just most think there was a hand of God involved.
                  About 7O% of the world believe in Human Evolution
                  American about 1/3 believe in Creationism, with only Turkey believing it greater.
                  On my thread did a survey where only 10% believed in Creationism vs 90% believed in Evolution of humans

                  1. Chris Neal profile image76
                    Chris Nealposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    "No woman would screw things up this bad"


                    That's too funny. Never heard of Margaret Thatcher? Or Indira Gandhi?

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                      Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Far worst Men, so called leaders.
                      Check out the murder rate and kills in all wars rate Men vs. Women.
                      Then get back to me.

                  2. Oztinato profile image78
                    Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Castle
                    Then apply the same principle of evolution to ethics which will lead irrecovably to building an ethical system on the foundations of religion. The law itself has begun this exact ethical evolution and it wont stop because of the cafe/Seinfeld half baked Dawkins patchwork of a dogs breakfast mess of so called ethics.

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                      Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Dawkins? you mean that self claim deeply religious man on youtube.

                      As homophobes are to gays, so is Dawkins Christian phobia is to Christians

                      Find a better example like Hawkins, Carl Sag or Darwin

                    2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                      EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      It would be "natural selection" at work, weeding out the illogical, the irrational and the behavior observed, religion would be one of the first to be tossed out.



                      The law has no choice but to capitulate. Religions from all over the world are now grouped together in many countries, all having their own sets of governance. And, since each religion has it's own set of what they consider ethics, the law must separate them away from the governance, so that one religions set of ethics does not offend or persecute any of the others.

                      Hence, the separation of church and state. It is for the protection of all religious and non-religious people, not just one particular group of religious people.

        2. Oztinato profile image78
          Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Enceph
          Its here to read in black and white: atheist hubbers defending feeding babies to hyenas.
          You cant deny it and blame me for making it up!!

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
            EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly, you are making it up, and are obsessing about it.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              He has hyenas phobia, fear of being attacked by a wild dog.

              Maybe a dog bit his head as a kid.

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                The dingo ate his baby.

              2. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                lol

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              I think you missed a couple of key posts then about admitting to it then.  In this one case, he isn't making it up.

              1. Oztinato profile image78
                Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Oceans
                yes this is another typical "collusive personal attack" by a group atheist feeding frenzy.
                Its an ugly thing an atheist feeding frenzy.

          2. Oztinato profile image78
            Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Typical atheist illogical denial to what has been posted here for everyone to see.
            Any good points made are depicted as "obsessions" which is just another personal attack from the atheist feeding frenzy lobby.

    50. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years ago

      Hi Jonny, I only just now saw that you responded to those massive posts from me. (I had thought you maybe just weren't going to respond at one point too.) My notifications seem all wonky, and I am glad I thought to check, because it showed no notifications for this thread or something.  I will read it, and respond.  Thanks.

    51. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years ago

      My last post can be summed up in a short way.  I have not seen any morally justifiable reason given that would override the need to save a baby's life from being taken by hungry hyenas.  Even an unwanted or deformed baby from a tribe in Africa. 

      The reason that could be given would have to be greater for the ending of that life.  This is boiling it down to its most simplistic forms but covers the whole of that debate, in my opinion. 

      Jonny, I want you to know that on the one hand this is a hard stand for me to make because we differ some for particular reasons, BUT I hope you can know that I will always be totally honest with you, and not ever just telling you what you want to hear.  To me, this is how I can be the best friend, and how I look for friends to be honest with me too.  I know many are just being quiet on this issue but totally agree with me. I hope this counts for something for me, because I know it isn't what you wanted to hear.  You have been honest about your views, and respectful in your manner of sharing them, and I appreciate that very much.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I didn't read that very long post, but where did feeding babies to hyena's come into the conversation? Did anyone say that was a good idea?

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
          oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Jonny posted a good post that sums up that part of this debate, it was a sad story in Africa I believe, or based on a custom they do.  He then got severely accused of several different things  that are almost unmentionables, lol. 

          I came full circle of defending Jonny, then him posting what he did again, then asking for some clarification on his defense of it, and then I realized I hadn't read the original stuff and did side against it for myself. 

          It was a long and rocky road, but one day Jonny laid it all out and asked us all for our input if he was defending infanticide.  You are coming in on the tail end of that.  I will try to find his more concise post and link it or copy paste it, or someone else can if they like. I can't at the moment.

    52. The Stages Of ME profile image86
      The Stages Of MEposted 10 years ago

      There is no greater sin, and for a said "Christian" to condemn another for a choice of action, or non-action for that matter is not their purpose. When we busy ourselves with the sins of others, we are not being Christian. When we decide what is or is not more or less sinful, with our fellow man, again not Christian. When we take a finger to point outwardly as opposed to looking in the proverbial mirror at ourself, then right there we have sinned. To agree or disagree is a completely different point entirely, but to judge ones life or actions, is not what we are here to do. It's just not Christian to focus on things of this world, if they are allowed they we be used for a purpose, and it's not for us to decide how. If we assume how they will be used, I guess we make an A-- of you and me. Do some of these points pertain to us, well, yes, sometimes, but, the beauty or depravity of sexual matters is irrelevant to being a Christian, those thoughts are of this world and not of importance. I for one think sexual trafficking is horribly wrong, but I am sure even from this comes great purpose. I am just not sure how, but one day I will be allowed to understand everything.Oh that will be a day to glorify.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
        EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Seems, the only purpose we can assume is the profits being made by some immoral and unethical pimp. Not sure how great that is, though.

    53. StephenFergusonJR profile image59
      StephenFergusonJRposted 10 years ago

      Johnny,

              It would seem as many arguments have occurred from the original question but none address the true question. In my research I have found that just about everything that that comes out of Christianity that contradicts Gods commandments, seems to stem from Greek and Roman culture. Before King Judah died his kingdom was strong and unbeatable. Judah led his people to live by the laws of God as they were given to Moses, but when Judah died things went to hell in a hand basket so to say. Ten of the tribes of Judah chose to run off and live by other morals other than those of God, while on the other hand only two tribes held true to the laws of God. This did not last long however, because the Greeks were sure to ruin it for them. Alexander The Great conquered the land and forced Hellenism on the last remaining people to live by the true laws of God.
          This is important because at the time Caesar ruler of Greece was trying to give a better name as ruler than the legacy left behind by many such as Caligula. Caligula along with other Caesars had a reputation for , let say lude sexual perversions. "Not that I would ever say sex is perverted".
          As the Jews were being forced to accept Greek rule and Hellenism the Greeks looked down upon them because the men of God had many wives and even laid them in the bed together so long as they were not true sisters this was acceptable by Gods laws. Rape was even acceptable withing the laws of God.
         The Greeks trying to clean up there act while forcing others to accept there ways as the only way, set rules about sex calling all other sexual desires other than theirs, perverse. The Greeks did this with many laws of God forging the Jewish religion to an unacceptable point that God sent Jesus to correct the priest. But that was short lived as well thanks to the Greek government and the corrupted church.
          Understanding Gods laws: It is simple if what you do would anger a person due to a direct violation of their personal property it is probably wrong. Having sex with you daughter is wrong, not because it is your daughter but because it could cause anger and jealousy between her and her mother. Having sex with your uncles wife or neighbors wife could piss them off. Having sex in the same bed with two sisters could cause jealousy between the sisters and them to hate one another, and so forth.
           Christians have taken this even further adopting more governmental and societal ways from many cultures to the point they have destroyed the concept of obey Gods laws. Christians have no ideal of what God said a sin is at all, and for those who do say sin is breaking Gods laws, the moment you ask about sacrifice they jump to "Jesus did it all he paid the price for me. What they fail to realize is that God and Jesus say the exact same thing, "worship God, and obey his laws". All they see is the famous Paul the Apostle claiming Jesus did this Jesus said that when if you really study Paul's writing you will see that Paul contradict both God and Jesus about everything.
          So on a nut shell, Christians call everything from smoking, sex, cussing, and even animal sacrifice a sin: Gods law calls none of these a sin. Christians spout off about knowing Jesus while saying we are all sinners, but 1st. John chapter 3 say "Sin is the transgression of sin and if you sin you do not know nor have you seen Jesus". Christians say, no man can be perfect, (Matthew 5:48) "Go forth and be ye perfect; as you father in heaven is perfect". The answer lies in this Christians no not the God they worship the lord they follow nor the will commanded by the creator. Thus making Christianity a ditch for all to fall into.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        It's been my observation that we seem to get the God we want, not the one we need.

        1. Chris Neal profile image76
          Chris Nealposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I will certainly agree with that.

    54. profile image52
      Brian Davidposted 10 years ago

      I personally feel that in today's society sexuality is entirely too over hyped.  More and more teens and young adults place sex as the most important aspect of dating and relationships.  I believe however that humans have natural urges and therefore should be able to practice sexual acts without fear of being judged or condemned.  Also, those who choose to remain abstinent or refrain from sexual behavior are often mocked or ridiculed for their actions.  I think that there needs to be a healthy medium between sexuality being overexposed and at the same time frowned upon by religious Christians.  Many times those same "Christian" types end up succumbing to their own temptations and don't necessarily practice what they preach.  I agree that it should not be so high on the list on sins with so many horrific things going on in the world, but I believe it is yet another example of how society's values today are slowly decaying.

    55. StephenFergusonJR profile image59
      StephenFergusonJRposted 10 years ago

      I hate to disagree with you here but Deuteronomy 14:7-26 describes if the altar is to far from you all you have to do is sell your animal sacrifice and go but cows, goats, wine, or strong drink: what ever you desire.
         That being said if animal sacrifice was needed to cover our sins and we could sell the sacrifice and go get drunk; would it not be a wast of a good person "Jesus" the son of God to give his life over something God said you can sell and get drink over?

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I am not sure if you are speaking to me, but if you are,

        Deuteronomy 14:7-26 says,

        "7 Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you. 8 And the pig, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.

        9 “Of all that are in the waters you may eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat. 10 And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you.

        11 “You may eat all clean birds. 12 But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle,[a] the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 13 the kite, the falcon of any kind; 14 every raven of any kind; 15 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind; 16 the little owl and the short-eared owl, the barn owl 17 and the tawny owl, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, 18 the stork, the heron of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat. 19 And all winged insects are unclean for you; they shall not be eaten. 20 All clean winged things you may eat.

        21 “You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God.

        “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.

        22 “You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. 23 And before the Lord your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. 24 And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the Lord your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God chooses, to set his name there, 25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God chooses 26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household."

        So I am not sure where you get what you are saying from that?  This seems to be more about tithing or giving of your first fruits to God.  Regarding Jesus and his sacrifice, it isn't equatable to a single animal sacrifice that could be sold and with the money buy alcohol anyway, even giving you the idea you shared there.  Money, an animal sacrifice, or lots of alcohol cannot do anything to save anyone from sins.  What Jesus accomplished didn't seem to be a waste to him, nor his Father.  What Jesus accomplished through his innocence and suffering means everything, and restores life, the kind of life that we lost long ago.  For those that would have it.

        1. StephenFergusonJR profile image59
          StephenFergusonJRposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          24,24 and 26
          Clearly states to sell the animal you would have sacrificed and buy alcohol so this make the ideal Jesus died to be your sacrifice null and void

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Not clearly, no.... 

            I think a tithe is something different from a sacrifice.  Lets give that to you for a second though anyway.  Lets say you are right, and God says you can sell your animal sacrifice and get money for it to buy what you want with it.  What is the problem there?

            How would that make Jesus' sacrifice null and void if your interpretation of those scriptures is correct?

            1. StephenFergusonJR profile image59
              StephenFergusonJRposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Sin has always been something we have to pay for. I cannot remember exactly where but in Deuteronomy somewhere God said " your salvation id like something across the river, no one else can go get it for you, you have to get it your self. Look at it this way if the police make a law that says you cannot kill "which they did" would it be okay if you kill someone and the judge says well since you say you believe my son existed i will let him die for you and oh by the way since he died you no longer have to obey the laws or prove yourself by obeying them anymore?  If you read Exodus chapter 20 you will see that God commanded us to obey his laws now and forever, not until Jesus comes. You will also see that God said his laws are so that we can prove ourselves to him. Even Jesus said go forth and be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect. And 1st John Chapter 3 says that "sin is the transgression of the law and if you sin you do not know Jesus nor have you seen him." So to say we are all sinners and no can be perfect makes Jesus and his disciples a lire? The church wanted you not to listen to Jesus because he taught Gods laws as Moses did, even saying if you would have listened to Moses I would not have come. The Roman government put the books of Moses and the prophets together with the Gospels of the Disciples and the books of the church Jesus was enemy to, twisting the meaning of everything Jesus, God, and the true disciples taught, to please the church, the disciples, and the followers of the disciples to make one religion they could somewhat agree on. But Paul contradicts as well as the church, everything God and Jesus say.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Hi Stephen,

                I am going to respond to your points as I can based on what I have studied in the bible.  I agree with you about no one else can go and get your salvation for you.  We are each responsible for our own breaking of any of God's laws. 

                The part where I really begin to differ from your view is where you say that there is some suggestion that you no longer have to obey the laws IF you believe in gods son.  Which is what I think you were suggesting when you said in essence, what if a judge said that about someone murdering someone else.  I don't know of anyone that takes that idea away from the death of Christ and what it is supposed to accomplish for those who believe.   People who believe in God and Jesus have a tough road if they attempt to follow the example of Jesus.  It isn't just a free pass to break laws, its about truly repenting and being sorry for them, and turning things around which is crazy hard when we want the opposite of that.  This a kind of "dying to self", and denying ourselves when we do that.  This is terminology that sounds weird at first but lines up with the scriptures as I know them.

                When you mention Exodus 20, I don't disagree that God wants us to obey his laws forever.  Where do you get the idea though, that we need to stop obeying them when Jesus comes? I have no idea where that could possibly come from, so I am asking about that. 

                I understand the command to be holy and what you shared there, to be true.  It is a goal, something to aim for, that is how I see that.  We DO succeed when we do!  The thing is, THIS side of heaven or eternity, we are still in bodies that are dying because of sin, decaying unto death so to speak. The point of that is that EVEN IF we are on a really good streak of good deeds for a very long time, (Thinking of Mother Theresa here...or similar people..) wouldn't it STILL be a matter of time before we do sin again?  That would then show what I am saying is true, and what I think the bible suggests, that we will stumble and sin.  Its no free pass, and we are to seek holiness which is hard.  Thus the hard and narrow path it speaks of, its very difficult but ought to be something we strive for. 

                I disagree with a lot of what the church turned into, in regards to the parts they added to what was already there.  I am not a believer of those extra, added on things myself.  I think they have caused a lot of problems and led many astray that might OTHERWISE listen to the simple and straightforward teachings of Jesus and the prophets.  I have a gut feeling you would probably be surprised about me considering what you say there about sticking more to the basics, and not getting too far away from the original sayings.  I don't know exactly what your issues are with Paul, but you could share those and we could discuss those too if you want. As for contradictions, I would be curious because I think Paul does a lot of explaining out of what is said by Jesus and the prophets.  In a practical way.

    56. StephenFergusonJR profile image59
      StephenFergusonJRposted 10 years ago

      24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:

      25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:

      26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,                                                           

      Clearly states sell the animal to be sacrificed and buy alcohol! smile

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Well, it clearly DOESN'T say that about the sacrificed animal....

        But....

        If there IS money that is yours to keep and God says you can use it for whatever you want to have including alcohol, why do you have a problem with that?  Many might quite like that idea!

        I posted the full reference up above these posts, and you can see they aren't talking about sacrifice.  It does seem to talk about money and buying whatever you want for food or even strong drink, yes.

        1. StephenFergusonJR profile image59
          StephenFergusonJRposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.

          firstlings of they heard is an animal sacrifice, that God commanded. I would presume that if I cannot get my firstlings of my herd to the altar for sacrifice, I would just as likely no be able to get my oxen,sheep, goats or any other animal to sacrifice. Thus proving that God allowed for alternatives to the animal sacrifice long before Jesus came about. My question to you now is, in the only two books of the gospels "Matthew" and "John" that were written from eye witness perspectives: where exactly did Jesus ever say "I will die, be raised from the dead and you will no longer have to give animal sacrifice, or obey many of the other laws of God they Christianity so bold ignore? I read many places where Paul says this or the church say it, but where did Jesus out of his own mouth say this to make you believe it? God said his laws are "now: and forever"; Isaiah chapter 25 tells that men will break the covenant and change his laws which is why the end comes: and Jesus said "in vain do you worship me teaching the doctrines of men and forsaking the doctrines of God", how can you believe a message taught by men that is so contrary to these?

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            (Long response)

            Hi Stephen,

            the nation of Israel had a very elaborate system with the priests and their place of worship with the tents, the ark, and all that goes with the priesthood.  It was a huge part of how they lived and worshiped their god.  A study of the Levites would be a good place to learn more.  The other tribes has other "jobs" so to speak, but the ones that were mostly in charge of the priestly duties, they didn't "make a living" like the others.  (For lack of better and more thorough going over all things included in this topic.)  I mention what I do for a reason.  This wasn't all about just sacrificing in the verses you used there.
            I am not convinced it isn't just what it says, more of a tithe in the cases you are citing here, than a sacrifice.  The tithing was giving to their god, and to his representatives.  I guess it isn't all that different from how some give tithes today to their churches.  It helps to make the process run and helps pay for their places of worship and learning, etc.  Point being, I think you may be assuming all the times it mentions bringing animals or the other items, it means for sacrifice, when I don't think it was the case.

            God seemed to allow for those that might not have flocks and herds for either occasion, to use alternatives for either sacrifice or tithing.  It was about the gift of the tithe or the sacrifice of something you grew or raised, etc. 

            I am not sure I understand the drive to find a need for further sacrifice of animals even after Jesus, but I will try to address your questions to me.  I get it from the idea of what animal/blood sacrifices accomplished for the taking of the life (as I understand this...I could be wrong.)  If Jesus laid down his life as the perfect sacrificial lamb, without blemish or spot (humanly, without sin and perfect like the perfect little lamb in Israels history), as an ultimate sacrifice, as a second Adam which was to restore back to humanity what Adam and Eve had first allowed to be taken away... WHY then would there ever be a need for the old way, the "lesser" and "not fully sufficient anyway" kind of way?  If you sacrificed even the most pure and spotless lamb, and then you had to go back again the next year (or however long) to repeat this same ritual. It is part of the point of it all, that drives my conclusion.

            As for very specific verses from the mouth of Jesus from one of those two books, I can't think of them off the top of my head.This I will have to think on more as I am not so tired and look more.  The idea is there from the beginning of John however, that Jesus is no ordinary man, he was perfect, and even after he died it was as if God had his hand on the events like not allowing for broken bones, and for a reason.  It all tied back to the sacrifices of the Old Testament. 

            So the question becomes, if you were to ever sacrifice an animal to atone for sins against god, why would ANYONE do that now?  What would the reason be?  Except to deny Jesus perhaps, and his personal sacrifice of laying down his own life and taking it up again?  Where would the animal sacrifice end again if it began again?  People in those situations, this side of eternity, SEEM to eventually break the rules again only to need to repeat, repeat, repeat the killing of an innocent animal.
            I personally think God is a god of life,and promotes life and points us to it if we will want it and want to see it and consider the possibilities, etc.  He seems to have provided a way.  What is the point of even the ancient in sacrificing an animal to God?  Why do that?  If not to restore relationship with god and obey him?  Why not obey him in his later revelation of his son Jesus, who he sent with the marks of doing all kinds of "god things" that people weren't asked to just take his word for it? He SHOWED them why he ought to be listened to.  Then still left it with them ultimately.  Moving along, look how we still talk about those three short years where he was in the public eye...and so loved and SO hated.  We observe this still. 

            Thus proving that God allowed for alternatives to the animal sacrifice long before Jesus came about. My question to you now is, in the only two books of the gospels "Matthew" and "John" that were written from eye witness perspectives: where exactly did Jesus ever say "I will die, be raised from the dead and you will no longer have to give animal sacrifice, or obey many of the other laws of God they Christianity so bold ignore? I read many places where Paul says this or the church say it, but where did Jesus out of his own mouth say this to make you believe it? God said his laws are "now: and forever"; Isaiah chapter 25 tells that men will break the covenant and change his laws which is why the end comes: and Jesus said "in vain do you worship me teaching the doctrines of men and forsaking the doctrines of God", how can you believe a message taught by men that is so contrary to these?

    57. Oztinato profile image78
      Oztinatoposted 10 years ago

      Hi Everybody!
      In the interests of the debate regarding the anthropology of hyena feeding in Africa here is an interesting image of a likely contender.
      Can you guess which one feeds hyenas?
      http://artblart.com/tag/the-hyena-men-of-abuja/
      Pieter Hugo
      Chris Nkulo and Patience Umeh. Enugu, Nigeria
      2008
      © Pieter Hugo
      Courtesy of Stevenson, Cape Town/Johannesburg and Yossi Milo, New York

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8983162_f248.jpg

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I absolutely love that picture. Where'd you find it?

    58. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years ago

      Headly, I have a question regarding the Native American Indians you mentioned in a post above, I think in responding to Emile.  You mentioned we can see a before and after effect, with the Europeans coming over.  You mentioned the word "transition", the thing that takes place with a change that you are referring to over and over.

      A couple of things.  Are you saying there wasn't fighting among the Indian tribes, with each other before the Europeans came over?  I don't claim to know, and am just asking.  Also, and bear with me on this one, can you explain again what that transition is, how it works?  You probably have, maybe even many times....but right now I can't think of what the answers are, short of interbreeding with the newer group, which seemed to be suggested at one point. 

      If this has been done one too many times, feel free to ignore this, but I guess I am curious about the transition in general, and the finer workings of it. Weren't you basically saying some "got it" through having children with the sons and daughters of Adam?  Is this what keeps happening, in your view, down history till now?  Is the same thing happening now when two people have a child, where one has what the other doesn't?  (A free will, I guess we would say, and if not, when did that end?)  Sorry so broad, but I wanted to ask a few questions and it seems I need this one answered first. 

      (I don't get to read everything, and there is so much posting, so I may be tons of paces behind everyone else.  In general though, I have been reading a fair amount and just observing too.)  Emile, you may have an answer to this too, as you seem to kind of be following what is being said over time in this set of ideas.  Would be curious to anyone's answers on this too.

      Edit:  Well, as I could have guessed, the more catching up I am doing, some of the above points or questions are being answered in part.  I will leave it all the same, and keep reading, lol.

    59. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years ago

      I see humanity much the same way. As a collective that progresses much in the same way an individual life does. I sometimes equate this backlash against religion as humanity being in it's late teen phase, when it went off to college, read a book or two, and came back to tell its parents that they don't know anything.

      My fascination with humanity is a big part of this. I understand you think I'm wanting to prove what I want to be true, prove the bible accurate. It's not really about that for me. It's about understanding humanity better. Understanding what made us what we are.

      That period I'm talking about, just think about that in the collective progression way you're looking at it. Humanity spent nearly 200,000 years, generation after generation, living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Then, within the course of a handful of centuries, one group, the Sumerians, start building canals that allow them to farm year round. They begin building cities. The first in the world. And for the first time ever a community of humans stratified into a ruling and working class. The cities were organized that way with a ruling class organizing the work for the working class. They invented the first written language, mathematics, astronomy, the wheel, a truly staggering list of firsts. They established the first government, wrote the first laws, built the first schools. It's truly remarkable. From 200,000 years of very little change to that. From one group. And it's not like the Sumerians were the first to farm. Far from. By that point humans had been farming and forming fairly highly populated societies for over 3000 years. Yet none of them did what this one group did.

      Assuming you accept evolution, you know we humans evolved and all share common ancestry. Yet one group took it upon themselves to sail and "discover" far away lands and run the inhabitants, the "natives", off. And that those invaders, with their ships and their money and their towns, seemed alien. At some point along the way, the mind had to have emerged from the past it came from. It had to progress to what it is today.

      I understand your reservations about this. I'm not trying to say one as any better than the other. I'm just trying to understand. I'm trying to learn, learn from mistakes in the past, learn from the wealth of knowledge we have at our disposal, to understand. This isn't about religion for me. It's about taking a step back and really reassessing the information available. I took another look at Genesis, because it comes from ground zero as far as this dramatic change in humanity and its obviously has had an impact on humanity. I took another look letting go of any and all preconceived notions I had about it and just really assessed it. And in doing so I found more than I ever expected. If I'm even partially right then there's a lot of understanding to gain from this. I want smarter people than myself to see if there's anything to this. And if there is, is there more to learn. Does it lead to new knowledge, better understanding.

      I'm not suggesting indigenous people are any less than the other. But I think a strong argument can be made that its the modern human ego that emerged and had such a dramatic impact. And I'm not the only one. A lot of what I refer to comes from a couple of sources who don't make the Genesis connection I do, but see the same patterns.

      - The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era' by Steve Taylor
      - Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World' by James DeMeo

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I will say I don't put as much stock into our current level of knowledge of the history of civilization as you do. Too many discoveries leave doubt, in my mind, as to whether or not we are 'the pinnacle' of civilization as we believe. Or that we know what cultures thrived where and how they all lived and interacted.

        I will give you one word. Einstein. Think about what we have achieved, as a species, in such a short time simply because of the contribution of one individual. No one would argue that he wasn't of the same stock as the rest of us. We don't argue that he was formed by an alien race. Nor do we argue that through inter breeding we somehow became able to benefit from his innovative way of thinking. If humanity in the future had no written record to study, only spotty archeological evidence, they could easily look at the last century as evidence of outside influence. Evidence that something other earthly gave one civilization a leg up.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          You make a good point, but for what Einstein brought to be as monumental as it was, people around him had to be ready to understand and make use of his insights.

          Think about this. As soon as Sumerian writing became sophisticated enough to be able to record their historical stories, they began to record them. What's interesting is that those who recorded these stories didn't give credit to their ancestors for such forward thinking. They directly claim they were taught by these immortal male/female gods that actually lived among them in their ancient past. Each Sumerian city-state is built around a temple at the center, that according to these stories, was where these gods lived. Why would they do that? First, we don't see the kind of progression you'd expect that lead up to all the inventions. Second, if we go straight to the source to get their input they say these gods taught them. And they're very specific about how they gained this information. They say the 'kingship' descended from heaven at Eridu, the first city-state. They say these gods gave them the 'gifts of civilization', a  set of decrees, each known as a 'me'.
          "In Sumerian mythology, a me (Sumerian, conventionally pronounced [mɛ]) or ñe [ŋɛ] or parşu (Akkadian, [parsˤu]) is one of the decrees of the gods foundational to those social institutions, religious practices, technologies, behaviors, mores, and human conditions that make civilization, as the Sumerians understood it, possible." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_%28mythology%29

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Well, out of curiosity, what do you think happened to these gods? They were living there and than what?

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Well, according to the story, the lifespans gradually decreased with each generation. If you graph out all the ages given you'll find that they all died off around the same time, during the time of Abraham ...


              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8987545_f248.jpg

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                So, you don't think the more plausible explanation might be that each culture simply shared an oral history, which doesn't imply truth, just shared tales which began to take  unique flavors from that culture as time extended? More plausible than something like.....your scenario?

                Either way. Yours is an interesting theory; to say the least. smile

                1. JMcFarland profile image72
                  JMcFarlandposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  +1

                2. profile image0
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I think this is getting to more basic truths and understanding.   

                  Each culture, each generation of people, has it's own "folk lore."  This is the incremental, common experience and the recording of same, in the minds of the people of that culture which is passed on down the generations.   It somehow gets a little twisted and changed over time, often to the extent most people will not appreciate the stories. 

                  The fairy tales, poems and rhymes that my generation learned at primary school are good examples of "folk lore."  Like "Ring-a-ring-a-Roses;"   "Sing a song of sixpence;"  "Half a pound of tuppeny rice;"  these were all stories about actual happenings, probably centuries before.  We as kids in the 20th century had no idea what they all meant, neither did our parents.   

                  So I ask you, how can folk lore of 2000-3000-4000 years ago, in a foreign culture and land, be applicable to us today, in the 21st century?

                  If you believe that a god designed and created us, with brains to use, it's about time we did start using them and build a cohesive community for ourselves today.

                  IMHO.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    That my friend is not a humble opinion, it's an awesome opinion. Jonny, you've impressed me and inspired me countless ways. Please pretend we are shaking hands for just a moment.

                    1. profile image0
                      jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Hands duly shaken (BUT not stirred).  Thank you.

                3. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  There's a problem with that. They all spoke totally different languages. Think about this, multiple civilizations sprang up, all around the same general region, all with similar origin stories. Yet each with its own unique language, and each developed their own unique written language....

                  Sumer - 3500 - 1940 BC
                  http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingLists … aSumer.htm - "Sumer was one of the first great civilisations, emerging slightly ahead of that of Ancient Egypt and up to a millennium before that of the Indus Valley culture. Located in southern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), by the late fourth millennium BC Sumer (or Ki-en-gir, 'Land of the Sumerian tongue'), was divided into approximately a dozen city states which were independent of one another and which used local canals and boundary stones to mark their borders."


                  Ancient Egypt – 3400 – 30 BC
                  http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingLists … ncient.htm – “From around 3500 to 3000 BC there were great and very sudden advances in craftsmanship and technology, which culminated in the working of copper, stone mace heads and ceramics.”
                  "Archaeologists have never been able to conclusively answer the question of who the original Egyptians and Sumerians were. But evidence clearly suggests that the Egyptians who "civilized" the Nile region were immigrants from the desert areas. As Brian Griffith points out, in North Africa recorded history begins against the background of mass migrations out of a growing desert. He notes that "pre-dynastic Egyptians were a jumbled assortment of tribes, many of them recent arrivals from the deserts."
                  -Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History the Dawning of a New Era

                  Indus Valley Culture – 3300 – 1700 BC
                  http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingLists … ulture.htm – “As the first great civilizations took shape in Sumer and Egypt, a people of unknown origin who were centered in the Indus Valley in modern Pakistan and India began constructing their own series of cities. These were as remarkable as any the world had yet seen, and at the same time trade flourished, and a system of writing evolved.”

                  That's just three examples. All within centuries of one another. One to the south (Sumer), one to the west (Egypt), and one to the east (Indus Valley). Sure they could have influenced each other. That's possible. But doesn't it seem strange that all would tell a similar story, and all would be able to accomplish much the same thing as the other, yet totally independently of one another? And it goes well beyond there. In Iranian mythology, for example ....

                  "Despite its similarities, the famous Old Testament story of the Fall developed independently of this Iranian myth."

                  This is part of that ancient myth ...
                  "The Iranian myth of the Fall, for example, describes how the first man, Yima, lived in a walled garden - the old Iranian word Paira-daeza, from which the English word "paradise" comes - on a mountain where the water of life flowed and the tree of life grew. It was in a perfect country with a mild climate, and the people who lived with Yima knew "neither heat nor cold, neither old age or death, nor disease ... Father and son walked together, each looking but fifteen years of age."

                  Why would all these cultures, the very same to give us mathematics and philosophy all speak as if these beings were they're actual history? And how does that explain all these cultures forming practically simultaneously, yet totally independent of one another with totally unique languages and cultures. And especially a written language. At least three unique written languages.

                  According to Genesis, there was a dispersion of groups of Noah's descendants, all still living immortal length lives. They were scattered an their languages confused. It turns out there really was a large climate event that really did cause mass human migrations, and this climate event is recognized as being a kind of catalyst that led to the emergence of those civilizations ...

                  "The 5.9 kiloyear event was one of the most intense aridification events during the Holocene Epoch. It occurred around 3900 BC (5,900 years BP)...Thus, it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organised, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event

                  I get what you're saying. But there's quite a bit that points this direction as well, well beyond just those mythological stories. Stories like that are exactly what you'd expect to see if beings like what Genesis describes were actually created in a populated world. As well as sudden advances in technology and dramatic changes from prior behavior and living habits.

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Common origin. Tribes become separated by time and space. I've read that if we could transport ourselves to Britain, two hundred years in the past, we would not be able to communicate. The accents and common vernacular have changed that much. Two hundred years is a very short time span, considering the common heritage.

                    Ancient, ancient man also shared a common heritage. But, they didn't have as much time as we had. They had less ability to stay in touch. The rudimentary beginnings of written language would understandably evolve in vastly different directions.

                    A drastic change in climate would, most likely, affect those with a common heritage in similar manners. Reactions would be similar.

                    Common beliefs, affected by separation, would evolve along different paths. We believe a flood occurred. We believe the gods control our world. Why would the gods do this? Each culture comes up with an answer. Maybe two answers within one culture. The disagreement causes a new culture to arise. That culture beginning with those who left to follow their own conclusions in peace. To show their gods they understand their intent.

                    Anything is possible. We will all assume the history of humanity we find to be the most plausible. Although I consider your conclusions implausible, I would not deign to label them impossible. I don't think we currently possess sufficient information to definitively rule anything out.

                    1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      While English spoken 200 years ago would sound strange, I am not sure we couldn't understand or communicate.  It seems the first couple of paragraphs fit with his ideas.( by the way, I am analyzing this stuff too, best I can and give nothing a free pass even if it lines up with my views.)

                      I have some issues too.  This critique is good and interesting to me. Thing is, if
                      It's true or close to the actual truth, you almost couldn't make this all fit morethan it seems to be fitting.  It's strange and needs a thorough going over..... But one has to admit, it is at least uncanny at best, how much it seems to line up.

                      If I were seeing completely opposite accounts of things elsewhere, that totally countered these points then maybe cause to doubt.  Right now though, it seems we have limited knowledge ad you say, and yet what there IS ought not to be disregarded.  That is why this has my ear and fair eye on it all. 

                      Yes, there are some strange things brought up, that can inspire a quizzical response at best. Or look....   

                      I am responding so far, as much as I can understand the points I am hearing, and I don't claim full understanding yet. 

                      Couldn't it also be a leap to suggest that even with the similarities, that we would suggest its more likely things just happened to fall in a way that gives a false appearance of supporting something it actually doesn't?  What are the chances of that?

                  2. Cat333 profile image59
                    Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    It's all very interesting. Tons of articles out there on it. Yes, all the cultures have spoken about similar things (as you said, all in their own languages) that people now just want to discount.

                    I have a friend who just went to Peru and took pictures there of the giant, "alien"-looking skulls, etc. Perhaps skulls and hands from the Nephilim or something similar? Not really my area of knowledge, but interesting and revealing.

                    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
                      HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Yes, the ‘Paracas skulls’ are definitely a point of interest. A lot of people, myself included, assumed at first that the elongated skulls were probably due to their heads being tightly wrapped as children, causing their skulls to form the elongated shape. This has since been shown to not be the case. The fact that these skulls are 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier, means it can't just be a misshapen human skull.

                      But what's really interesting is the DNA testing that shows that whatever species these skulls came from, they are far from human.

                      Between discoveries like these, and places like Catal Hayuk, that shake the foundation of the overall framework that most think is an accurate portrayal of our history, that we're now just filling in the details of, we should all keep our minds open to some truly fantastical possibilities.

              2. Jerami profile image60
                Jeramiposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Actually...  when we graph out the timelines in Genesis, Noah and Methuselah were the only people mentioned in the generations of Adam who were alive at the time of the flood.
                Noah lived 400 years after and he died. Abraham was born a decade later.
                So it is possible that Abraham's mother and grandmother sat on Noah's lap listening to these stories first hand, and they told them to Abraham, He then was the original author of the book of Genesis. 
                These writings were destroyed  around 600 BC and then Ezra reasembled what he could around 450 BC. This would have been the first time (as recorded in scripture)  that scripture was translated from a dead Hebrew language to (at that time) the modern Hebrew language.

                    Not stating  any of this as fact....Just saying ....This is the way I understood it when I read the bible.

    60. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years ago

      It's easier to explain it in the context of Genesis. During creation it describes this God who simply speaks existence into being. Everything in existence becomes what He wants it to be. It is His will personified. No will of its own, it becomes without question and without fail. Then, God creates Adam, and this same God who the entire universe bends to the will of creates one rule, and this Adam breaks it. It's the first time, according to the story, that anything in the universe behaved contrary to God. That's a free will. An individual will apart from God's.

      This is the transition I'm talking about. So what would that look like if that's what really happened? If free will were introduced into the world, into humanity (Gen6) at one specific place and time in human history? Well, according to the story, as soon as Adam and Eve behaved contrary to God's will, "the eyes of both of them were opened". The first thing they realize is that they're naked, though they have been the whole time. This suggests a heightened sense of self-awareness.

      Genesis isn't the only ancient document from that time/place that talks about a change like that. Most mythological stories from Mediterranean region say much the same thing. That long ago there was this golden age when humans weren't so wrapped up in themselves. They didn't really care about personal possessions or status. All were equal. The land, nature, belonged to everyone. Then that changed.

      If we look at the universe and the natural world as being what God intended, working per God's will, then where in history did we part ways from that? Well right in the same region/timeframe that Genesis is set, that's when humans began to veer away from living at the whim of nature. Rather than migrating around with the seasons, they laid roots, began to alter the landscape to suit their needs. They began to study the world around them, the way you'd expect if one were to become more accutely self-aware and aware of oneself in this environment. They began to study the stars, they invented mathematics and writing. Both came from a need to keep track of what's owed an individual.

      Over the past couple of centuries there were quite a few who would live with indigenous cultures and study them. There are differences that seem strange to us. One story in particular, an observation of native americans, strikes me as significant ...

      "The author Edward T. Hall recalls how, when he worked on Indian reservations in the 1930's, the Indians seemed to possess an amazing quality of patience. In contrast to the Europeans, who fidgeted impatiently and become irritable, the Indians he saw waiting at trading posts and hospitals never showed any sign of irritation whatsoever, even if they had to wait for hours. As he writes:

      An Indian might come into the agency in the morning and still be sitting patiently outside the superintendent's office in the afternoon. Nothing in his bearing or demeanor would change in the intervening hours... We whites squirmed, got up, sat down, went outside and looked toward the fields where our friends were working, yawned and stretched our legs... The Indians simply sat there, occasionally passing a word to one another."


      I don't know about you, but I fidget. Drives my wife nuts, but I can't stay still. Especially in that kind of a setting. Doctor's offices, government offices, waiting rooms, etc. Drives me nuts. I can't just be at peace. If I'm still I always feel like there's something I could be doing. That seems to me to be a defining difference. That discontentment. Indigenous cultures remain very much unchanged in lifestyle from one generation to the next. Yet those from those first civilizations, the whole world seems to change with each generation. We're constantly striving for something. Striving to carry out what we will. We can't stay still.

      I don't know if that answers your question at all, but that's what I'm looking for. We all have the same ancestors, we all come from the same stock. Yet we're wildly different. And have been, for many centuries now. Indigenous cultures have nearly been pushed out of existence by our fidgety ways as we continually expand and enforce our will on the world around us.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        In regards to the "transition" you talk about with humanity....  I have heard you describe it in detail in genesis, but allude to it happening in the other cultures and times.  Is it explainable in other contexts as well?  I think this is what I wonder about the most so far, and wonder at how it comes off sounding.  That is one thing, and probably can generate a certain response in people.  Does this whole greater idea depend on this part so much anyway?  If it breaks down at all, or if there are some severe exceptions to be found in some people groups, does it take away the greater idea?

        What I mean is this.  Say you have a native tribe from any culture of any time.  If they are not a group that has been through the "transition", yet you can fine one brilliant very self aware person in the group, then what? I have a gut feeling this has been the case over time, it seems crazy to think it wouldn't be.  I can't pull any examples off the top of my head at the moment.  Yet you seemed to want true critique, and I think in part this is what I think needs to be more fleshed out.

        The fidgeting story, and about how some groups change with the generations, and some others are more calm and patient, etc.  I am trying to understand how the observations in the earlier part of the 20th century, help make the case you are trying to make.  Again, maybe its not really crucial or critical?  I am not sure that even if it did mean there was more "drive" and other things within an individual, that they maybe also had other way less than pleasant characteristics too?  Which is kind of what you have said....with the free will came a lot of good and some of the worst also......  As for the person that fidgets, vs the one that hangs out all day like some I can imagine in my mind right now in California, all day long along this strip, on a half wall.....just watching the world go by and pretty much not doing much of anything....  What does this mean to you?  The bringing of the two vastly different times in history the then and now, is just interesting.  I don't really have an idea on the "now" part.  Are these being equated with the pre Adam people's that never did any interbreeding with them?  Is it too hard to discuss because of the offense it can cause in some?

        I don't know.  One thing I do kind of agree with that Emile said, it almost sets some cultures above others intellectually or spiritually.  I have responses to that too and have shared those with her in the sense that we are going to just see some of that no matter what views or lens we are looking at people through.  You don't really get around it no matter what you view is, if you are an observer of people.  I think the point about it not being that any ARE more important or anything, in regards to value, etc, is good.  As for people being against certain ones being elevated, I am not sure how this can be "gotten around" anyway.  It is perhaps a harsh part of life and the possible hereafter too?  Its tough no matter how you slice it, as all make choices, and since not all make good ones, they get what comes with it.  In this case, the difference may be that some aren't even allowed to be capable of making the choices....  Idk.... (kind of left shrugging the shoulders until I know more, and with more study that may help.)

        The pendulum can swing too far the other way too.  I heard about a school that had to do away with the honors awards night, because it was too exclusive and not all the kids could participate.  We could get to the point that we could find something wrong with awarding Olympians one day, if we let some ideas go too far, etc.  There is a real push back in recent times where people could pursue excellence in academics or sports, or work, where they are trying to make it more of an even playing field for all even for those that don't really try.  Anyway, I am finding that I am not really able to communicate or put into words what I am trying to pin down exactly.  So maybe I will leave it at this for now, lol.  I knew I wanted to get back to this, but it may not be answerable. It may help in thinking things through for the parts that people aren't really getting too.  Anyone's thoughts are welcome.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          "The Fall, then, refers to a change which occurred in the psyche of certain human groups around 6,000 years ago. It was the point in history when these peoples developed a strong and sharp sense of ego. The Fall was, and is, the intensification of the human sense of "I" or individuality." - Steve Taylor

          "the prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolution...despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic." -Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian

          "Matrism" refers to cultures which are "democratic, egalitarian, sex-positive and possess very low levels of adult violence." James DeMeo

          "There does not exist any clear, compelling or unambiguous evidence for the existence of patrism anywhere on Earth significantly prior to c.4000 BCE." - James DeMeo


          "Perhaps, however, the intensification of the ego wasn't the only cause of the dramatic shift from matrism to patrism. James DeMeo explains the transition in terms of Wilhelm Reich's concept of "armouring." In his view, the pain and suffering which the Saharasian peoples were confronted with made them "wall themselves off" from the world and from their own feelings. They covered over their natural pleasure-seeking impulses with secondary pleasure-denying instincts; and impulses such as the maternal-infant and the male-female bonds, connection to nature, the sexual instinct, trust and openness to other human beings were disrupted. And once this had happened to the first generation of Saharasians, it changed the way they treated their children. Children were given less attention and affection and treated harshly, which led to further armouring on teir part. And once a generation of children had become armoured they would inevitably pass their armour on to their children by denying them affetion and treating them harshly in turn." - James DeMeo

          The transition I'm talking about are behavioral traits that suggest that somewhere along the way the modern human ego emerged somewhere along this timeline. It is the ego within each of us that makes us feel separated from the natural world around us. Makes it seem foreign to us, though we are evolved from it. Even our own bodies are these foreign things that we have to learn throughout life experience. We find our own natural bodily functions strange and, in some cases, kind of gross. It's this sense of being 'walled off' from the world around us. That's the ego. That's the kind of psychological change that would lead to male-dominated societies because males can more easily disassociate from the natural world than females. That's when sex acts became 'bad' or 'shameful'. When our own nudity became something to hide. There is a distinct point in history when this change happened. And it can be seen beginning in the very region where Genesis is based, then spreading out from there. Indigenous cultures have very different attitudes towards nudity, towards sex, towards nature.

          There are two distinct waves of humans in our history. The first being the wave of homo sapiens that first populated the entirety of the planet. Then a second wave came. This is the one documented in our history where the people of these first civilizations spread throughout the world wiping out and enslaving the indigenous cultures that were there before them. All of these cultures in that second wave were male-dominant, treated natural things like sex as shameful, and were much more aggressive violence-wise.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I won't keep hounding after this.  What I am trying to gather is, what was the point of bringing  up the Native American Indians that weren't fidgeting, and willing to sit still all day?  Or going further back to the convo about those today that are still naked in certain cultures, etc?

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              That example was from Steve Taylor's book ''The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era'. In that bit he's talking about a kind of "psychic harmony" that modern humans seem to lack .....

              "There are other characteristics of unfallen native peoples which make them distinct from fallen peoples, but since we'll be looking at them all later in this book, there's no need to investigate them here. We've already mentioned some of these in passing anyway: native peoples' tolerant attitude to children, their free and open attitude to sex and the body, their hospitality, and their different religious attitudes. Later we'll also look at their attitude to time and history and their views of the afterlife. As far we can tell, all of these characteristics were shared by our prehistoric ancestors, and by all the world's matrist native peoples (at least until recent times).

              All of this make it fairly clear that, like our hunter-gatherer and Neoloithic horticultural ancestors, most native peoples were free from the kind of social suffering which has made life so unpleasant for countless human beings over the last few thousand years

              I pointed out in Chapter 1 that this was just the external aspect of the problem, though, and examined another kind of suffering which human beings are prey to: namely, the inner, psychic suffering, which makes it impossible for us to do nothing and leads us to become neurotic, depressed and even physically ill when we've got too much unstructured free time on our hands.

              Since primal peoples are free from social suffering, we'd expect them to be free of this psychic suffering too. And apart from the fact that they appear to be generally serene and content, there are some aspects of their life which suggest this. The very fact that primal peoples - like their prehistoric counterparts - feel no need to accumulate wealth or to gain status and power suggests that there's no psychological discord inside them which they're trying to override or find compensation for. The fact that, unlike us, primal peoples appear to be able to do nothing suggests this too. One assumption the European colonists made when they went to America was that Indians were lazy because they only worked as much as they needed to , and often worked for six months and then rested for the next six. But the likelihood, of course, is that this was nothing to do with laziness - it was probably simply that the Indians didn't have the same psychological need for activity as the Europeans. It was possible for them to be inactive without becoming bored or discontent because they didn't have the same constantly chattering isolated egos as the Europeans. The fact that both ancient and present-day hunter-gatherers spend so little time (12 to 20 hours a week) searching for food - and so much time on leisure activities - suggests this too. Even if we were able to financially , most of us would find it very difficult to work as little as this, since we tend to suffer from boredom, anxiety and general psychological dis cord when our attention isn't focused on external things."

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Ok, well at least I know for sure now.  This is another non answer to the specific points asked.  I am not unclear about what you think was the initial time the transition happened.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              I don't guess I'm clear on what you're asking. I'm addressing the post above regarding the fidgeting. These are behaviors associated with 'un-fallen' characteristics. Like, for example in Genesis during 'the fall', the first thing it says after they ate the forbidden fruit is that "the eyes of both of them were opened" and it's at that point that they both realized they were naked, though they had been the whole time.

              The transition in particular in the emergence of the modern human ego. The "I" in the mind that would be aware, and that would feel exposed, if naked.

              James DeMeo refers to the two types as "Patrist" and "Matrist". Steve Taylor refers to the same as "fallen" and "unfallen". The way DeMeo describes characteristics of each culture are like this ....

              Patrist/"Fallen" ...
              Infants and Children - Less indulgence, less physical affection, infancts traumatized, painful initiations, dominated by family, sex-segregated houses or military

              Sexuality - Restrictive, anxious attitude, genital mutilations, female virginity taboo, vaginal intercourse taboos, adolescent lovemaking severely censured, homosexual tendency plus severe taboo, incest tendency plus severe taboo, concubinage/prostitution may flourish, pedophilia exists.

              Women - Limits on freedom, inferior status, vaginal blood taboos (hymenal, menstrual and childbirth blood), cannot choose own mate, cannot divorce at will, males control fertility, reproductive functions denigrated.

              Culture, Family, Social Structure - Patrilineal descent, Patrilocal marital household, Compulsive lifelong monogamy, Often polygamous, Authoritarian, Hierarchical, Political/economic centralism, Military specialists or caste, Violent, sadistic

              Religion - Male'father oriented, Asceticism, avoidance of pleasure, pain-seeking, Inhibition, fear of nature, full-time religious specialists, Male shamans/healers, Strict behavior codes

              Matrist/"Unfallen"
              Infants and children - More indulgence, More physical affection, Infants not traumatized, Absence of pain in initiations, Children's democracies, Mixed sex children's houses or age villages.

              Sexuality - Permissive, pleasurable attitude, Absence of genital mutilations, No female virginity taboo, No intercourse taboos, Adolescent lovemaking freely permitted, Absence of homosedxual tendency or strong taboo, Absence of incest tendency or strong incest taboo, Absence of concubinage or prostitution, Pedophilia absent

              Women - More freedom, Equal status, No vaginal blood taboos, Can choose own mate, Can divorce at will ,Females control fertility, Reproductive functions celebrated

              Culture, Family, Social Structure - Matrilineal descent, Matrilocal marital household, Noncompulsive monogamy, Rarely polygamous, DEmocrratic, Egalitarian, Work-democratic, No full time military, Nonviolent, absence of sadism

              Religion - Female/mother oriented, Pleasure welcomed and institutionalized, Spontaneity, nature worshipped, No full-time religious specialists, Male or female shamans/healers, Absence of strict codes

              Think of it like this. In Gen1 it says God created humans and told them to 1. be fruitful and multiiplly, 2, fill/subdue the earth, 3. establish dominance in the animal kingdom. This was God's will. It's assumed this portion of the creation account is speaking of the creation of Adam. I'm suggesting the creation of humans in Gen1 and the creation of Adam in Gen2 are two separate events. Adam and Eve were placed in an environment where only one rule existed, and they both broke it.

              If the humans in Gen1 were capable of behaving contrary to the will of God, not even able to abide by that one rule, then what are the chances they'd be able to carry out those commands, which would take numerous generations to carry out? At the end of the creation  account it says God looks on all He created and deemed it all "good". Could He have deemed everything good if Adam/Eve were the humans created?

              Those three commands given to the Gen1 humans, that is exactly what homo sapiens did. They populated the entire planet and they established themselves as the dominant species on the planet. In this context homo sapiens would be the 'un-fallen' humans who still behave according to God's will. Like the rest of the animal kingdom they behave according to 'natural law'. Just as a horse is a horse generation after generation, a cow is a cow generation after generation, so too were humans.

              In this context, Adam would have been created around 5500 BC. After Cain was banished it says he built a city. Right after it says that the 'sons of God' began having children by 'mortal' humans. Then it says humans became wicked. Meaning, the capability that Adam/Eve had to behave contrary to God's will was now in humanity. You cannot be 'wicked' if you do not have free will.

              According to the Sumerians an immortal god named Enki built their first city-state. And according to them these gods, male and female, who lived among them and taught them the ways of civilization, also bred with mortal humans, making demi-gods. Gilgamesh, for example, according to that story, was a demi-god.

              That first pre-flood Sumerian city-state built by Enki was called Eridu. Eridu is the first human city ever created because it was the first place where there was a working class and a ruling class. All human settlements up to this point didn't have class stratification.

              Class-stratification, male-dominance, owning land, owning slaves, these are all 'fallen' characteristics. Behaviors that come about because of an enhanced ego/free will. Rather than simply behaving according to God's will, they pursue the wants of their own. Females being 'under the thumb' so to speak of males was one of the 'curses' God said Eve would endure after the fall.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Here's hoping I am not making this even worse, lol. 

                I guess what I am asking is supposed to be answered inherently within the "re-describing" of the genesis events and what came soon after?

                I was wanting to test the ideas out long term.  How it plays out long term, into the now even.  It makes complete sense to me that Emile would have some trouble with this if it is what I am thinking, what is being suggested by those that exhibit some traits of the "unfallen" ones.  I guess there are still some totally unfallen ones in your view today.  What comes of them?  Don't they ALL make choices against their consciences ever in their lives?  Isn't the word of God for them all? 

                I am getting a sense of why my particular questions are hard to answer, and it COULD be that I am just not being clear, but I don't know how to make it any more plain. 

                Lets look at it a different angle for a minute.  There was a time it was thought that none but the Jews could be God's children.  Later, God seemed to include ALL into his flock that would be chosen or come or more like a version of both.  I see scriptures supporting the both.  I wonder if the views in question/discussion need some revamping to include or match the "all" that the bible seems to even include could be a part? Like in John 3:16, the "all" means "all" I thought.  So its hard to merge these views of yours with the bible as I understand it.  I can't get past genesis even in just the following of it. 

                I mean, that so many intermarried, then got some of the mixed in, so were grafted into the "fallen" so to speak.  Some I guess NEVER married into another that wasn't fallen at all, so never got the "knowing" the "transition" the self awareness we speak of?  What about nakedness?  Why didn't the fidgeters in the southwest want to sit around all day naked?  Do you see where I begin to see the disconnect?  If you really aren't saying or suggesting what it is sounding like, you are (while not just coming out and saying it), then why not say you are in no way suggesting it? OR, maybe this isn't all the way thought out?  Maybe there are some where that become more self aware in stages?

                What OF the people that were fidgeting?  What is someone shares with them the gospel of Jesus, and they come to believe in him?  Can they?  Do they know or believe they sin?  Do you get what I am saying at all?  I have a bazillion questions IF its like what its sounding like.  What is the fate of those that aren't fallen in your view?  Can't they hear and respond?  Do they have souls?  If not, why not?  With respect, your views have brought me to more questions, when for a while it made a little sense, at least of some of history and the beginnings of man.  I think it breaks down later, but I can't even KNOW if it does, because my questions go unanswered.  This was the closest to an answer, about they are exhibiting characteristics of the unfallen......  SO now what?  Does the fact they show some characteristics mean they ARE unfallen to you?  Is their whole family in the same boat if of the same genes?  What happens if uncle Joe marries and mates NOW with "fallen" Mary?  Does Mary, and their baby have the "fallen" characteristics and status?  Can Joe know he does wrong things sometimes, or does he maybe not ever want to break rules? He seems to have to be taught rules in school and society like everyone else, and suffers consequences if breaking them right?

                Or, am I completely so off base that I am not even asking the right questions?  WITH ALL your explanations dozens of times over, these are the parts I don't see touched on.  Then I was talking to Emile in depth about it, not understanding the rejecting of it all on realistic grounds in her view, based on part of the whole.  Its possible she gets it more than me, OR that I am being just much more generous, waiting to hold judgement off for when I get the answers.  So, sorry for my frustration, but I really thought you were done trying to even explain it.  I didn't fully agree with Emile either, and told her why, but I get partly what she was saying.

                Is the state of humans today that exhibit characteristics not seeming to be "unfallen", LIKE the people in the city that Cain ran off too so long ago?  Are they all equally "unfallen" in your view? Why make the comparison if not?  If they are, and you don't want to say so, why not?  It was to THIS point in the conversation, I can understand why you might not want to.  It doesn't help me to restate the genesis explanation you give.  Does it make sense why?  i am not unclear on that.  I am unclear about todays people.  Or are they JUST being used as an example, but are really fallen also?  Do you see my disconnect?  Whats the parallel now, IF there is even one?  This is all making me feel incredibly dense, but I truly don't think I am being stupid.  Its possible though!  Or something more is going on, and that is what I am trying to get at. 

                For what its worth, I would think you would care about my questions, because you seem to want your views to be heard, and you seem to take them very seriously.  If they break down, you have said you want to be shown.  I don't know if they even are, because I can't get past a certain point.  At a certain point though then, they DO break down I think.  If you are not answering for the reason I think you might not be, then leave it alone, and I will just know. And its ok.  where am I wrong or mistaken?  I have just taken the VERY long road to get to where many seem to have maybe arrived already, aye yai yai.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image91
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay. I understand your frustration. I know there's a lot to this. I've been trying forever now to hone in on the clearest way to describe what I'm talking about, and I'm clearly still failing.

                  First, my above post to Emile will hopefully clear some things up. Between that and this, hopefully I will finally address your questions. I can assure you there's nothing I'm steering clear of here, at least not on purpose. I'm going to start by trying to put it in a more grounded context starting from the Genesis story. I'm going to make associations that I don't know for sure are accurate. This is just how I see it at this point and how it ties into the story.

                  Creation depicts a natural world, animate and inanimate, all becoming what God wills it to be. It is the personification of God's will, exactly. To the point that He deems it all "good'. This includes the humans that He created. Then He creates this one being specifically and places him in a very test-like environment where there is only one rule. And these beings break that one rule. Then Cain murders his brother. God sends him away and Cain says something curious. He voices a concern about being harmed by "others". At this point in the story, Seth isn't born yet so none of the people listed in Genesis 5 are around yet. There may be unmentioned brothers and sisters, but they all presumably live where Cain is being sent away from. Then God does something even more curious. First, He validates Cain's concern by not saying, "who are you talking about?", but by somehow marking Cain to ensure he wouldn't be hurt. So, question, if Adam/Eve/Cain all showed they can behave contrary to God's will, then what's to guarantee any descendant of would respect this mark and not harm him? Then it says something even more interesting. It says Cain built a city. It's just him, his wife, whatever kids they have as this story happens sometime within the first century of Adam being created as Seth (Abel's "replacement") was born when Adam was 130. And the word used isn't some Hebrew word that means "homestead" or "farm". It means "city". It also says that the ground will be cursed for Cain, and will not yield food for him. God says Cain will be a "restless wonderer", like a hunter-gatherer. Yet right after this it says Cain "settled".

                  Now, imagine this, Cain is a farmer. His offering to God was yields from his crops. Yet he's been cursed by his actions and cannot grow food, yet it says he was able to settle. Unlike what God said would happen to him. Now, imagine the 'others' Cain feared were the indigenous population in the region. This is the region where the Sumerians first showed up. According to them, an immortal god built their city and taught them everything they knew. So, Cain, out wondering the land of "Nod", protected by this "mark", builds a city. The first city in that region of the world was the first city ever created. It is classed as the first actual "city", though largely populated human settlements had existed before it, because this was the first settlement to have a class system. The Sumerians say the patron god of each of their city-states lived in the temple that really did exist at the center, and orchestrated what the working class (the indigenous people/Sumerians) were to do. This first city was called Eridu. According to the Sumerians it was the first of five city-states that existed before the flood. I don't know for certain about this Cain/Enki connection, I just want to try to flesh this out to hopefully make it more clear.

                  So, according to Genesis 4 Cain somehow overcame his "restless wonderer" fate and settled. According to the people who lived in that region, an immortal god showed up, built a city, and told them they were created to serve them. Could it be possible that Cain overcame his fate by building this city and enslaving these indigenous people to grow food and supply him and his family? Well, Eridu was quite advanced in that they were the first to establish a farming community in such a dry climate. They did so by inventing irrigation canals unlike the world had ever seen before. They were the first to grow crops year round, in rotation. This culture found success and it found it quickly. The culture is known archaeologically as the "Ubaid culture".

                  According to the timeline if you piece together all the ages given in Genesis 5, the flood happened 1656 years after Adam was created. The Ubaid culture lasted from roughly 5500 BC until about 4000 BC. 1500 years plus the 130 or so when the Cain story happened equals roughly the same length of time this culture flourished. Additional city-states were built, all within site of one another, before a great flood wiped them out. There is evidence at one of the Sumerian sites that there is an actual 'silt deposit', which indicates a flood, that literally caps off the "Ubaid" artifacts. Above that line, we begin to see "Uruk culture" artifacts, the culture that came directly after in this same place and was much like the culture before it. According to the "Sumerian King's List", a list that depicts kings who rained for incredibly long lifespans, its says those first city-states were where the 'kingship' resided, a "gift of civilization" from these gods, then a great flood, then it picks up with a city called "Uruk". This is the same city that the culture is named after.

                  As I'm sure you know, Genesis 5 and the list of Adam's descendants, was edited into place at some point later. The original story went straight from this explanation that Cain built a city and a little bit about his descendants, then it goes right into Genesis 6 where it says "when humans grew in number on the earth (in the land), the 'sons of God' found the 'daughters of humans' beautiful and married any of them they chose." A burgeoning city would explain this increased number of humans and increased interaction between these two groups. This is when things went haywire. This is when it says this all-knowing God "regretted" putting humans on the earth. Why? Because of choices made by free willed beings that He didn't anticipate. They behave of their own free will, not of God's. This is when it says humans were 'wicked' and had nothing but 'wicked' thoughts all the time. Free will was now introduced into humanity. This is why God sent the flood.

                  "We've already seen that social stratification was a feature of Sumerian culture. The Sumerians possessed a recognizably "modern" lust for material goods and wealth, which was completely alien to the non-possessiveness of hunter-gatherer peoples"

                  The flood that ended the Ubaid culture of Mesopotamia happened roughly 4000BC. According to the story, the Babel event happened a century or so later, where it says the descendants of Noah were dispersed all throughout the earth. Well, roughly a century after that 4000BC flood, the Sahara changed back into desert causing all the humans who lived in that region to flee to lands along river banks. As you can imagine there were already settlements there. But after this climate change, each of these settlements were transformed by these humans migrating out of a growing desert.

                  "According to DeMeo, archaeological evidence suggests that "Settlements on the Nile and Tigris-Euphrates [the areas where Egyptian and Sumerian civilization developed respectively], as well in the moister highland portions of the Levant, Anatolia and Iran, were invaded and conquered by peoples abandoning Arabia and/or central Europe."

                  "Archaeologists have never been able to conclusively answer the question of who the original Egyptians and Sumerians were. But evidence clearly suggests that the Egyptians who "civilized" the Nile region were immigrants from the desert areas. As Bran Griffith points out, in North Africa recorded history begins against the background of mass migrations out of a growing desert. He notes that "pre-dynastic Egyptians were a jumbled assortment of tribes, many of them recent arrivals from the deserts."

                  "The first signs of social upheaval occur in the Nile region at around 3300 BCE when a people who called themselves "followers of Horus" established themselves as a ruling class. According to DeMeo, they "possessed many Semitic characteristics"


                  That first Sumerian city, not only was it the first city to have class stratification, it was the first to show those "Patrist" behaviors I listed above. Then, each Sumerian city-state followed suit. After this climate change, the people who took over in Egypt brought these characteristics with them and transformed the place. And it kept spreading. Throughout Europe, Asia. Most of the story you know because it's the story our history books tell as each nation drew its boundary lines on the map. Europeans always running into indigenous people, "savages". These cultures that first sprang up in the "cradle of civilization" spread throughout the world and transformed it. Today I think it's roughly 5% of the world's population that is still considered "indigenous". All the others are gone. Wiped out. Their land taken from them.

                  The books I refer to that talk about this change, they trace how it can be seen in the archaeological record starting in Mesopotamia and spreading all throughout the world from there. This completely altered how humans behaved, how they lived, their social norms, everything. They were more aggressive. They organized armies. They, for the first time in history, began to glorify war in artwork. Human remains were buried with weapons. Settlements were built with fortified walls. This all started first in Sumer, around 5500 BC, then beginning with that 3900BC climate change, it spread throughout the world. From this came the Egyptians, the Sumerians (the Uruk culture), the Indus Valley (modern day India), Greece, Rome, and on and on.

                  I do think Jesus' death/resurrection brought "gentiles" into the fold. Non-Jews. It extended salvation to "all". Now, those who are "unfallen", if I'm right, then they do not have free will. What compels them to this day is the will of God. Like every other living creature they remain largely unchanged in behaviors from generation to generation. Prides of lions behave the same way. Herds of horses, cows, they're all predictable. Humans lived much the same way for tens of thousands of years. They migrated along with climate changes, they hunted and gathered, and their social behaviors remained remarkably unchanged throughout. Until Sumer. That's when what we would recognize as "modern humanity" began to appear. And like a evolutionary change that makes one group more dominant than another, they took over. They were aggressive, organized, they had armies and weapons and boats.

                  In this light, these people, the indigenous people of the earth, don't have a free will, so they're not compelled by an individual will to do anything other than God's will. Those of us born of these civilizations. Each generation we seem to completely change things. We change the world and how it operates, we built governments and militaries and we took all the land we could find away from those who lived there before us. This is a free will. This is why we're so different from the rest of the natural world. We're the only species to alter the landscape like we do and who destroy the natural world around us. We manipulate the elements of nature and make things that are harmful, things that don't break down naturally. We are out of sync with God's will. Hence the need for Jesus. Hence the need for salvation and judgement and commandments and all the rest. Without free will, these people cannot be 'wicked' and therefore cannot be out of line with God's will. In this light, they would not require salvation.

                  According to the bible, everything in the natural world behaved according to God's will until Adam. From that point forward the central theme becomes about behavior. We know now in this modern age that how things behave, usually according to natural laws, make the universe work. We humans, who are in the end just bundles of elements like everything else, have the unique capability of choosing our own actions and behaviors. Of our own will. It's at that point in the bible that God started giving us laws and began dealing with when those laws are broken. The humans before the fall were given commands that would take numerous generations to carry out. And they did it. History shows it. Everything He said to do homo sapiens actually did. They were fruitful and multiplied, they filled and subdued the earth, and they established dominance in the animal kingdom. Then came Adam, and it all changed.

                  What we see today is a reflection of this. The world is 95% populated by people who come from 'civilized' cultures. Patrist cultures. The only remaining Matrist cultures are sparse. It's beginning with those first cultures that humans began to bend the natural world to their will. They need water to grow crops, they built irrigation ditches. And here's an interesting bit, do you know why the Sumerians say they invented Astronomy? ...

                  " Although the gods were unpredictable, the Sumerians sought out ways to discover what the gods held in store for them. Like all human cultures, the Sumerians were struck by the wondrous regularity of the movement of the heavens and speculated that this movement might contain some secret to the intentions of the gods. So the Sumerians invented astrology, and astrology produced the most sophisticated astronomical knowledge ever seen to that date, and astrology produced even more sophisticated mathematics. They also examined the inner organs of sacrificed animals for secrets to the gods’ intentions or to the future. These activities produced a steady increase in the number of priests and scribes, which further accelerated learning and writing." - http://www.enter-the-past.org/article/t … ans-part-2

                  These gods that the Sumerians say taught them everything they did, they were male and female, lived among them, and they were moody and unpredictable. And isn't it interesting that, like Noah and the other patriarchs in Genesis, the Sumerian gods also offered up sacrifices. It was a need to better anticipate these moody gods that led to astrology and advances in mathematics and beyond. As far as they were concerned, these gods "descended from heaven" and were talked about, not like some mythological fantasy, but as real beings who either taught or inspired things we know the Sumerians actually did do. And they're described much like this, as a mystery to them that they're trying to make sense of.

                  I hope this addresses your questions a little more clearly. I know it touches on a lot, and I think I've had so many conversations about elements of this in these forums that I just kind of assume from time to time and maybe don't make what I'm saying clear. Believe it or not I actually try to be conscious of how long-winded I tend to be and try to limit that. So I think I often skip through details that maybe not everyone is familiar with.

    61. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years ago

      Let's not forget , the original ideas people were responding to were that god allowed and maybe even encouraged a raped impregnated slave to go back against her will to her slave owner .  This had been shown to be ridiculous. That and that all meat was wasted in sacrifices. Both failed.

      Yet it gets twisted around somehow that people defend slavery and killing animals and wasting meat.  And that they should have cared more about starving children.  These are not reasonable responses or ideas in light of the full context of these stories and the greater biblical context.

    62. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years ago

      If you give up your job, you are in a new situation to need a new job, a new slave owner so to speak.  If you don't, you become a subject to the elements, free to live under a bridge, or have government as your slave owner.  It works out wonderfully for a government, because people don't want to bite the hand that feeds it, and as it grows and hands out more goodies its power grows and grows.

      If you are "free" out in the wild, you still work hard then to find shelter, and food, which would require SOME kind of hard work.

      Remember the story of the prodigal son who went and spent his fortune only to end up living among the animals?  He was wishing he could live as good as one of his father's slaves.  They had it much better than he, at least having plenty of bread.

      From Luke 15

      And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to2 one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.

      17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ 20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
        EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        It is dishonest to argue that employment and slavery are the same thing. If you believe your employer is a slave owner, then the fault is on you to have taken that job.

        Did you also know that there are many people who actually work for themselves? lol

    63. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years ago

      Radman, the bible is considered the inspired by God and the letters Paul penned himself, as an apostle are put in with that.  The people of that day understood this and took advice from his letters to them as a church or as an individual.  It makes sense he would address their issues.

      We shouldn't take that to mean it is suggesting its moral for us to take slaves today.  I find that a rather strange way to think he was writing that , if that is what is being done.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)