1
   

Gods Porn

 
 
JesusDiedForU
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 11:56 am
@FedUpAmerican,
FedUpAmerican;35325 wrote:
God approves of pornography, as seen in these following verses by Solomon as he pondered the female body:

[INDENT]"How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince's daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist. Your navel is like a round goblet which never lacks for mixed wine; your belly is like a heap of wheat fenced about with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle."

"Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I said 'I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.' Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine." - Song of Solomon 7:1-3,7-9 [/INDENT]

Pretty steamy stuff. It would appear God is indeed promoting a written form of pornography.




[SIZE="5"]
XXXchurch[/SIZE]

[SIZE="5"]The #1 Christian Porn Site![/SIZE]


Check it out.
westernmom
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 11:57 am
@FedUpAmerican,
No, I don't believe that all translations are inspired. Many have left words out, changed meanings, etc. You know that one little word can make a difference is meaning.

Inspired to me is having a person that is prayerfully doing it under with divine inspiration.
0 Replies
 
FedUpAmerican
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 11:59 am
@JesusDiedForU,
JesusDiedForU;35425 wrote:
[SIZE="5"]
XXXchurch[/SIZE]

[SIZE="5"]The #1 Christian Porn Site![/SIZE]


Check it out.


Actually I've seen this before. There's a church in the northern suburbs that preach a lot of sex in the sake of the Christian God.
Red cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 04:44 pm
@FedUpAmerican,
Well now you assert that Christians don't have sex or are perverted?

I can assure you a healthy sex life is very important to a sound and happy marrage. You have an unhealthy fixation with Christians, what did one dump you on a date by crawling through the bathroom window?
0 Replies
 
klyph
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 04:55 pm
@FedUpAmerican,
You interpret the passage to be pornographic, I interpret it to be a poetic admiration of God's creation.

If you were not so perverted and sexualized, you might see it that way too. Remember, your opinions and interpretations are a mirror of your own character.
JesusDiedForU
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 07:41 pm
@FedUpAmerican,
FedUpAmerican;35427 wrote:
Actually I've seen this before. There's a church in the northern suburbs that preach a lot of sex in the sake of the Christian God.


No, that is not it...

Here check it out:

XXXCHURCH.COM
0 Replies
 
Campbell34
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2007 09:04 am
@FedUpAmerican,
FedUpAmerican;35402 wrote:
Have it your way.

My proof is the lack of evidence as to his existance.

Where's yours now?


Well FedUp, you know very well they are finding proof of the historical aspects of the Bible. The discovery of the house of David for one, the coral incrusted remains of Pharoahs army, and actually many other indicators of the Bibles truth. So the truth, and the proof is out there, if one is really looking for that.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2007 09:10 am
@klyph,
klyph;35532 wrote:
You interpret the passage to be pornographic, I interpret it to be a poetic admiration of God's creation.

If you were not so perverted and sexualized, you might see it that way too. Remember, your opinions and interpretations are a mirror of your own character.
Quote:
perverted and sexualized
I call it atheism.
Quote:
Remember, your opinions and interpretations are a mirror of your own character
I've never heard that but sounds accurate.
0 Replies
 
FedUpAmerican
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2007 07:14 pm
@Campbell34,
Campbell34;35651 wrote:
Well FedUp, you know very well they are finding proof of the historical aspects of the Bible. The discovery of the house of David for one, the coral incrusted remains of Pharoahs army, and actually many other indicators of the Bibles truth. So the truth, and the proof is out there, if one is really looking for that.


JD4U: Dude that was an awesome site. Thanks.

Campbell: I DO seek the truth, not the coral encrusted remains of pharohs army. That HARDLEY proves ANYTHING.

Compare apples with apples please. At least keep it granny smith to macintosh.
Campbell34
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 05:56 am
@FedUpAmerican,
FedUpAmerican;35825 wrote:
JD4U: Dude that was an awesome site. Thanks.

Campbell: I DO seek the truth, not the coral encrusted remains of pharohs army. That HARDLEY proves ANYTHING.

Compare apples with apples please. At least keep it granny smith to macintosh.


Well when you have two granit pillars marking the spot and you see extra Biblical writings chisled in stone that mirror what the Bible has proclaimed then you really have to consider the story has some roots to it. Those who claim there was never anything to the story cannot as easily say it never happened, especially when there now appears to be substance and supporting evidence. Names that never appeared in the Roman records now are being found in areas of Jerusalem that also support the Biblical account.
The lack of these names in the past were considered strong evidence by non believers that the Bible was false, now that some of these names have come to light, these same non believers tells us this does not prove anything. If names not found is strong evidence that the Bible is false, then names found should be considered for the Bible speaking the truth. For if the Roman record is incomplete, it appears the Bible has filled in the missing gaps.
FedUpAmerican
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 08:58 am
@Campbell34,
Campbell34;35869 wrote:
Well when you have two granit pillars marking the spot and you see extra Biblical writings chisled in stone that mirror what the Bible has proclaimed then you really have to consider the story has some roots to it. Those who claim there was never anything to the story cannot as easily say it never happened, especially when there now appears to be substance and supporting evidence. Names that never appeared in the Roman records now are being found in areas of Jerusalem that also support the Biblical account.
The lack of these names in the past were considered strong evidence by non believers that the Bible was false, now that some of these names have come to light, these same non believers tells us this does not prove anything. If names not found is strong evidence that the Bible is false, then names found should be considered for the Bible speaking the truth. For if the Roman record is incomplete, it appears the Bible has filled in the missing gaps.


How does that prove the existance of a Christian God?

AND how does that fit in with the topic of the OP about Solomon's pornographic message about getting down?
Campbell34
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 09:33 am
@FedUpAmerican,
FedUpAmerican;35892 wrote:
How does that prove the existance of a Christian God?

AND how does that fit in with the topic of the OP about Solomon's pornographic message about getting down?



Fedup I was just responding to your post where you stated that your proof is the lack of evidence. And YOU asked the question, where's yours now? And my responce was to point out that for years many such as yourself have stated that the Bible was just make believe stories. Yet they are now finding out that the Bible is filled with truthful details that have been lost to history, and it appears the Bible has been telling us the truth all along. And I believe a Book of truth, can equally be a Book of proof.
My comment was based on your question about lack of evidence.
0 Replies
 
FedUpAmerican
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 09:40 am
@FedUpAmerican,
OK. Thank you for clarifying.

Hope you are well.
0 Replies
 
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 10:02 am
@FedUpAmerican,
If we can all agree that reality is more important than the imaginary, I can prove God exists. Can we agree that reality trumps the imaginary?
FedUpAmerican
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 10:58 am
@Freeman15,
Freeman15;35916 wrote:
I can prove God exists.



Enlighten us. :wtf:
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 11:15 am
@FedUpAmerican,
FedUpAmerican;35926 wrote:
Enlighten us. :wtf:


Ok, so we first define God. Since "God" is personified differently in different cultures, for our purposes we will define "god" as "that which no greater can be concieved", since "god" allegedly refers to the supreme being in the universe.

Now, we know that two types of existence occur in the universe; the reality and the imaginary. Chairs exist in reality whereas ideas (liberty, morality, etc) exist in the imaginary or "understanding" (meaning they can be comprehended but not touched or created). We can further agree that, when concerning existence, that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists in the imaginary yes? I base this on the idea that a realistc existence is more readily proven than an imaginary one.

Ok, so if we agree on the loose definition of "god" as "that which no greater can be concieved", and we agree that that which exists in reality has a greater substantive existence than that which exists in the imaginary, we can now confirm that "god" exists:

The idea of "god" can be understood regardless of belief, and so it exists in the imaginary. Now, if "god" is that which no greater can be concieved, and that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists in the imaginary, "god" MUST exist in the reality.

Edit:

This is the ontological argument, I didn't come up with this logic (wish I had).
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 11:22 am
@FedUpAmerican,
Sounds interesting. And hard to argue against, Anybody?

Probably the best post i've seen to date. Props Freeman.
0 Replies
 
FedUpAmerican
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 05:18 pm
@Freeman15,
Freeman15;35929 wrote:
Ok, so we first define God. Since "God" is personified differently in different cultures, for our purposes we will define "god" as "that which no greater can be concieved", since "god" allegedly refers to the supreme being in the universe.



Here's the problem. Not everyone believes that God is anything but a fantasy. In that perspective, your arguement is considered null and void. Nice TRY though.
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 09:33 pm
@FedUpAmerican,
FedUpAmerican;36026 wrote:
Here's the problem. Not everyone believes that God is anything but a fantasy. In that perspective, your arguement is considered null and void. Nice TRY though.


You understand the CONCEPT of God. Therefore the CONCEPT exists in the imaginary, and thus logically, by its definition must exist.
0 Replies
 
FedUpAmerican
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 09:40 pm
@FedUpAmerican,
I'll go along with that part but I disagree with "that which no greater can be concieved"
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gods Porn
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 04:55:20