Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

There are bad apples in every barrel. Sports coaches for example.

It has nothing to do with "a person". It is to do with the general situation in society. Using "a person" you could prove anything you want.

Does the Christian religion make a better society than irreligion is the question.

But that was the point in stating it that way. I would say no and there is no evidence that would back up the premise that the chrisitan religion makes a better society. In fact there is evidence that supports to the contrary.

I love it though when a christian does something wrong, they are just a "person" doing something wrong. But when a christian does something right then it is the religion that gets the credit. Funny how believers always want to pick and chose to avoid being responsible for their actions.

I wonder how it would be if we were required to study moral philosophy as a science rather than a few thousand year old book.

I would say that there is a great deal of evidence that the Christian religion makes a better society.



I know of none.

You must not have been following the News very carefully.



When has the Church been given the credit for anything?

If you will explain what you mean rl somebody might try it. As it is you are just using words as medals which you have pinned to your own chest.

Do you mean, when you are tempted and feel the urge to sleep with someone, that you will remain at home and you feel that, that feeling is evil ?



I do appreciate that these girls can make good money, just lap-dancing without doing anything else but I also agree that a large percentage of men, would not respect them and if this is your feelings on it, then that's like treating all of the lap-dancers as your sister.. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing either, if they absolutely are doing it because they want to. Freedom of choice.



I can not see why 'God' could be against it. If you guys don't do it, there can be some serious problems.. I believe he states that you can't but I am going to put that one down to man made...



Ryan.. IDK.. Would 'she' be happy with missionary only, for a few years until you decide no more kids, and then you stop having sex with her? And, at 30, would she be a virgin anyway, and if not, would she enjoy 1) just missionary and 2) the acknowledgement that the only reason you were having sex with her was for procreation? Does not bonding between two souls come with having intercourse? Does not pleasing a woman as we are all different, finding what is best for her, position wise seem important to that bond and love?



The difference, is if you act on it or not. And, in addition, there is flirting within boundries which I personally think is good for the spirit, and lust. I don't lust over anyone.



This is because you believe in the Bible and all that it states in my opinion Ryan as you are not meant to lust. But, do you know how it makes a woman feel, if all she did to "please you" is then looked down on, forgotten about, thrown away as nothing especially if you ever told that to a woman " I do not want to remember what you did to me". It makes a woman feel worthless, dirty, why? Isn't that what you don't want her to feel?

I can't say that I have ever been tempted to sleep with someone in my entire life. It seems ridiculous to pay out all that hard earned cash to sleep with someone.

I respect all women whatever they are doing. I might keep out of the way of some of them though but I respect them.



Especially for women.



Only if you are daft enough to read too many women's magazines.



Can't she just give orders?



Spade doesn't believe in the Bible. He picks bits out of it which smooth his path.

Moral philosophy "Ethics" Is similar to other branches of philosophy "the more you engage in them the more you become familiar with them.
We have many branches of philosophy that people study and get PhD's in them but moral philosophy is the least studied branch of philosophy that I am aware of. Just as in other fields of study the more you are exposed to it them the more knowledgeable that you become about them.
Take for instance if you wanted to know as much a you could about theology you could study it and you would be more advanced in the subject than if you did not.

I see the bible as an out dated branch of philosophy that tries to explain things from natural philosophy "science" to moral philosophy "Ethics" and getting both of them wrong but isn't that how the rest of philosophy works? We understand them better over time. With religion though we are stuck in time by a few thousand years. Is that what you desire?

Do you follow the news there in Australia?
I do not really care for rap but I will take the news however intellectuals are willing to dish it out.

Being a woman, I've never entertained that thought of paying.. But, we all know you've been tempted a thousand times, to sleep with someone and off course, have duly complied. And, that, that was called "choice" on both behalves.

If all men, and most are, but if all men were like that, we'd not here the constant " I thought he loved me" as we do from women. Or, "I feel used".. There was a powerful video I watched once that you guys may, or may not agree with but it was filled with guys, apologising to women for various situations women have been put through, throughout the years. I may even be able to ask a dear friend to locate it, but I think you lot would start defending men

No I am definately not a feminist though I think she is.

FS said: If you guys don't do it, there can be some serious problems


Bah.. Disagree.. We have more options that you men do.

FS Said, Does not bonding between two souls come with having intercourse?



The only daft thing is to always and only, ever, have sex for the sake of having sex.. Yeah, I know what's love got to do with it. Isn't that where babies come from "Oh I felt that, so much love, think we just made a baby"

FS Said :- Does not pleasing a woman as we are all different, finding what is best for her,



Now come on, she'll get bored of that after a while, where's equality?

Gawd....

Yes--"after a while" is always the main problem. Too many people are speaking in the first flush of something or other.

Maybe lack of imagination or confidence is the cause of the boredom. I once asked a lady friend why she did the things she did and she said "Cos I like tormenting ya!" flashing her eyes.

Once the feminists demanded that Victorian bathing costumes should be set aside in favour of exposing more flesh "after a while" the top shelf magazines and various internet sites were inevitable. Now there's nowhere left to go. The movement has exhausted itself.

That was a thought expressed and developed in 1200 AD by Al-Sayed Haroun Ibn Hussein Al-Makhzoumi in a book called The Fountains of Pleasure translated by Harem El-Khalidi. The preface states that the book is for those "who sincerely wish to better themselves in the copulatory arts".

As the author, a geologist, was not allowed to remove the original from the library, where he came across it when researching the records of mining activity in the Arabian peninsula since King Solomon's day presumably to be better able to advise Westerners where to drill, it cannot be authenticated, which has led to a suspicion that the book is a spoof written by some joker with too much time on his hands and wit to spare.

Even if that were to be the case it detracts not one jot or tittle (have you tried one of them FS?) from the meaning of the words employed. Some Americans of a scientific cast of mind think that Charles Darwin never had a wank on the 5 year long journey of The Beagle because I had had a couple of pints of John Smith's Extra Smooth (Silk in a Glass) when I declared that he had wanked himself silly over the taffrail from beginning to end. Weather permitting.

These exemplars of scientific thought, whose literary skills can be studied on the evolution threads, firmly believe that there is no need to consider the social consequences of promoting atheistic, scientific materialism on the grounds that I was pissed when I said that the social consequences are the only subject of any importance. There is no chance that proponents of evolution theory began the journey they are on in pantsdown mode because I had my head up my arse when I pinpointed for them this exact location of their own launchpad.

The author stresses that flesh has been made by the Creator to be enjoyed to the fullest possible extent, as Mae West seems to have thought although she might have been putting us on. He says that it is "blasphemous" to deny Allah's gifts in the zone of operations under scrutiny. He adds that, unlike the animal kingdom, which I presume evolutionists are seeking to rediscover, Allah made sex pleasureable for man in order to make it imperative that it be constantly practiced.

I trust that all those who justify their remarks by reference to God's design are constantly practicing.

Poor men eh? It is one hell of a task for men to constantly practice but a good deal easier for women and thus women have much less excuse for not following God's design or even, one might say, of His demands. Of course I realise that constantly practising women would require constantly practising men and that if women constantly practised men would have to as well and that would result in women not being able to charge as much as they do. (I'm assuming no avoiding of the issue by recourse to others of the same gender. That's just boring. )

Another problem is that if women practised constantly and thus required men to do also as a necessity, and to the fullest extent, nothing would ever get done. Hence rationing is in order. Not only to keep up the price but to have something to buy when paid it.

That is why women who are prone to constantly practising are often referred to as "cheap". The corollary being that dear is best as it maximises bucks for bangs and then shopping is more fun for those who go against God and restrict their practice to short, well-spaced out encounters thus keeping God-fearing, pious male constant practice in a permanent state of humiliating supplication. If not a shunt off takes place and a replacement sought.

And the only God who promotes shopping is Mammon whose sales techniques run the whole gamut of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The author says that although the purpose is the enjoyment, I assume the whole hog sort, of both participants it is the man who should instruct the woman. "The woman", he says, "with her simple mind and lack of imagination will not be capable of bringing these pleasures to herself and to the man. If she is not taught she will act like a placid cow." (A flat out 100% misogynist).

He claims to have enjoyed sex with "hundreds of women" and to have "examined many more". Which suggests he never got to know any of them all that well.

And so FS, we come back by a "commodius vicus of recirculation" (one of James Joyce's piss-pot jokes) to you saying that women giving the orders is boring. Why don't you try it? I don't believe you are simple-minded and lack imagination. That picture of you in the maelstrom of the ghosts of electricity and the gods of speed tells me otherwise.

That's one way of defending Christianity that stumps the atheists. They are much happier with Spade's conduit to the Almighty and the fact that a whale's throat is too narrow to pass Jonah. There's no reason for an atheist not to seek the easiest method.

It's the same with gardening, three-card-brag and preparing porridge rl. And a lot of other things.

It comforts me that the writer of those first two paragraphs sees the Bible as an out dated branch of philosophy.

You are correct in saying that the more that one engages in those things the more that they become familiar with them but I must add that there are great distinguishing differences between religion and modern day ethics. The difference is that ethics today is advanced, where as religion is retarded and I do not mean that in a hateful way but rather in a way that demonstrates the huge difference in understanding between a few thousand years ago and our current understandings of moral philosophy.

Another note is that moral philosophy tries not to promote sociopathic behavior where as religion does it in the name of God. Have you ever asked yourself why the bible has the word blood in it more times than the words love, forgiveness and beauty combined?

I imagine the Bible has the word "blood" in it more than the words "love, forgiveness and beauty combined" because there was a lot more blood than there were "love, forgiveness and beauty combined" in those days.

A scientific truth recorded for posterity.

Then there was the New Testament and Christianity hoping to do something about it. The Arab Spring was kicked off by somebody burning themselves to death in Tunisia. And look at the struggles since then. Which are nothing to the struggles of Christianity.

Why don't you condemn evolution on the basis that one of our anscestors sucked in nutrient through a proboscis and the stones by the rivers were the only washing machines?

Do you constantly attack Christianity to avoid having to say what it is you want?

There are many fine Christians who are not religious bigots, and it is important to remember that we can be just as fallible as Christians. Many Christians are good people, and no one is a bad person just for being a Christian. With the exception of the lowlife Christian bigotry portrayed in this thread.

I do think that you have a point there, I have met some Christians that are pretty decent people, sure they make mistakes but don't we all? The only problems that I have with all of this is that the bible is taught to be the word of God and that a God is real. I find this to be misleading because there is no evidence to support such a claim and there are some very awful teachings that can be learned from reading the bible because of all the different interpretation that we have. Its not the interpretations by themselves because I think that it is very clear in the bible about how the 5th apes use to kill other neighboring 5th apes and keep the virgin apes for themselves but isn't that how old world apes do it today?

I would say you are correct



I do not attack Christianity to avoid having to say what it is I want, but what I do is speak up when I see immoral teachings being taught. Isn't that what it is all about " for all of us to understand truth no matter how inconvenient it may be?
You may say no because sometimes lies are required in order to have a civilization. I say "that it is because of these lies and not applying the scientific method, that we have suffering in the abundance that we have it.




You are asking me why don't I condemn nature for being the way that it is? the reason would be that nature would not listen to me but if I understand the part of nature that I dislike well enough I may be able to manipulate it to my advantage at times.