Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple

Brian Sapient on Twitter

Brian Sapient

Celebrity Atheists

List of atheist sites

Ask the atheist

Antiques and Art

When did Adam get a penis?

Posted on: May 8, 2007 - 5:59am

magilum

Posts: 2410

Joined: 2007-03-07

Offline

When did Adam get a penis?

In the second Genesis story, was Adam created with a penis? If so, why? It wasn't until God brought every single animal on earth before Adam to name that the topic of Adam's loneliness in the garden came up. Strange segue, I thought. Then God performs psychic surgery on Adam, and makes Eve out of a rib. But, if the idea of sexual reproduction followed making making a counterpart for Adam, and making that counterpart seemed an afterthought, why would Adam have any genitals at all?
If Adam was created in God's image, does God have a penis? If so, why?

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 8:44am #51

jcgadfly

Posts: 6791

Joined: 2006-07-18

Offline

A little off topic

A little off topic but...

Sugarfree,

You say you've been studying views on sex based on the writings that involved Solomon?

Interesting. Me, I always wondered, "Which wife or concubine helped Solomon finally solidify his views on sex?"

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 9:15am #52

pariahjane

Posts: 1595

Joined: 2006-05-06

Offline

]I'm going to add my 2

]I'm going to add my 2 cents into this little soiree if you don't mind. I think the church fucked people up about sex. As humans, we have these natural urges but the church insists we deny them. Boys (and girls, but for some stupid reason people aren't supposed to think girls rub one out), if you masturbate, you will go to hell. Girls are supposed to be chaste and pure for their husbands and ultimately become baby machines. And the guilt! We are not filthy dirty beings because we want pleasure. But it seems as if the church wants us to have sex ONLY for procreation. Does the church teach pleasing your spouse? Are there Sunday school classes on foreplay? I doubt it.

Perhaps if the church lightened up on the hellfire and brimstone when it comes to sex, we might not have so many issues with it in the first place.

On a random note I knew a girl who once said the reason she knew there was no god was because women's orgasms weren't nearly as intense as men's and much harder to come by, being that women can't have intervaginal orgasms. And if there was a god, he a fucking jerk for making women that way.

sugarfree wrote:

Have you ever been inside a church? You, growing up an atheist, exactly how many Sunday's, Wednesday's, Tuesday's, did you spend there. Have you spent enough time to make an accurate assumption of what the church is, in fact, teaching? The church recognizes natural urges, recognizes that the are not bad, but in fact, are good. God intended us to have them, because he created sex for our pleasure. However, he also drew boundary lines describing the healthy situation in which to enjoy this gift he has given us. The boundary lines are for our own good. He, in this case, is like a parent protecting it's children. Would you tell your 13 year old daughter to go out and start havingn sex? No, because that would be damaging to her, as she is not mature enough. The problem with us humans is that often we assume we are much stronger and more mature than we actually are. We think we have it all under control when in fact we do not. Hence, we start playing with fire and we get ourselves in trouble. This post is just a combination of your misconception about God's message regarding sex and the way the church teaches it. If this is truly how you believe the church regards sex, no wonder you think the church sucks, but what I am telling you is that, with the exception of the far right fundamentalists, you are wrong in your interpretations. The far right fundamentalists are wrong in their interpretation of sex. Luckily, this is a free country, and no one is being forced into fundamentalist churches. People are free to choose from the majority of balanced churches that are out there.

From the stories I hear from the religious people around me, I feel I am entitled to give my opinion, Sugarfree. I listen to the stories those people tell me and I can make my assessment there. The fact that most of those stories have a common factor, guilt, leads me to believe that that is what the church teaches. Let's just specify which church. I'm talking about the Catholic church. I worked with a woman who's daughter, on her wedding night, was so terrified of having sex because it was so sinful, that she spent the night crying on the phone to her mother. They are currently having marital problems because she doesn't like to have sex with her husband, since it 'makes her dirty in the eyes of god'. I'm pretty sure she didn't come up with this all on her own.

I also knew a guy who said that, as a young teenage, he was fearful about touching his penis when he went to the bathroom, in case god thought he was masturbating. His mother had always told him that if he masturbated, god would strike him down.

There are more tales like these out there, much more I'm sure. I don't think my opinion is baseless,nor do I think I am wrong in my interpretation.

If god takes life he's an indian giver

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 10:49am #53

JCE

Posts: 1219

Joined: 2007-03-20

Offline

sugarfree wrote: I make

sugarfree wrote:

I make mistakes sometimes, but I am not going to walk on eggshells to try to avoid making them.

Not asking you to walk on eggshells; just asking you to stop making asinine assumptions about people. Your comment had an implication behind it that the poster could not possibly understand your garbage-ridden thoughts because he/she is a male.

sugarfree wrote:

I disagree with you and I will use your kind of language to explain. Females are wired to be nurturers. Back in our caveman days, females would have needed a man to support her so that she could pop out babies. That male would have provided food, protection, so she could do her nurturing. These instincts are still in us today. The men are the go getters. The women are the nurturers. Education is not going to make those instincts go away. You can learn behaviors that are contrary to your wiring, but the wiring is still there. (I suppose there are women that are wired more like males, but I think that would be the exception.)

You and I have discussed nurturing before and I will once again ask you to provide proof of your statements. You failed to do so the last time so I am not holding out much hope that you will this time either.

sugarfree wrote:

One thing I have learned in my marriage is that I have to "unlearn" some of the controlling behaviors I picked up along the way in order to "protect" myself. I did not trust a male enough to do the protecting for me, so I tried to do it. But, this, I have found out, is damaging to the male ego. He wants to be the go getter, the protector, and if you do not allow him to do that, he feels imasculated. If however, you relinquish some of your control and let him take care of things, his ego and confidence goes way up. I've seen it happen with my own husband. And the beauty of it is, when I stop trying to be the male and the female in the relationship, I finally get to relax and stop being so high strung all the time.

I truly feel sorry for you if this is the basis of your marriage. I would much rather have someone that makes me feel special because they care about me and treat me as an equal. I would rather have someone that values my thoughts and opinions as opposed to someone that expects me to "know my place" so that his precious ego doesn't get damaged. I do not doubt that you have convinced yourself that you are happier now but I do wonder how long it will last. How long will you be able to "play your part" before you get sick of the subjugation?

sugarfree wrote:

Did you go to a church that brainwashed you and so this is how you think they all are? You are wrong about this. Perhaps the churches definition of sex in marriage makes you assume they think sex is "dirty" however, that is not the case. You have missed the point.

No, you have missed the point. Just because you do not feel that your church does this does not mean that the majority do not do it. Have you researched other religions?

sugarfree wrote:

"Well, yeah, sort of. There are no graphic details in this one tho. It just leads up to it, then closes the curtain, and opens back up afterwards." - sugarfree
Please, I don't need to know Solomon's techniques. This comment of your is a stretch in my opinion. I'm here talking to you about it now. Do I seem shy or embarrassed about it? (I even said the "p" word a couple times. I'm such a heathen.)

Yes, actually you do seem shy and embarrassed - ("p" word?). Why not talk about technique? Why not discuss mutual satisfaction?

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 12:12pm #54

sugarfree

Posts: 478

Joined: 2007-03-14

Offline

jcgadfly wrote: A little

jcgadfly wrote:

A little off topic but...
Sugarfree,
You say you've been studying views on sex based on the writings that involved Solomon?
Interesting. Me, I always wondered, "Which wife or concubine helped Solomon finally solidify his views on sex?"

That is a good question. I actually asked my husband that a couple Sundays ago. I cannot answer your question exceot to say the only perfect individual, without blemish, in the Bible, is Jesus. The rest have their faults, often glaringly so. We learn by observing their failures as well as their successes. And all of us, even the best among us, have their own personal vices.

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 12:34pm #55

sugarfree

Posts: 478

Joined: 2007-03-14

Offline

jce wrote: Not asking you

jce wrote:

Not asking you to walk on eggshells; just asking you to stop making asinine assumptions about people.

Don’t be so sensitive, JCE. (Hmm, where have I heard that before?)

jce wrote:

Your comment had an implication behind it that the poster could not possibly understand your garbage-ridden thoughts because he/she is a male.

I’m sensing a little bias in this comment.

jce wrote:

You and I have discussed nurturing before and I will once again ask you to provide proof of your statements.

Science? Observation of animal behavior? Or is that not good enough for you when you when you would rather just fight.

jce wrote:

I truly feel sorry for you if this is the basis of your marriage.

Do you really want me to bring up the comment I heard you make about your marrital history? I think I will instead go off of the models of my parents, grandparents, and extended family, as divorce is not common in my family (nor my husband’s) so they must be doing something right.

jce wrote:

I would much rather have someone that makes me feel special because they care about me and treat me as an equal.

When did I say my husband does not treat me as an equal. If anything I have had the tendency to treat him as my lesser, and that has been wrong, so I have had to learn to pull back and stop trying to be wonder woman.

jce wrote:

I would rather have someone that values my thoughts and opinions as opposed to someone that expects me to "know my place" so that his precious ego doesn't get damaged.

You really really don’t get it. I love my husband and therefore want him to be confident, and it is my duty as I wife to support his maleness, just as it is his duty to support my femalenss. We have a mutual respect for each other that allows us to grow into the best people we can be. You know absolutely nothing about my marriage. So, would you please refrain from making such assinine comments?

jce wrote:

I do not doubt that you have convinced yourself that you are happier now but I do wonder how long it will last. How long will you be able to "play your part" before you get sick of the subjugation?

You have gone to the far far left of the feminism pendulum JCE. Your words wreak with ultra-feminism, which I consider to be a negative trend. Feminism, to me is about allowing women to be what they truly are, WOMEN. We should not be forced into some male mold, which is what you seem to be trying to do with me.

jce wrote:

No, you have missed the point. Just because you do not feel that your church does this does not mean that the majority do not do it. Have you researched other religions?

I have been accused here of not being able to see both sides of the coin. Now, I am going to accusing you of the same.

jce wrote:

Yes, actually you do seem shy and embarrassed - ("p" word?). Why not talk about technique? Why not discuss mutual satisfaction?

I am not surprised you would say this, just out of spite. You seem in a fighting mood. I didn’t write Song of Solomon. The author left the details out. So sue me! There’s nothing wrong with talking about technique and all that stuff it just happens to not be in the Bible, but I have heard of some churches supporting classes that do just that. (By the way, the “p” word comment was a JOKE, but of course, since I am a theist, you cannot find anything I say funny…that would be giving me a little credit.)

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 12:47pm #56

sugarfree

Posts: 478

Joined: 2007-03-14

Offline

pariahjane wrote: From the

pariahjane wrote:

From the stories I hear from the religious people around me, I feel I am entitled to give my opinion, Sugarfree.

None of you accept my “stories” as evidence, so why should I offer you the same courtesy? I am just playing by, what seems to be, the agreed upon rules here.

pariahjane wrote:

I listen to the stories those people tell me and I can make my assessment there. The fact that most of those stories have a common factor, guilt, leads me to believe that that is what the church teaches.

Spend some time in a church, then come back to me and offer me your evidence.

pariahjane wrote:

Let's just specify which church. I'm talking about the Catholic church. I worked with a woman who's daughter, on her wedding night, was so terrified of having sex because it was so sinful, that she spent the night crying on the phone to her mother. They are currently having marital problems because she doesn't like to have sex with her husband, since it 'makes her dirty in the eyes of god'. I'm pretty sure she didn't come up with this all on her own.

I am not a Catholic, but judging on this, yes, first her parents should have prepared her better, second her church could have supported the parents teaching by emphasizing that sex is good, not dirty. However, some people are scared by nature and will be afraid no matter what.

pariahjane wrote:

I also knew a guy who said that, as a young teenage, he was fearful about touching his penis when he went to the bathroom, in case god thought he was masturbating. His mother had always told him that if he masturbated, god would strike him down.

Again, insufficient, poor parenting.

pariahjane wrote:

There are more tales like these out there, much more I'm sure. I don't think my opinion is baseless,nor do I think I am wrong in my interpretation.

There are also good stories out there, but you most likely will not hear them unless you step into a church and get to know the people there. You certainly cannot get a clear picture of both sides simply by looking in from the outside. I am the first to say the church in the past has not provided clear teachings about sex, but ultimately the parents are the responsible party. They cannot just expect a church to teach their kid everything about the world and/or relinquish all their responsibilities on the church. The parents are the ones that need to get off their butts and make sure their kids are educated on sex, and in this day and age it needs to start around age 7 or age 8…not 13, 16, 18, or never at all.

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 1:01pm #57

pariahjane

Posts: 1595

Joined: 2006-05-06

Offline

sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:

pariahjane wrote:
From the stories I hear from the religious people around me, I feel I am entitled to give my opinion, Sugarfree.
None of you accept my “stories” as evidence, so why should I offer you the same courtesy? I am just playing by, what seems to be, the agreed upon rules here.
pariahjane wrote:
I listen to the stories those people tell me and I can make my assessment there. The fact that most of those stories have a common factor, guilt, leads me to believe that that is what the church teaches.
Spend some time in a church, then come back to me and offer me your evidence.
pariahjane wrote:
Let's just specify which church. I'm talking about the Catholic church. I worked with a woman who's daughter, on her wedding night, was so terrified of having sex because it was so sinful, that she spent the night crying on the phone to her mother. They are currently having marital problems because she doesn't like to have sex with her husband, since it 'makes her dirty in the eyes of god'. I'm pretty sure she didn't come up with this all on her own.
I am not a Catholic, but judging on this, yes, first her parents should have prepared her better, second her church could have supported the parents teaching by emphasizing that sex is good, not dirty. However, some people are scared by nature and will be afraid no matter what.
pariahjane wrote:
I also knew a guy who said that, as a young teenage, he was fearful about touching his penis when he went to the bathroom, in case god thought he was masturbating. His mother had always told him that if he masturbated, god would strike him down.
Again, insufficient, poor parenting.
pariahjane wrote:
There are more tales like these out there, much more I'm sure. I don't think my opinion is baseless,nor do I think I am wrong in my interpretation.
There are also good stories out there, but you most likely will not hear them unless you step into a church and get to know the people there. You certainly cannot get a clear picture of both sides simply by looking in from the outside. I am the first to say the church in the past has not provided clear teachings about sex, but ultimately the parents are the responsible party. They cannot just expect a church to teach their kid everything about the world and/or relinquish all their responsibilities on the church. The parents are the ones that need to get off their butts and make sure their kids are educated on sex, and in this day and age it needs to start around age 7 or age 8…not 13, 16, 18, or never at all.

You use your stories to try to prove a point (namely the existence of god) or to provide evidence of something. I was merely giving my opinion on the subject, without making a point or attempting to provide evidence of something. There is a difference.

Of course, I won't make any comment about the Catholic church.

Let me rephrase it - those parents came up with some cockamamey idea about this supernatural being called god who preaches that kids should masturbate. One night, these parents just woke up and said eureka! I know how I'll keep my kid from whacking off or having pre-marital sex, I'll scare the crap out of them with the figment of my imagination. You're aboslutely right, it had nothing to do with church and everything to do with poor parenting. Thanks for the clarification!

On a side note - I don't feel that any post I've written in this thread was accusatory or nasty towards you. However, your post to jce and this one were nasty, combative and you are passively agressively making personal attacks. I don't recall doing that to you and your behavior is unwarranted.

If god takes life he's an indian giver

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 1:10pm #58

Strafio

Posts: 1346

Joined: 2006-09-11

Offline

sugarfree wrote: I think

sugarfree wrote:

I think the laws still apply today. Main reason this law still applies is because God is very against divorce i.e., he breakup of the family. Certain behaviors before marriage can weaken the bond of marriage later, if the two do not know how to handle the issues that come up. Like, if one partner gets bored with the sex life and suddenly starts thinking of past people thinking…oops I should have picked them.

So your first reason is that you believe pre-marital partners make a divorce more likely.
But what's to stop a Christian for wondering 'what if' about other people they used a know but didn't have sex with? How would the fact that they slept with other people make it more likely?

Hypothetically: If statistics were to show that marriages of people who had past partners had a better success rate than 'virgin' marriages, would that change your mind?
It would show that your theories were not true to practice.

Quote:

This is another one. A marriage will be stronger if both people go into it as whole people, knowing how to make themselves happy outside of the opposite sex relationship.

Your second reason is that you believe that people who have held back are better at keeping themselves happy outside of the relationship.
I don't see any reason to believe this.
People who engage in pre-marital sex can still be in control.
Likewise, someone who has held back might've been pinning all their hopes into their marital sex life.

Quote:

There is a difference, however the more you skip around, the more you up your risk. And if the relationship is not all the committed, the person is more likely to lie and take advantage of you. If they don’t see things lasting for the long haul, they have a lot less responsibility to you as a person.

And your third reason is that you feel that people take a relationship more seriously if they're committed for life. Once again, this can cut two ways. Many people take their relationships very seriously, just recognise that they depend upon circumstances beyond their control and recognise when a relationship is over. I think you can see in some marriages when a relationship is over but they stay together in an awkward living situation despite it.

Another point is that when a person is married they might feel less inclined to take it seriously now they have their partner in the bag and see no reason to try anymore. Some might go as far as to abuse and take advantage of their partner now they know it's difficult for them to leave.

So far, all we have shown is that we disagree on the best way to have a sex life. You think it's best to save it for marriage, I think otherwise. My main point, however, is this:
If God's laws are simply rules to getting the best of life, why are they presented as unbreakable laws that you should burn in hell for breaking? Why not present them as 'good advice' that someone can learn from or learn the hardway if necessary?
When Christians present ideas like yours as advice, no one has a problem because they are just expressing their honest opinion on the best way to live life. When Christians bring 'punishment', 'hellfire' and 'don't make God angry!' into it, they are no longer offering advice but threatening people into conforming with their rules. It is no longer constructive advice on how you might live a full life, but someone demanding that you do as they say or suffer punishment.

So even if you agree with the advice that Christians give, surely you agree that they should present it in more constructive and rational ways rather than trying to scare and intimidate people into going along with them, right?

Thoughts?

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 1:20pm #59

sugarfree

Posts: 478

Joined: 2007-03-14

Offline

pariahjane

pariahjane wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
From the stories I hear from the religious people around me, I feel I am entitled to give my opinion, Sugarfree.
None of you accept my “stories” as evidence, so why should I offer you the same courtesy? I am just playing by, what seems to be, the agreed upon rules here.
pariahjane wrote:
I listen to the stories those people tell me and I can make my assessment there. The fact that most of those stories have a common factor, guilt, leads me to believe that that is what the church teaches.
Spend some time in a church, then come back to me and offer me your evidence.
pariahjane wrote:
Let's just specify which church. I'm talking about the Catholic church. I worked with a woman who's daughter, on her wedding night, was so terrified of having sex because it was so sinful, that she spent the night crying on the phone to her mother. They are currently having marital problems because she doesn't like to have sex with her husband, since it 'makes her dirty in the eyes of god'. I'm pretty sure she didn't come up with this all on her own.
I am not a Catholic, but judging on this, yes, first her parents should have prepared her better, second her church could have supported the parents teaching by emphasizing that sex is good, not dirty. However, some people are scared by nature and will be afraid no matter what.
pariahjane wrote:
I also knew a guy who said that, as a young teenage, he was fearful about touching his penis when he went to the bathroom, in case god thought he was masturbating. His mother had always told him that if he masturbated, god would strike him down.
Again, insufficient, poor parenting.
pariahjane wrote:
There are more tales like these out there, much more I'm sure. I don't think my opinion is baseless,nor do I think I am wrong in my interpretation.
There are also good stories out there, but you most likely will not hear them unless you step into a church and get to know the people there. You certainly cannot get a clear picture of both sides simply by looking in from the outside. I am the first to say the church in the past has not provided clear teachings about sex, but ultimately the parents are the responsible party. They cannot just expect a church to teach their kid everything about the world and/or relinquish all their responsibilities on the church. The parents are the ones that need to get off their butts and make sure their kids are educated on sex, and in this day and age it needs to start around age 7 or age 8…not 13, 16, 18, or never at all.

You use your stories to try to prove a point (namely the existence of god) or to provide evidence of something. I was merely giving my opinion on the subject, without making a point or attempting to provide evidence of something. There is a difference.
Of course, I won't make any comment about the Catholic church.
Let me rephrase it - those parents came up with some cockamamey idea about this supernatural being called god who preaches that kids should masturbate. One night, these parents just woke up and said eureka! I know how I'll keep my kid from whacking off or having pre-marital sex, I'll scare the crap out of them with the figment of my imagination. You're aboslutely right, it had nothing to do with church and everything to do with poor parenting. Thanks for the clarification!
On a side note - I don't feel that any post I've written in this thread was accusatory or nasty towards you. However, your post to jce and this one were nasty, combative and you are passively agressively making personal attacks. I don't recall doing that to you and your behavior is unwarranted.

I don't feel my post to you was nasty. For one, I was trying out some of the techniques I've learned from you all to see how it would go. For two, I am getting sick of the stereotypes that I am hearing...i.e., the church is "a" the church is "b", with no balance presented on the other side. I don't believe you all would let me get away with that. You would point out to me that I am stereotyping, so I did the same.

Regarding the post to JCE, that's between me and her. But the discussion between JCE and I is getting a little to personal for my comfort, so you probably won't be seeing any more posts like that from me. (I do try to learn from my mistakes.)

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 1:46pm #60

sugarfree

Posts: 478

Joined: 2007-03-14

Offline

Strafio wrote: So your

Strafio wrote:

So your first reason is that you believe pre-marital partners make a divorce more likely.
But what's to stop a Christian for wondering 'what if' about other people they used a know but didn't have sex with?

Yes, this could and probably does happen, but I would rather wonder this than wonder if I live up to all the past partners my husband had. It seems the lesser of two evils. However, yes, I grant, this question could and probably does come up.

Strafio wrote:

Hypothetically:[/b] If statistics were to show that marriages of people who had past partners had a better success rate than 'virgin' marriages, would that change your mind?

Perhaps. Do you have such a study?

Strafio wrote:

Your second reason is that you believe that people who have held back are better at keeping themselves happy outside of the relationship.

Yes, this could depend on the person. However, a female who just jumps from male to male looking for fulfillment could be in trouble, I think.

Strafio wrote:

Likewise, someone who has held back might've been pinning all their hopes into their marital sex life.

I agree. Young people should be cautioned not to expect sex to solve all of life's problems and such, but if they are given a clear comprehensive understanding of sex, they hopefully would not develop this misconception. Also, I think females in particular would need to be told that their sex life will be a learning process, and not to be bummed if it doesn't live up to expectations immediately. There is no reason why this kind of info should be kept from a person who has decided to wait for marriage.

Strafio wrote:

And your third reason is that you feel that people take a relationship more seriously if they're committed for life. Once again, this can cut two ways. Many people take their relationships very seriously, just recognise that they depend upon circumstances beyond their control and recognise when a relationship is over. I think you can see in some marriages when a relationship is over but they stay together in an awkward living situation despite it. Another point is that when a person is married they might feel less inclined to take it seriously now they have their partner in the bag and see no reason to try anymore. Some might go as far as to abuse and take advantage of their partner now they know it's difficult for them to leave.

Yes, this could happen in a marriage relationship. Relationships are complicated, no? People need to know this, that there will be ups and downs, that it won't always be a bed of roses. Commitment means staying with the person thru the good and the bad and being willing to talk thru these types of problems that can come up. The problems/issues themselves just come with the territory of being in a relationship. How the couple decides to deal with them will determine whether they stay together or not.

Strafio wrote:

So far, all we have shown is that we disagree on the best way to have a sex life. You think it's best to save it for marriage, I think otherwise. My main point, however, is this:
If God's laws are simply rules to getting the best of life, why are they presented as unbreakable laws that you should burn in hell for breaking?

In Christianity you don't go to hell because you break rules. It's expected that you will break some or a lot along the way, however, it is also expected that, when you realize you've done wrong, you apologize to God.

Strafio wrote:

Why not present them as 'good advice' that someone can learn from or learn the hardway if necessary?[
When Christians present ideas like yours as advice, no one has a problem because they are just expressing their honest opinion on the best way to live life. When Christians bring 'punishment', 'hellfire' and 'don't make God angry!' into it, they are no longer offering advice but threatening people into conforming with their rules.

Yes, I agree. This is how I view the Bible. I don't see it as a book that judges me, but that offers me advice on how to live a good life. If I viewed it the other way, then I would be turned off by it, just like others here. But, I happen to believe God works with us rather than against us and he wants what is best for us.

Strafio wrote:

It is no longer constructive advice on how you might live a full life, but someone demanding that you do as they say or suffer punishment.

[b]So even if you agree with the advice that Christians give, surely you agree that they should present it in more constructive and rational ways rather than trying to scare and intimidate people into going along with them, right?

I agree, I think the way it is presented is very important. I think that concentrating on the hellfire stuff confuses people about the nature of God and rightfully so. Like I said before, I do not feel that God is judging me, but instead he is guiding on how to live to the best of my ability. I am not going to sit here and say I've been Miss Perfect. There is a lot to be said for learning from one's own mistakes. I do not regret my past actions in that because of them, I had to work thru many issues that led me to become a better stronger person. However, now when I learn about God's intended plan (specifically regarding sex, because I did not even know about this stuff until a couple years ago), I say, "oops. Sorry God. (somewhat sheepishly), guess I was pretty naive, huh?" But then I also thank him because in all my stupidness, he still managed to guide me to a really good place.

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 2:55pm #61

pariahjane

Posts: 1595

Joined: 2006-05-06

Offline

You are being a tad passive

You are being a tad passive aggressive, Sugarfree. Perhaps you don't see it. Again, I'll reiterrate that I was in no way trying to 'prove' something by my previous post. It was merely my own personal observation. The difference between mine and your is that the intent of your anecdotes is to prove something. If I wanted to prove to you that the church's stance on sex is negative, I would have provided you with evidence to back up my hypothesis.

A person does not have to go to church and become a member to see what the church is all about. It's called research. A researcher could immerse themself in the society of the church (I believe this is called ethnography) but there are other ways in which to research and study a group without becoming part of the group. Those methods are developed to present the evidence in the most unbiased way possible. That's the great thing about research. If that was what you meant by your comment that I should 'spend time in a church', then we are in agreement and I would love to research the dynamics of a church group. If that isn't, then perhaps you should check out various the research communication or sociological research methods. They're quite interesting.

If god takes life he's an indian giver

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 3:03pm #62

Strafio

Posts: 1346

Joined: 2006-09-11

Offline

sugarfree wrote: Yes, this

sugarfree wrote:

Yes, this could depend on the person. However, a female who just jumps from male to male looking for fulfillment could be in trouble, I think.

I think that most people need to settle down eventually, but I also think that they shouldn't force themselves to try and settle until they are genuinely ready. Settling down is a lot easier when you've had some fun and know first hand that it won't fullfill you. Maybe it wasn't necessary for you, but not everybody shares your case.

Quote:

Yes, this could happen in a marriage relationship. Relationships are complicated, no? People need to know this, that there will be ups and downs, that it won't always be a bed of roses. Commitment means staying with the person thru the good and the bad and being willing to talk thru these types of problems that can come up. The problems/issues themselves just come with the territory of being in a relationship. How the couple decides to deal with them will determine whether they stay together or not.

Long term relationships have a degree of commitment, they just aren't legally tied. So if your relationship is trully dead beyond resurrection (which can happen to the best of us due to circumstances beyond our control) you can let it end rather than being stuck with it. Not saying that people shouldn't get married, but "no sex until" rules put pressure on people to marry that might force them into a bad decision. I'll probably marry someday, but I can be sure that it'll be for the right reasons. Sounds like your way is working for you anyhow, and that's what counts.

Quote:

I agree, I think the way it is presented is very important. I think that concentrating on the hellfire stuff confuses people about the nature of God and rightfully so. Like I said before, I do not feel that God is judging me, but instead he is guiding on how to live to the best of my ability.

I don't think that there's much left for us to argue about.
Just a couple of last points for me to make:
1) As the point of the Bible's advice is to enrich a person's life, then surely other religions/beliefs/approaches should also be acceptable so long as they are working, i.e. the person is happy. (and they should know whether they are happy or not)
2) You promise me that if you ever find that something is clearly wrong by your common sense and a Christian preacher tries to justify it with words from the Bible, you don't believe a word he says!

Laters

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 3:39pm #63

sugarfree

Posts: 478

Joined: 2007-03-14

Offline

Strafio wrote: You promise

Strafio wrote:

You promise me that if you ever find that something is clearly wrong by your common sense and a Christian preacher tries to justify it with words from the Bible, you don't believe a word he says!

You make good points and do so in a kindly manner.

Don't worry. I would never put my complete faith in any preacher (or human being) only God. That requires me to, like you said, use common sense and and listen critically at all times.

See ya around!

Posted on: May 9, 2007 - 3:50pm #64

sugarfree

Posts: 478

Joined: 2007-03-14

Offline

pariahjane wrote: You are

pariahjane wrote:

You are being a tad passive aggressive, Sugarfree. Perhaps you don't see it.

I'll grant that my words were/have been more forceful. My emotions are checked at the door, as was suggested by many of you. Perhaps that has led me to be a bit more fharsh in my wordings because I'm not taking this as seriously. As far as passive-aggressive, don't know if I'm ready to agree with you on that.

pariahjane wrote:

Again, I'll reiterrate that I was in no way trying to 'prove' something by my previous post. It was merely my own personal observation.

Okay.

pariahjane wrote:

The difference between mine and your is that the intent of your anecdotes is to prove something.

I dunno if I agree, but it's not really a big deal.

pariahjane wrote:

If I wanted to prove to you that the church's stance on sex is negative, I would have provided you with evidence to back up my hypothesis.
A person does not have to go to church and become a member to see what the church is all about. It's called research. A researcher could immerse themself in the society of the church (I believe this is called ethnography) but there are other ways in which to research and study a group without becoming part of the group. Those methods are developed to present the evidence in the most unbiased way possible. That's the great thing about research. If that was what you meant by your comment that I should 'spend time in a church', then we are in agreement and I would love to research the dynamics of a church group.

If you chose to do so, I think you would learn a lot. And I think you would find that you are operating on some false stereotypes, which is what I was trying to point out with that post.

Posted on: October 10, 2007 - 6:14am #65

magilum

Posts: 2410

Joined: 2007-03-07

Offline

I had a similar question.

I had a similar question. Note the many derail attempts by one theist.

Posted on: October 11, 2007 - 12:25am #66

Pathofreason

Posts: 320

Joined: 2006-12-23

Offline

Haha

Thats awesome dude! I didn't even realize.

Posted on: October 11, 2007 - 8:11am #67

DrTerwilliker

Posts: 151

Joined: 2007-08-06

Offline

Pathofreason wrote: 2. Why

Pathofreason wrote:

2. Why would they be ashamed if they had no reproductive organs?

Hmmm.... maybe they thought they were fat.

Posted on: October 11, 2007 - 10:29am #68

shelley

Posts: 1859

Joined: 2006-12-26

Offline

I'm not a theist but I'm

I'm not a theist but I'm going to have to play one for a second to answer this.

Isn't their "correct" answer that they always had reproductive organs and that the original sin made them aware that they should be ashamed of these - therefore the need to cover up.

Posted on: October 11, 2007 - 11:15am #69

Jacob Cordingley

Posts: 1484

Joined: 2007-03-18

Offline

Ahh but the point is that

Ahh but the point is that they didn't need reproductive organs before they'd sinned.

Posted on: October 11, 2007 - 11:29am #70

nullusdeus

Posts: 126

Joined: 2007-02-15

Offline

pariahjane wrote: Maybe

pariahjane wrote:

Maybe that's why god is so uptight about sex. He doesn't have a penis!!

God has to have a penis, how did he knock-up Mary? Oh, that's right... it was a ZAP your pregnant thing! LOL

Miracles don't exist. "Miracle" is a word given to a preposterous event that a theist considers dogmatically advantageous. Def. - Ecclesiastical sensationalism.

Posted on: October 11, 2007 - 3:04pm #71

Pathofreason

Posts: 320

Joined: 2006-12-23

Offline

God's miracle of spontaneous Penis and vagina growth!

I asked this question today to one of my Christian friends and even posted it on yahoo answer. He is a creationist and he could not think of any good answer and for the first time in his life he thought of the possibility that the Genesis story isn't literal.

So when exactly did God give Adam and Eve reproductive organs?

In the first Chapter of Genesis god says Go forth and multiply, in the second Adam and Eve get punished and become ashamed. At which point did Adam and Eve get reproductive organs? I mean did they grow spontaneously after Eve ate the Fruit because they became ashamed and covered up right after. Why would they be ashamed of themselves unless God created them with reproductive organs. If they didn't have them in the first place then why would they ever be ashamed of being naked. This brought about a couple of questions.
1. Why would god create them with sex organs if they served no purpose until they sinned.
2. Why would they be ashamed if they had no reproductive organs?
or 3. Why weren't they surprised if they all of a sudden grew sex organs
4. How can anyone think this really happened?I swear my friend could not come up with an answer....he didn't even try to use the "God works in mysterious ways" he was very perplexed by this.

Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com

www.pathofreason.com

Check it out

Posted on: October 11, 2007 - 7:02pm #72

shelley

Posts: 1859

Joined: 2006-12-26

Offline

Jacob Cordingley wrote: Ahh

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Ahh but the point is that they didn't need reproductive organs before they'd sinned.

am i missing something? if i am, please tell me. heck, i'm a pretty outspoken atheist but i don't see this specific flaw in the story of creation. granted there are many, many other ones but how does this say they were not made with these organs - for christ's sake (pardon the pun) he even talks about plants having seeds. everything could multiply - the only thing than changed after the apple was that they were now ashamed of what they had always been (naked) and childbirth became painful.

Posted on: October 11, 2007 - 8:24pm #73

magilum

Posts: 2410

Joined: 2007-03-07

Offline

You could really

You could really interrogate the "in our image" line with any aspect of human anatomy. The "penis" question is glaring because it pertains to sexual reproduction, so it begs the question what Yahweh needed a penis for if there's only him. (Maybe Yahweh needed something to do while he whiles away the aeons.) Really, you could apply that to all the amenities of land mammal status: legs, arms, nostrils, etc. If Yahweh is infinite, why does he resemble a land mammal? If he doesn't, how can we be made in his image?

Posted on: October 11, 2007 - 8:26pm #74

magilum

Posts: 2410

Joined: 2007-03-07

Offline

Oh, and one answer I recall

Oh, and one answer I recall is that "in our image" just meant "as we envision." But, couldn't that apply to anything? Wouldn't absolutely everything be as Yahweh imagined it? The distinction wouldn't make any sense.

Posted on: October 12, 2007 - 9:55am #75

shelley

Posts: 1859

Joined: 2006-12-26

Offline

magilum wrote: You could

magilum wrote:

You could really interrogate the "in our image" line with any aspect of human anatomy. The "penis" question is glaring because it pertains to sexual reproduction, so it begs the question what Yahweh needed a penis for if there's only him. (Maybe Yahweh needed something to do while he whiles away the aeons.) Really, you could apply that to all the amenities of land mammal status: legs, arms, nostrils, etc. If Yahweh is infinite, why does he resemble a land mammal? If he doesn't, how can we be made in his image?

ah, i see what you're saying now. good point!

Posted on: October 12, 2007 - 11:57am #76

AngelEngine

Posts: 106

Joined: 2007-10-01

Offline

Jerking off might be a good

Jerking off might be a good passage of time for Adam... Till eve came along, and then he had a REALLY good time apparently.

I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.

Posted on: October 12, 2007 - 4:28pm #77

magilum

Posts: 2410

Joined: 2007-03-07

Offline

Maybe Adam was a

Maybe Adam was a hermaphrodite to begin with, and "rib" was a mistranslation of "vagina."

Posted on: October 12, 2007 - 7:01pm #78

AngelEngine

Posts: 106

Joined: 2007-10-01

Offline

magilum wrote: Maybe Adam

magilum wrote:

Maybe Adam was a hermaphrodite to begin with, and "rib" was a mistranslation of "vagina."

Maybe he had a penis and a vagina, and jerked off and impregenated himself?Gives a whole new meaning to asexual reproduction, huh?

I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.

Posted on: October 12, 2007 - 7:03pm #79

Brian37

Posts: 16463

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

magilum wrote: In the

magilum wrote:

In the second Genesis story, was Adam created with a penis? If so, why? It wasn't until God brought every single animal on earth before Adam to name that the topic of Adam's loneliness in the garden came up. Strange segue, I thought. Then God performs psychic surgery on Adam, and makes Eve out of a rib. But, if the idea of sexual reproduction followed making making a counterpart for Adam, and making that counterpart seemed an afterthought, why would Adam have any genitals at all?
If Adam was created in God's image, does God have a penis? If so, why?

Silly rationalist, myth is for theists.

Of course God has a dick, it's just invisable. How do you think he knocked up Mary?(9-14 years old btw and already married).

Oh wait, I didnt mean to say God has a dick. I ment to say he is a dick. Ok, the bright boy upstairs wants us to suck up to him, knowing what it takes to convice us, but the best he can do is spin yarns about talking snakes?

Really nice of the bastard to not give Eve the option of headaches, maybe humanity wouldnt be in this mess if she said, 'Not tonight, I have a headache".

The only real headache here is that people still buy this myth.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog