100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The NO BIBLE ALLOWED Thread can you handle it? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You have a fetish with hatred I guess. There is absolutely no hatred. it's a fact of controlling yourself. Controlling your flesh through your spirit. Doing actions with your flesh that pleases the spirit. Working the two in harmony. The flesh automatically desires sinful things, sex, drinking, drugs, ect. *yes I know not ALL has these desires* But it about if one is willing to act upon these desires to please the flesh, or to seek the things the spirit wishes. Cowboy ...I'm only going by what you posted....anyone that claim that their flesh is sin means that they don't like their flesh you also claim that you are posessed by a spirit that helps you deny yourself any pleasure now do you understand why it sound like you don't like yourself I'm not "possessed" by any spirit lol. We are spirits, we are spirits in flesh. The flesh is merely a holding container. That is why if you read in the old testament, sins are passed down from generation to generation until it it is forgiven. Sin is in the flesh until it's forgiven. oh oh...Cowboy.....did you mention The Old Testment? ....see this is positive proof that you been preaching from the bible Is Cowboy trying to weasel out of being a preacher again? 
Most respectable preachers at least CONFESS what they are up to. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 05/08/11 02:38 PM
|
|
Cowboy said: There is no difference between "just having sex" and "irresponsible sex". They are the same lol. That's your assertion, not mine. If two people "just have sex" and have taken "full responsibility" for any consequences of that action, including having taken precaution to make it as safe as they possibly could. Then this sex could not in any way have been deemed to have been "irresponsible". In other words, let's say that I "just have sex" with a woman. I take full responsibility and precaution for this act. Thus if some "disease" results that same disease would have STILL resulted even if we had married. Viruses and germs no nothing of marriage vows. Also, if I'm responsible I will be a "father" to any child that might be caused by that event. If after nine months pass and the woman had no child, then I can move on to another woman without being 'irresponsible' for having created any child that I'm unwilling to support. There is no way that you could claim that this is "irresponsible" other than to merely object on personal subjective grounds that you just like to JUDGE other people, irregardless of how responsible they might be. In short, in my scenario no life-long commitment or marriage was necessary for this act of "just having sex" to be done responsibly. It was done "responsibility" and no marriage or life-long vows were required. So your claim that "just having sex" and "irresponsible sex". They are the same, is indeed laughable Cowboy, because you can't support your judgment of this. It's merely a judgment that you are personally subjectively making. I agree. But if that is the way Cowboy really and truly believes then that is how he should conduct his life. It does not apply to anyone else who does not believe that way because he is NOT PREACHING. He is simply stating his own views and how he believes he should live his own life. It has nothing to do with anyone else but him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy said: There is no difference between "just having sex" and "irresponsible sex". They are the same lol. That's your assertion, not mine. If two people "just have sex" and have taken "full responsibility" for any consequences of that action, including having taken precaution to make it as safe as they possibly could. Then this sex could not in any way have been deemed to have been "irresponsible". In other words, let's say that I "just have sex" with a woman. I take full responsibility and precaution for this act. Thus if some "disease" results that same disease would have STILL resulted even if we had married. Viruses and germs no nothing of marriage vows. Also, if I'm responsible I will be a "father" to any child that might be caused by that event. If after nine months pass and the woman had no child, then I can move on to another woman without being 'irresponsible' for having created any child that I'm unwilling to support. There is no way that you could claim that this is "irresponsible" other than to merely object on personal subjective grounds that you just like to JUDGE other people, irregardless of how responsible they might be. In short, in my scenario no life-long commitment or marriage was necessary for this act of "just having sex" to be done responsibly. It was done "responsibility" and no marriage or life-long vows were required. So your claim that "just having sex" and "irresponsible sex". They are the same, is indeed laughable Cowboy, because you can't support your judgment of this. It's merely a judgment that you are personally subjectively making. I agree. But if that is the way Cowboy really and truly believes then that is how he should conduct his life. It does not apply to anyone else who does not believe that way because he is NOT PREACHING. He is simply stating his own views and how he believes he should live his own life. It has nothing to do with anyone else but him. I guess you're right. All he's truly saying is that HE cannot "just have sex" responsibly.
Now that I can believe! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy, you confuse me. In the past you've made it rather clear that you believe, that once a woman can no longer bear a child, that sex in a relationship is basically sinful since no more children can be produced.
Now you seem to be trying to go back on that a little bit. That is to say, it's ok. Which is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fine with whatever he believes. Its his life he is going to have to live by his beliefs, not me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fine with whatever he believes. Its his life he is going to have to live by his beliefs, not me. That's true too. The only person who needs to worry about his views will be his future wife and kids. The rest of us are safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fine with whatever he believes. Its his life he is going to have to live by his beliefs, not me. I know, it really doesn't matter, but he needs to make up his mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fine with whatever he believes. Its his life he is going to have to live by his beliefs, not me. I know, it really doesn't matter, but he needs to make up his mind. Why? People change their mind all the time. ~~~~~~ a typical scenario After the football game: Guy: "Oooo honey, you look hot! Let's have sex!" Gal: "Not right now. I have a headache." Guy: "Oh darn it" The guy then goes off to drink beer and clean his gun. The woman watches a sexy romance movie on TV. After the movie is over. Gal: "Are you coming to bed hun?" Guy: "As soon as I finish cleaning my gun". Gal: "I'm in the mood for sex". Guy: "I'll be right there! This gun can wait till tomorrow". ~~~~ See? Nobody ever sticks to their guns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy, you confuse me. In the past you've made it rather clear that you believe, that once a woman can no longer bear a child, that sex in a relationship is basically sinful since no more children can be produced. Now you seem to be trying to go back on that a little bit. That is to say, it's ok. Which is it? Not backing off on it, sorry if it appears that way. In this form of instance where they FIND out either one is sterile is different then just having sex knowing birth will not come of it. I took it as they were ignorant about them being sterile. As in, they tried for years to have a baby before they went to be checked out. My apologies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, where to jump in?
Ghosts aren't real, they are the imagination of easily influenced people. Usually "ghosts" have very obvious explanations, sometimes the explanation is less obvious, but still perfectly natural. Ghosts don't have sex, because they don't exist and because ghosts are supposedly insubstantial, so there would be no friction. According to Jewish tradition, the soul enters the body with the first breath. Breath in Hebrew is translated as "Soul" in English. I believe this is not accurate. The soul is not just the personality, emotions and thoughts of a creature, but also it's animating force. Once a life begins, it has a soul. The spirit is our link to God and only humans have them. I would assume it is put into the growing mass of cells once they are differentiated by the mother, in other words, at the same time as the soul. Sex is to be enjoyed. If your wife can't get pregnant, then I suggest more sex, rather than less. Stoning a child to death is killing. The Bible instructs people to stone unruly children to death. Really? This again? I've already shown you how wrong you are on this, now this is just willfully wrong. Talk about throwing pearls before swine. The Bible is an amazing book, filled with the collected wisdom of thousands of years. It offers lessons on acceptance, forgiveness, history, compassion, love and spiritual growth. Forbidding the Bible in a discussion of religion and spirituality is like trying to grow tulips without the bulbs or fertilizer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider's Back! Spider's Back! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider's Back! Spider's Back!
Thank you for the warm welcome. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forbidding the Bible in a discussion of religion and spirituality is like trying to grow tulips without the bulbs or fertilizer.
She just wanted a discussion on spiritually (or spirits) that involved people's original ideas-- I think, rather than a quoting of scripture and doctrine. We want to know what you "think," not simply what you have been taught or told by orthodox doctrines. If that's possible. Maybe its not, if all your personal belief comes from ... the book. I think that's what she wanted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forbidding the Bible in a discussion of religion and spirituality is like trying to grow tulips without the bulbs or fertilizer.
She just wanted a discussion on spiritually (or spirits) that involved people's original ideas-- I think, rather than a quoting of scripture and doctrine. We want to know what you "think," not simply what you have been taught or told by orthodox doctrines. If that's possible. Maybe its not, if all your personal belief comes from ... the book. I think that's what she wanted.
I have plenty of beliefs that don't come from the Bible, but my principles are based upon the Bible. I'm not sure I understand this aversion to wisdom that is old and recorded in book form. I suppose some people are just anti-intellectual. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 05/08/11 09:26 PM
|
|
Forbidding the Bible in a discussion of religion and spirituality is like trying to grow tulips without the bulbs or fertilizer.
She just wanted a discussion on spiritually (or spirits) that involved people's original ideas-- I think, rather than a quoting of scripture and doctrine. We want to know what you "think," not simply what you have been taught or told by orthodox doctrines. If that's possible. Maybe its not, if all your personal belief comes from ... the book. I think that's what she wanted.
I have plenty of beliefs that don't come from the Bible, but my principles are based upon the Bible. I'm not sure I understand this aversion to wisdom that is old and recorded in book form. I suppose some people are just anti-intellectual. Nope that's not it at all. But I think she gave up because people just can't keep the Bible out of the conversation. I guess the answer to her question is ---Nope they can't handle it.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forbidding the Bible in a discussion of religion and spirituality is like trying to grow tulips without the bulbs or fertilizer.
She just wanted a discussion on spiritually (or spirits) that involved people's original ideas-- I think, rather than a quoting of scripture and doctrine. We want to know what you "think," not simply what you have been taught or told by orthodox doctrines. If that's possible. Maybe its not, if all your personal belief comes from ... the book. I think that's what she wanted.
I have plenty of beliefs that don't come from the Bible, but my principles are based upon the Bible. I'm not sure I understand this aversion to wisdom that is old and recorded in book form. I suppose some people are just anti-intellectual. Nope that's not it at all. But I think she gave up because people just can't keep the Bible out of the conversation. I guess the answer to her question is ---Nope they can't handle it.. It's not quite possible. Any spiritual belief you may have, it can be found in some book some where. Maybe not your entire spiritual belief, but at least a portion of it will be found in some religious/spiritual book. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the answer to her question is ---Nope they can't handle it.. Based on what evidence? That I mentioned the Bible by name, but didn't reference a single scripture? Surely you don't consider typing the word "Bible" to be the same thing as "not having original ideas". Did I quote scripture to support my statements? Not at all. So I hope that you aren't claiming that my post is proof that Christians can't discuss spirituality or religion without referencing the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Sun 05/08/11 09:46 PM
|
|
Forbidding the Bible in a discussion of religion and spirituality is like trying to grow tulips without the bulbs or fertilizer.
She just wanted a discussion on spiritually (or spirits) that involved people's original ideas-- I think, rather than a quoting of scripture and doctrine. We want to know what you "think," not simply what you have been taught or told by orthodox doctrines. If that's possible. Maybe its not, if all your personal belief comes from ... the book. I think that's what she wanted.
I have plenty of beliefs that don't come from the Bible, but my principles are based upon the Bible. I'm not sure I understand this aversion to wisdom that is old and recorded in book form. I suppose some people are just anti-intellectual. Nope that's not it at all. But I think she gave up because people just can't keep the Bible out of the conversation. I guess the answer to her question is ---Nope they can't handle it.. It's not quite possible. Any spiritual belief you may have, it can be found in some book some where. Maybe not your entire spiritual belief, but at least a portion of it will be found in some religious/spiritual book. I figured this thread was so we could speak of specifically what we believe or think. As in Example 1. - I believe God loves us endlessly. He even allowed his own child to give his life so you could keep yours. Example 2. God loves us tremendously. God even gave his child up to death so you did not have to. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Example 1 was specifically a person's personal belief/view on things. What they thought, how they felt. Not specifically cause someone/something said so. But because they personally believe this bit of information to be true. Example 2 is using more of a cause the bible says so form of discussion. Not specifically because it is how that person feels/believes, but mainly cause the bible says so. Thought we were just going to speak of spiritual things as example one states it. Because any and mostly all spiritual beliefs in one way or other can be found in different teachings, different "books". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 05/08/11 10:02 PM
|
|
I guess the answer to her question is ---Nope they can't handle it.. Based on what evidence? That I mentioned the Bible by name, but didn't reference a single scripture? Surely you don't consider typing the word "Bible" to be the same thing as "not having original ideas". Did I quote scripture to support my statements? Not at all. So I hope that you aren't claiming that my post is proof that Christians can't discuss spirituality or religion without referencing the Bible. It's not my thread but this is what the rule was in case you didn't read it: "No one is allowed to "quote" the bible or mention the bible after this post. " So the very first thing you said was a statement objecting to that rule. You couldn't handle the request, even on your very first post. I don't mind, I'm just saying. She must have given up. I haven't seen her post lately. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Sun 05/08/11 11:50 PM
|
|
Forbidding the Bible in a discussion of religion and spirituality is like trying to grow tulips without the bulbs or fertilizer.
She just wanted a discussion on spiritually (or spirits) that involved people's original ideas-- I think, rather than a quoting of scripture and doctrine. We want to know what you "think," not simply what you have been taught or told by orthodox doctrines. If that's possible. Maybe its not, if all your personal belief comes from ... the book. I think that's what she wanted.
I have plenty of beliefs that don't come from the Bible, but my principles are based upon the Bible. I'm not sure I understand this aversion to wisdom that is old and recorded in book form. I suppose some people are just anti-intellectual. Nope that's not it at all. But I think she gave up because people just can't keep the Bible out of the conversation. I guess the answer to her question is ---Nope they can't handle it.. It's not quite possible. Any spiritual belief you may have, it can be found in some book some where. Maybe not your entire spiritual belief, but at least a portion of it will be found in some religious/spiritual book. I figured this thread was so we could speak of specifically what we believe or think. As in Example 1. - I believe God loves us endlessly. He even allowed his own child to give his life so you could keep yours. Example 2. God loves us tremendously. God even gave his child up to death so you did not have to. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Example 1 was specifically a person's personal belief/view on things. What they thought, how they felt. Not specifically cause someone/something said so. But because they personally believe this bit of information to be true. Example 2 is using more of a cause the bible says so form of discussion. Not specifically because it is how that person feels/believes, but mainly cause the bible says so. Thought we were just going to speak of spiritual things as example one states it. Because any and mostly all spiritual beliefs in one way or other can be found in different teachings, different "books". No, example 1 clearly comes directly from the Bible. Where else would anyone have come up with an idea that a God would allow his own child to die so someone else could live? It's crystal clear where that notion came from. The problem is that people become so entirely brainwashed with these ideas that they truly no longer even realized that they came solely from one source. And extremely undependable source at that. You really can't speak to any issues of any need for 'salvation' or anything along those lines without referencing some form of doctrines or ancient stories. In fact, the thing that you forgot to mention was that the reason this God had to have his son die to save others is to save them from HIS OWN WRATH. And that's the part that the Christians always deny. But that's a fact. Without the angry wrathful God there would be nothing to be "saved" from in the first place. So it's not even an intellectual or wise story. It's just a man-made story of a jealous immature God who get's peeved if he doesn't get his way. He's really the only THREAT around. 
|
|
|
|
|
