When did Adam get a penis?

magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
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?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
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?
  Who cares...


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
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?

p.s., if it was important to God's overall message, Genesis would have read something more like "in the beginning, God had a penis, and it was good..."  Tongue out


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Well, you'll be joining us

Well, you'll be joining us in hell for that comment!


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
LMAO!

LMAO!


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: "in the

sugarfree wrote:

"in the beginning, God had a penis, and it was good..." Tongue out

NOW, we find the key to your belief.... 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
God would have to have one

God would have to have one - otherwise he couldn't be male.

Also I cite the following:

The "keep your Jesus off my penis video" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exDo2SMdB-0

The following joke:

"What's white and rains from the sky? The coming of the Lord."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Well,

MattShizzle wrote:
Well, you'll be joining us in hell for that comment!

Heh heh. Nah. Just saying if we needed to know he would have told us. He didn't so I'm not too worried about it. (Guess what, last Sunday in Sunday school, we talked about....shhhhh....s-e-x! OMG.)


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
That video is fantasmic. As

That video is fantasmic. As for the topic of the thread, if Eve was an after thought why did God design us to reproduce in the first place? Did he also then decide to make female animals too, but get bored when it came to making female micro-organisms and give up? Or maybe, hmm, maybe it all actually evolvedSurprised.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Heh heh.

sugarfree wrote:
Heh heh. Nah. Just saying if we needed to know he would have told us. He didn't so I'm not too worried about it. (Guess what, last Sunday in Sunday school, we talked about....shhhhh....s-e-x! OMG.)

Aye? Surprised
What did they talk about?
Anything juicy or was it just the same old "NOT TILL YOU'RE MARRIED!!" message?


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
Well, you'll be joining us in hell for that comment!
Heh heh. Nah. Just saying if we needed to know he would have told us. He didn't so I'm not too worried about it. (Guess what, last Sunday in Sunday school, we talked about....shhhhh....s-e-x! OMG.)

 

You're young enough to go to Sunday school? 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Maybe that's why god is so

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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
God's dickless!!! LOL!!!

God's dickless!!! LOL!!!


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: sugarfree

Strafio wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
Heh heh. Nah. Just saying if we needed to know he would have told us. He didn't so I'm not too worried about it. (Guess what, last Sunday in Sunday school, we talked about....shhhhh....s-e-x! OMG.)

Aye? Surprised
What did they talk about?
Anything juicy or was it just the same old "NOT TILL YOU'RE MARRIED!!" message?
No, they said, let's all have an orgy right now because God doesn't care. Just have fun, it's all good!

Yes, it was about sex in marriage, particularly on the wedding night. We are studying Song of Solomon. Apparently raisin cakes are pretty strong stuff.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: sugarfree

Maragon wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
Well, you'll be joining us in hell for that comment!
Heh heh. Nah. Just saying if we needed to know he would have told us. He didn't so I'm not too worried about it. (Guess what, last Sunday in Sunday school, we talked about....shhhhh....s-e-x! OMG.)

 

You're young enough to go to Sunday school? 


At my church, even us old folks get to go. We only make macaroni pictures on the last Sunday of every month tho.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: No, they

sugarfree wrote:
No, they said, let's all have an orgy right now because God doesn't care. Just have fun, it's all good!

Really? I have got to find this church!!

sugarfree wrote:
Yes, it was about sex in marriage, particularly on the wedding night. We are studying Song of Solomon. Apparently raisin cakes are pretty strong stuff.

Oh...nevermind.

Seriously, though, why is religion so damn concerned with the sex lives of their flock? I mean, I took health class in school so it is pretty obvious that fidelity is preferred and taking care of and respecting your own body are really the most important things you can do when it comes to sex. So why does the church have to nose into the bedroom? Do they give you tips to improve things? Videos, magazines, etc.?? (If your church is handing out porn I really must insist that you give me the name of it so I can do some....research.)


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Any JAVA coders here...or

Any JAVA coders here...or would that be off topic?

(I'm stuuuuuckkkkkk)


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: sugarfree

jce wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
No, they said, let's all have an orgy right now because God doesn't care. Just have fun, it's all good!

Really? I have got to find this church!!

sugarfree wrote:
Yes, it was about sex in marriage, particularly on the wedding night. We are studying Song of Solomon. Apparently raisin cakes are pretty strong stuff.

Oh...nevermind.

Seriously, though, why is religion so damn concerned with the sex lives of their flock? I mean, I took health class in school so it is pretty obvious that fidelity is preferred and taking care of and respecting your own body are really the most important things you can do when it comes to sex. So why does the church have to nose into the bedroom? Do they give you tips to improve things? Videos, magazines, etc.?? (If your church is handing out porn I really must insist that you give me the name of it so I can do some....research.)

I think the church is all uptight about sex because of one thing:  property.  I mean, way back when, a guy owned his wife and he owned the children who came from his wife.  Those kids would eventually inherit everything the guy owns.  So he wants to make sure those kids are his, right?  He certainly doesn't want to pass his land and castle off to some bastard son. What better way to ensure that a lady won't stray then to tell them they face eternal hell fire if they do. Just my humble opinion. Eye-wink

 

 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
Well, you'll be joining us in hell for that comment!
Heh heh. Nah. Just saying if we needed to know he would have told us. He didn't so I'm not too worried about it. (Guess what, last Sunday in Sunday school, we talked about....shhhhh....s-e-x! OMG.)

Did you happen to cover sex w/ children ?  That appears to a rather huge problem these days and I can't find a single passage in that bible where god forbids it.  I mean there are no shortage of preachers using specific bible quotations to scream about the evils of infidelity, adultrey and that awful homosexuality.  

I guess that's one of those things that's "not important to god's overall message" then ?  Shoot, I guess if we needed to know he would have told us.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Any JAVA

sugarfree wrote:
Any JAVA coders here...or would that be off topic? (I'm stuuuuuckkkkkk)

Oh no you don't, do not derail this thread too...

LOL. 


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: sugarfree

BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Any JAVA coders here...or would that be off topic? (I'm stuuuuuckkkkkk)

Oh no you don't, do not derail this thread too...

LOL. 


But I need heeeelp. (Stupid JAVA...grrrrrrr...) Oh, fine. I'll just keep searching the internet... Sorry to interrupt the penis talk.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1247
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
sugarfree wrote: But I

sugarfree wrote:
But I need heeeelp. (Stupid JAVA...grrrrrrr...) Oh, fine. I'll just keep searching the internet... Sorry to interrupt the penis talk.

I thought you said god helped you with your programming problems.  Where did he go?   Maybe he ran away when we realized he doesn't have a schlong.  Or maybe Dahmer got into heaven and ate him.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: I

zarathustra wrote:

I thought you said god helped you with your programming problems. Where did he go? Maybe he ran away when we realized he doesn't have a schlong. Or maybe Dahmer got into heaven and ate him.

Now THAT is HILARIOUS~~~!!!! 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Yes, it

sugarfree wrote:
Yes, it was about sex in marriage, particularly on the wedding night. We are studying Song of Solomon. Apparently raisin cakes are pretty strong stuff.

Is that a bit like the Biblical Karma Sutra?
I'll have to take a look at it later.
So do they give you special tips on how to please your other half?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
But I need heeeelp. (Stupid JAVA...grrrrrrr...) Oh, fine. I'll just keep searching the internet... Sorry to interrupt the penis talk.

I thought you said god helped you with your programming problems.  Where did he go?   Maybe he ran away when we realized he doesn't have a schlong.  Or maybe Dahmer got into heaven and ate him.

Oh, you are so clever... It helps to actually know the language first, which I do not. You suck.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: sugarfree

Strafio wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
Yes, it was about sex in marriage, particularly on the wedding night. We are studying Song of Solomon. Apparently raisin cakes are pretty strong stuff.

Is that a bit like the Biblical Karma Sutra?
I'll have to take a look at it later.
So do they give you special tips on how to please your other half?
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. Plus, you have to know how to interpret the language...for instance, at the time "Your hair is like a flock of goats coming down the mountainside" was a bit more meaningful than it is to us today. I wouldn't suggest using that line on a modern woman... She might take it wrong.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle

AmericanIdle wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
Well, you'll be joining us in hell for that comment!
Heh heh. Nah. Just saying if we needed to know he would have told us. He didn't so I'm not too worried about it. (Guess what, last Sunday in Sunday school, we talked about....shhhhh....s-e-x! OMG.)

Did you happen to cover sex w/ children ?  That appears to a rather huge problem these days and I can't find a single passage in that bible where god forbids it.  I mean there are no shortage of preachers using specific bible quotations to scream about the evils of infidelity, adultrey and that awful homosexuality.  

I guess that's one of those things that's "not important to god's overall message" then ?  Shoot, I guess if we needed to know he would have told us.


The bible is against sexual immorality, which would include any form of sex outside of marriage (and it has to be with the person you are married to...thought I better include that since you are playing word games), therefore, sex with kids is obviously out.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1247
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
sugarfree wrote: Oh, you

sugarfree wrote:
Oh, you are so clever... It helps to actually know the language first, which I do not. You suck.

I thought the holy spirit took care of the language barrier in Acts 2:8.  Guess he's due for an upgrade.

Back on topic:  Did adam even get to use his ... thing on eve before getting cast out of the garden?   Remember, it wasn't until they ate the fruit that they realized they were naked (?)

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
AmericanIdle wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
Well, you'll be joining us in hell for that comment!
Heh heh. Nah. Just saying if we needed to know he would have told us. He didn't so I'm not too worried about it. (Guess what, last Sunday in Sunday school, we talked about....shhhhh....s-e-x! OMG.)

Did you happen to cover sex w/ children ?  That appears to a rather huge problem these days and I can't find a single passage in that bible where god forbids it.  I mean there are no shortage of preachers using specific bible quotations to scream about the evils of infidelity, adultrey and that awful homosexuality.  

I guess that's one of those things that's "not important to god's overall message" then ?  Shoot, I guess if we needed to know he would have told us.

The bible is against sexual immorality, which would include any form of sex outside of marriage (and it has to be with the person you are married to...thought I better include that since you are playing word games), therefore, sex with kids is obviously out.

What if they are children that are married?  Seriously, I'm not being a punk.  People used to get married at a very young age, didn't they?  In some countries they still do. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Seriously,

jce wrote:
Seriously, though, why is religion so damn concerned with the sex lives of their flock? I mean, I took health class in school so it is pretty obvious that fidelity is preferred and taking care of and respecting your own body are really the most important things you can do when it comes to sex. So why does the church have to nose into the bedroom? Do they give you tips to improve things? Videos, magazines, etc.?? (If your church is handing out porn I really must insist that you give me the name of it so I can do some....research.)

The Bible, unlike our current society does not take sex lightly, in that it views sex as a precious gift that unites two people not only in body but in spirit. (You give a piece of yourself to the person that you can never take back and vice versa.) Currently people view sex more like it is some throw away toy. The church talks about sex because it is a big deal. When it is abused it can be severely damaging to one's self. So, the church is trying to protect is flock from unnecessary harm. The Bible doesn't say no sex before marriage as a punishment. God's saying, if you do things my way, you will have greater reward (even tho society tells you the opposite and looks at you weird if you decide to wait.) God made us, therefore knows the ideal conditions which will lead to our happiness. But most of us choose paths other than the one God laid out and end up having to learn things the hard way.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Oh, you are so clever... It helps to actually know the language first, which I do not. You suck.

I thought the holy spirit took care of the language barrier in Acts 2:8.  Guess he's due for an upgrade.

Back on topic:  Did adam even get to use his ... thing on eve before getting cast out of the garden?   Remember, it wasn't until they ate the fruit that they realized they were naked (?)

I suppose it is possible. Sex itself is not a sin, so I see no reason for it to not be allowed in the garden, pre-apple eating.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: What if

pariahjane wrote:
What if they are children that are married?  Seriously, I'm not being a punk.  People used to get married at a very young age, didn't they?  In some countries they still do.
If they are of child-rearing age I would not call it immoral. But, however, a 40-year-old man and 13-year-old girl would not fly in the U.S. and a lot of places because as a society we have determined that the 13-year-old is still a child. So...I think it does have something to do with societal perceptions, and culture. i.e., if people's life expectancy is shorter, than they do not stay "children" as long so their rules of engagement are likely to be different than ours.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:   The

sugarfree wrote:

 

The Bible, unlike our current society does not take sex lightly, in that it views sex as a precious gift that unites two people not only in body but in spirit. (You give a piece of yourself to the person that you can never take back and vice versa.) Currently people view sex more like it is some throw away toy. The church talks about sex because it is a big deal. When it is abused it can be severely damaging to one's self. So, the church is trying to protect is flock from unnecessary harm. The Bible doesn't say no sex before marriage as a punishment. God's saying, if you do things my way, you will have greater reward (even tho society tells you the opposite and looks at you weird if you decide to wait.) God made us, therefore knows the ideal conditions which will lead to our happiness. But most of us choose paths other than the one God laid out and end up having to learn things the hard way.

I lost count of the unfounded assumptions in this one.

1. Mainstream society today does not treat sex "lightly." On the contrary, most people are obsessed with it. There is an attitude that it's fun to have lots of sex with lots of different people, but in practice most people end up being involved in a relationship with the people that they have sex with, at least for a little while. Also, marriage is not going anywhere. It is still most people's ultimate goal to fall in love and get married to one special person.

2. I'm not sure how you become "severely damaged" through sex. Unless you're engaged in highly deviant behaviour like prostitution, the most people usually suffer from sex is a broken heart or a rash. The church would like us to think that sex is dangerous so that they can justify trying to control it, but it isn't.

3. Strange that the Bible makes no mention of the wonderful happiness that you will experience if you wait to have sex, but rather goes on at some length about stonings and hellfire for adulterers. Seems a strange way to proceed, if all it is trying to do is promote a healthy lifestyle.

4. I wonder how many women that took the Bible's advice and went to their marriage bed virgins would agree with you that this is the best path to a happy, healthy sex life. I wonder how many of them, having waited all their lives, found themselves tremendously disappointed and unenthusiastic about sex thereafter. I wonder how many went on to joyless sex lives and marital problems because they didn't get a chance to experiement sexually with casual partners and instead got thrown into an all-or-nothing situation with one man, having no idea how to take pleasure for themselves from sex. Actually, I don't have to wonder, I know. Most of them. 

5. Actually, the easy way to learn about sex is through open discussions and real sex education, not sermonizing. It wasn't until the church got thrown out of the sex education classroom that women were ever even allowed to feel that they should get something from sex. Most of the generation of women before mine grew up in the sexual environment that was created by the church over the preceding two thousand years. It went like this: learn nothing about sex growing up except that it's dirty and you aren't supposed to do it until marriage. Run around guiltily and secretly as a teenager with no access to birth control. Finally get knocked up some time before you are twenty and have a shotgun wedding with the unfortunate man. Spend the rest of your life trying to avoid the unpleasent chore and ignore the fact that your husband is cheating with younger girls who haven't figured out yet that they hate sex.

Good job church. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: 1.

Tilberian wrote:
1. Mainstream society today does not treat sex "lightly." On the contrary, most people are obsessed with it. There is an attitude that it's fun to have lots of sex with lots of different people,
This is taking it lightly!
Tilberian wrote:
but in practice most people end up being involved in a relationship with the people that they have sex with, at least for a little while.
A little while? So, it's okay to sleep around if you have "a little" relationship with the person...as long as it's not a one night stand...
Tilberian wrote:
Also, marriage is not going anywhere. It is still most people's ultimate goal to fall in love and get married to one special person.
Did I say it was?
Tilberian wrote:
2. I'm not sure how you become "severely damaged" through sex.
You must be male.
Tilberian wrote:
Unless you're engaged in highly deviant behaviour like prostitution, the most people usually suffer from sex is a broken heart or a rash.
A broken heart and/or a rash isn't a big deal to you? What about an incurable rash that comes and goes for the rest of your life, or an untreated infection that makes you infertile, or AIDS even tho someone told you they were "healthy". Those things aren't a big deal? And, a lot of women today have learned to try to act like men and say they can sleep around with whomever without getting emotionally involved, but 9.9 times out of 10 they are lying to you and/or themselves.
Tilberian wrote:
The church would like us to think that sex is dangerous so that they can justify trying to control it, but it isn't.

blah blah blah. The church's job is foster healthy spirituality in people and if it sees something that is stunting spiritual growth it is the church's responsibility to point it out.
Tilberian wrote:
3. Strange that the Bible makes no mention of the wonderful happiness that you will experience if you wait to have sex, but rather goes on at some length about stonings and hellfire for adulterers.
This is what we are studying right now in Song of Solomon. Have you read it? The whole thing is about sex and no where does anyone say it is icky, nor is there any stoning to be found.
Tilberian wrote:
Seems a strange way to proceed, if all it is trying to do is promote a healthy lifestyle.

4. I wonder how many women that took the Bible's advice and went to their marriage bed virgins would agree with you that this is the best path to a happy, healthy sex life. I wonder how many of them, having waited all their lives, found themselves tremendously disappointed and unenthusiastic about sex thereafter. I wonder how many went on to joyless sex lives and marital problems because they didn't get a chance to experiement sexually with casual partners and instead got thrown into an all-or-nothing situation with one man, having no idea how to take pleasure for themselves from sex.

Blah blah blah. Poor woman, isn't smart enough to learn how to enjoy sex after being married? Gee, sex with one and only one person all your life must really suck. You make it sound like a death sentence. Why can't the two learn and grow together. If there is disappointment in the beginning, they can work it out together.
Tilberian wrote:
Actually, I don't have to wonder, I know. Most of them.

5. Actually, the easy way to learn about sex is through open discussions and real sex education, not sermonizing.

Did I say not to have open discussions about sex?
Tilberian wrote:
It wasn't until the church got thrown out of the sex education classroom that women were ever even allowed to feel that they should get something from sex.
What? You think all woman, say, from the 1960's and prior to the beginning of time, NEVER, enjoyed sex? Thank God for the bra burners. I'd be so lost if it weren't for them.
Tilberian wrote:
Most of the generation of women before mine grew up in the sexual environment that was created by the church over the preceding two thousand years. It went like this: learn nothing about sex growing up except that it's dirty and you aren't supposed to do it until marriage. Run around guiltily and secretly as a teenager with no access to birth control. Finally get knocked up some time before you are twenty and have a shotgun wedding with the unfortunate man. Spend the rest of your life trying to avoid the unpleasent chore and ignore the fact that your husband is cheating with younger girls who haven't figured out yet that they hate sex.

Good job church.

Oh my gosh, can you generalize any more????? My mom didn't get knocked up until after she was married. Guess she was a RARE exception.


PillarMyArse
PillarMyArse's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2007-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Sugarfree said: Who

Quote:
Sugarfree said:

Who cares...

 

 Well I think this is quite a good point.  There would be no need for adam to carry any reproductive equipment as there would be no need for reproduction.  However (I may be wrong...) adam and eve were going to live forever anyway hence no need for reproduction.

They get chucked out of eden, bang... reproductive requirement.  No explicit mention of where they get their gear from.  It is a small inconsistency.  If you are a theist it is probably inconsequential, but if you are an atheist it is a good example of biblical vagueness and inconsistency. 

Quote:
 

Any JAVA coders here...or would that be off topic?

(I'm stuuuuuckkkkkk)

[/quote

Message me. 

Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.

Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:   The

sugarfree wrote:

 

The Bible, unlike our current society does not take sex lightly, in that it views sex as a precious gift that unites two people not only in body but in spirit. (You give a piece of yourself to the person that you can never take back and vice versa.) Currently people view sex more like it is some throw away toy.

By people you mean...???

sugarfree wrote:
The church talks about sex because it is a big deal. When it is abused it can be severely damaging to one's self.

Like when priests abuse young boys?

sugarfree wrote:
So, the church is trying to protect is flock from unnecessary harm.

Then why don't they actually educate them about sex instead of making people feel ashamed?

sugarfree wrote:
The Bible doesn't say no sex before marriage as a punishment. God's saying, if you do things my way, you will have greater reward

When I am dead? Sorry, but I do not consider that a reward. I would prefer to be taught and teach respect toward one another regarding sex.

sugarfree wrote:
(even tho society tells you the opposite and looks at you weird if you decide to wait.)

The only weird look I give is when someone stops using their own mind to make decisions.

sugarfree wrote:
God made us, therefore knows the ideal conditions which will lead to our happiness.

Actually, your parents made you...they had sex (I hope it was hot and dirty) and nine months later you arrived.

sugarfree wrote:
But most of us choose paths other than the one God laid out and end up having to learn things the hard way.

Considering the saturation level of religion in this country, any problems related to sex are clearly a failure on religion's part to adequately "protect their flock".

sugarfree wrote:
You suck.

No, Z is very funny and has a great memory. You do remember telling us that your god sat on your shoulder helping you program, don't you? LOL

 

 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: "Your hair

sugarfree wrote:
"Your hair is like a flock of goats coming down the mountainside" was a bit more meaningful than it is to us today. I wouldn't suggest using that line on a modern woman... She might take it wrong.

lol!

Quote:
The bible is against sexual immorality, which would include any form of sex outside of marriage.

I've got a question here.
You say that sex outside of marriage is immoral.
You have actually given some secular reasons for why you believe this, like health issues. There's two Christian views on morality. One is that God knows what is good and tells his Christians to do what is naturally good, so God's laws are justifiable through secular reasoning. Others think that something is morally right because God commanded it. (i.e. if God wanted to he could command murder tomorrow and it would become morally right because it what God says that defines right and wrong)

If it's the first one then you believe morality is justifiable for secular reasons. (I personally think that this is sensible as it stops people making the mistake that the inquisition made, thinking that God wanted them to murder people)
If so, and if people with 'casual' sex lives were happy and healthy, would you see that as evidence that you had misinterpreted the Bible on sexual morality? Just as the inquisition had done on torture and murder?
Perhaps the reason why the Bible had laws on sex and marriage were necessary for the societies of the time but don't necessarily apply today. (even as an atheist, I think that the societies that wrote the Bible had these laws for a reason.)


Quote:
A little while? So, it's okay to sleep around if you have "a little" relationship with the person...as long as it's not a one night stand...

I personally think that one night stands are fine...
Tiberian's point was a reply to your point about allowing a relationship to grow. Most people do this out of choice. Many people can't appreciate a proper relationship until they've experienced trying to go without one.

Quote:
A broken heart and/or a rash isn't a big deal to you? What about an incurable rash that comes and goes for the rest of your life, or an untreated infection that makes you infertile, or AIDS even tho someone told you they were "healthy". Those things aren't a big deal?

These come through carelessness rather than pre-marital sex.
You're right, there are risks involved with promiscuity, even when the necessary precautions are taken. However, there's a large difference between promiscuity and say, a 2 year relationship.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Tilberian

sugarfree wrote:
Tilberian wrote:
2. I'm not sure how you become "severely damaged" through sex.
You must be male.

Sugarfree - you have made mistakes in assuming gender on this site before. Please stop. I am not male and I happen to agree with Tilberian. On these issues, gender does not matter. Education does.

Tilberian wrote:
Unless you're engaged in highly deviant behaviour like prostitution, the most people usually suffer from sex is a broken heart or a rash.
sugarfree wrote:
A broken heart and/or a rash isn't a big deal to you? What about an incurable rash that comes and goes for the rest of your life, or an untreated infection that makes you infertile, or AIDS even tho someone told you they were "healthy". Those things aren't a big deal? And, a lot of women today have learned to try to act like men and say they can sleep around with whomever without getting emotionally involved, but 9.9 times out of 10 they are lying to you and/or themselves.

1. Again - Education is the key to avoiding hurting your body or someone else's. 2. You are dead wrong about women "learning" to like sex. In fact, I would say a great many women enjoy it but the church has brainwashed them into thinking they are evil if they admit it.

sugarfree wrote:
Did I say not to have open discussions about sex?

"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

 

 


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
OK, how much of this is

OK, how much of this is real discussion, and how much is just spam?

It says in Genesis right when God created Adam "Male and Female He created them." Clearly implying that Adam and Eve were made on the same day and Genesis 2 is an elaboration.

God created Adam with Eve in mind.

As to what sex God is, I could care less why an immaterial being would choose to be "male." Concidering that the first reference to "Man" being created has a dichotomy drawn between male and female with with no assertion that one is fundamentally better than the other, it doesn't really matter. 

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: sugarfree

jce wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
God made us, therefore knows the ideal conditions which will lead to our happiness.

Actually, your parents made you...they had sex (I hope it was hot and dirty) and nine months later you arrived.

jce - there are few people than can make me snort when I laugh and you officially have become one of them.

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.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
AmericanIdle wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
Well, you'll be joining us in hell for that comment!
Heh heh. Nah. Just saying if we needed to know he would have told us. He didn't so I'm not too worried about it. (Guess what, last Sunday in Sunday school, we talked about....shhhhh....s-e-x! OMG.)

Did you happen to cover sex w/ children ?  That appears to a rather huge problem these days and I can't find a single passage in that bible where god forbids it.  I mean there are no shortage of preachers using specific bible quotations to scream about the evils of infidelity, adultrey and that awful homosexuality.  

I guess that's one of those things that's "not important to god's overall message" then ?  Shoot, I guess if we needed to know he would have told us.

The bible is against sexual immorality, which would include any form of sex outside of marriage (and it has to be with the person you are married to...thought I better include that since you are playing word games), therefore, sex with kids is obviously out.

There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 362 admonishments in the bible regarding heterosexual adults engaging in sexual "sin".  There are (6) for homosexuals.  Most of the admonishments are very specific such as the 7th commandment not to commit adultery, which incidentally is punished by the barbaric torture of stoning until dead. 

There are specific admonishments not to pick up sticks on the sabbath.  There are specific admonishments to abstain from shellfish.  There are specific admonishments not to offer incense to Baal.

Nowhere in the bible is there any admonishment not to have sexual relations with a child.  Your attempt to apply a catch all to cover for this ommission is typical of theists, but also dishonest.  Is "go your way and sin no more" a commandment not to gamble ?

 You claimed to know "what was important to god's message".  Commandments to abstain from raping children is not in the bible, therefore what actually is "obvious" is that pedophilia is either not important to god or it is in fact, acceptable in his eyes.  "If we needed to know he would have told us", right ?

Your god was created by men.  Your god's words were written down and then edited by thousands of men.  A significant portion of these men who wrote and edited god's words have a lengthy history of liking the practice of raping children.  Do you think that might be why god just happened to omit what should have been one of his most important and frequent commandments ?  

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
It says in Genesis right

It says in Genesis right when God created Adam “Male and Female He created them.“ Clearly implying that Adam and Eve were made on the same day and Genesis 2 is an elaboration.

Let's look at it.

GENESIS 1, KJV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 1:27

GENESIS 2, KJV
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 2:7
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 2:20
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:21
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 2:22
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 2:23

It's all vague and reflected nowhere in reality. It could be interpreted different ways, all of them equally hypothetical and masturbatory. In the second story, Adam had named presumably billions of different species before “god” decided to perform psychic surgery on him to create a counterpart (designed based on... wait, is “god” a hermaphrodite? Shit.)

[snippage]


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Any JAVA coders here...or

Any JAVA coders here...or would that be off topic?
(I'm stuuuuuckkkkkk)

Are your sausage fingers or three inch pink fingernails hitting adjacent keys?


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: The bible

sugarfree wrote:
The bible is against sexual immorality, which would include any form of sex outside of marriage (and it has to be with the person you are married to...thought I better include that since you are playing word games), therefore, sex with kids is obviously out.

You know it was custom for men to marry young girls of 12/13 in those days, it actually doesn't rule it out. The virgin Mary (if she existed) would've been this age when she was betrothed to Joe and knocked up. So sex with kids is not frowned upon in the bible. Plus, several biblical characters have several wives, the character Jacob for example (familiar name, can't think why) has three wives. So it's not like no sex outside marraige actually restricts men at least.

I, however am a sinner in this respect as I'm sure most of us here are in respect to the sex outside marraige law. Just out of curiosity, where in the ten commandments does it say anything about sex outside marraige?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: By people you

jce wrote:

By people you mean...???
a lot of

jce wrote:

Like when priests abuse young boys?
this is certainly damaging, but I am specifically referring to it being damaging even between two consenting adults when they do not have a solid marriage commitment between them.

jce wrote:

Then why don't they actually educate them about sex instead of making people feel ashamed?
My church is not teaching people to be ashamed. It is a problem tho that churches are often too silent on the matter, on the assumption that simply saying no sex before marriage is enough. However, it is not enough. Churches need to tell people why the bible says that, and help them to understand it is for their own benefit. (Not to punish them and not because sex is yucky, but because sex is a gift that God holds in high esteem and therefore we should also hold it in high esteem.) They, historically, have not been very good at explaining the “why”, however, I think that is changing.

jce wrote:

When I am dead? Sorry, but I do not consider that a reward. I would prefer to be taught and teach respect toward one another regarding sex.
No, I am talking about the rewards that come from saving yourself for one person and then sharing your life with that person.

jce wrote:

Actually, your parents made you...they had sex (I hope it was hot and dirty) and nine months later you arrived.
I do not need a lesson on how babies were made. I’ve already got that covered. Yes, as icky as it is to imagine one’s parents doing that, I do hope they were happy. (But I am not going to ask for details.)

jce wrote:

Considering the saturation level of religion in this country, any problems related to sex are clearly a failure on religion's part to adequately "protect their flock".
Clearly it has nothing to do with the half naked women plastered all over the media, pornography, and the objectifying of women (And now men, too.) The church has a lot of competition in this area.

jce wrote:

No, Z is very funny and has a great memory. You do remember telling us that your god sat on your shoulder helping you program, don't you? LOL
I think I know him (or her) and he (or she) knows me well enough that I can tell him (her) he (she) sucks and neither of us will have hard feelings. He (she) was clearly jabbing me, so I jabbed back a little. No biggie. And by the way, that is not what I said at all. You are putting words into my mouth.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Any JAVA

magilum wrote:
Any JAVA coders here...or would that be off topic? (I'm stuuuuuckkkkkk) Are your sausage fingers or three inch pink fingernails hitting adjacent keys?
What the heck?  Why must you attack when there is no reason at all to do so.  But that's just you, I guess.  I figured my problem out by the way, even tho you do not care.  Now, new problem, can you tell me how to loop thru a List object?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: I've got a

Strafio wrote:

I've got a question here.
You say that sex outside of marriage is immoral.
You have actually given some secular reasons for why you believe this, like health issues. There's two Christian views on morality. One is that God knows what is good and tells his Christians to do what is naturally good, so God's laws are justifiable through secular reasoning. Others think that something is morally right because God commanded it. (i.e. if God wanted to he could command murder tomorrow and it would become morally right because it what God says that defines right and wrong)

If it's the first one then you believe morality is justifiable for secular reasons. (I personally think that this is sensible as it stops people making the mistake that the inquisition made, thinking that God wanted them to murder people)
If so, and if people with 'casual' sex lives were happy and healthy, would you see that as evidence that you had misinterpreted the Bible on sexual morality? Just as the inquisition had done on torture and murder?
Perhaps the reason why the Bible had laws on sex and marriage were necessary for the societies of the time but don't necessarily apply today. (even as an atheist, I think that the societies that wrote the Bible had these laws for a reason.)
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.


Strafio wrote:

I personally think that one night stands are fine...
Tiberian's point was a reply to your point about allowing a relationship to grow. Most people do this out of choice. Many people can't appreciate a proper relationship until they've experienced trying to go without one.
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.

Strafio wrote:

However, there's a large difference between promiscuity and say, a 2 year relationship.
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.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Sugarfree - you

jce wrote:

Sugarfree - you have made mistakes in assuming gender on this site before.

Oh well.
jce wrote:
Please stop.
I make mistakes sometimes, but I am not going to walk on eggshells to try to avoid making them.
jce wrote:
I am not male and I happen to agree with Tilberian. On these issues, gender does not matter. Education does.
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.) 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.

jce wrote:

1. Again - Education is the key to avoiding hurting your body or someone else's. 2. You are dead wrong about women "learning" to like sex. In fact, I would say a great many women enjoy it but the church has brainwashed them into thinking they are evil if they admit it.

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.

jce 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.)

 

 


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Come now, jce is right: The

Come now, sugarfree is right: The bible, unlike today's society, does take sex seriously.

Particularly when it comes to the rape of conquered virgins. A practice, I believe, which is banned under the Geneva convention.

Do carry on.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: jce

pariahjane wrote:
jce wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
God made us, therefore knows the ideal conditions which will lead to our happiness.

Actually, your parents made you...they had sex (I hope it was hot and dirty) and nine months later you arrived.

jce - there are few people than can make me snort when I laugh and you officially have become one of them.

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.

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.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle

AmericanIdle wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
AmericanIdle wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
Well, you'll be joining us in hell for that comment!
Heh heh. Nah. Just saying if we needed to know he would have told us. He didn't so I'm not too worried about it. (Guess what, last Sunday in Sunday school, we talked about....shhhhh....s-e-x! OMG.)

Did you happen to cover sex w/ children ? That appears to a rather huge problem these days and I can't find a single passage in that bible where god forbids it. I mean there are no shortage of preachers using specific bible quotations to scream about the evils of infidelity, adultrey and that awful homosexuality.

I guess that's one of those things that's "not important to god's overall message" then ? Shoot, I guess if we needed to know he would have told us.

The bible is against sexual immorality, which would include any form of sex outside of marriage (and it has to be with the person you are married to...thought I better include that since you are playing word games), therefore, sex with kids is obviously out.

There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 362 admonishments in the bible regarding heterosexual adults engaging in sexual "sin". There are (6) for homosexuals. Most of the admonishments are very specific such as the 7th commandment not to commit adultery, which incidentally is punished by the barbaric torture of stoning until dead.

There are specific admonishments not to pick up sticks on the sabbath. There are specific admonishments to abstain from shellfish. There are specific admonishments not to offer incense to Baal.

Nowhere in the bible is there any admonishment not to have sexual relations with a child. Your attempt to apply a catch all to cover for this ommission is typical of theists, but also dishonest. Is "go your way and sin no more" a commandment not to gamble ?

You claimed to know "what was important to god's message". Commandments to abstain from raping children is not in the bible, therefore what actually is "obvious" is that pedophilia is either not important to god or it is in fact, acceptable in his eyes. "If we needed to know he would have told us", right ?

Your god was created by men. Your god's words were written down and then edited by thousands of men. A significant portion of these men who wrote and edited god's words have a lengthy history of liking the practice of raping children. Do you think that might be why god just happened to omit what should have been one of his most important and frequent commandments ?

I am not  even going to get into a discussion about kid rape.  You are just using this to justify your decision to not believe in the Bible.