Using religion for sex

wa|th3r SG

Hi! You sound very Singaporean! ("It's really useless to speak so much.")

While what you said holds certain truths, the true spirit of argument is to unveal the truth (argument is not to dispute or disagree, or it'll be called a dog-fight), especially here in this topic where we talk about people using religion for sex, which is a very sensitive topic here.

Denominational reason puts relativity on facts and "truths" into the picture, therefore making it difficult and unfair to "argue". You are right here in your context.

But here we are dealing with morality, specifically using religion for sex. I believe denominations and the great religions unanimously agree that morality is definite. (Social norms hold that morality is relative. For example, sex before marriage was once seen as taboo, but is now accepted, or more accepted than past. But remember we are dealing with religion, not social norms)

Here, dumbdumb and I both see that immoral sexual behavior is not of Christian teachings, and therefore the churches do not condone such, despite people still attending church for the wrong reasons (in our topic here, sex). Here i also would like to add that I strongly believe that the great religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam preaches on righteousness and seek to purify [the followers from sin], and would therefore not preach encouraging immoral sexual behavior, much less use religion as a lure for sex. [although people still do it]

My point: Religions preaches on righteousness, thus do not doctrinally allow itself (religion) to be used by its members for their sexual gains.

Simpl3guy SG

Yes, everyone is born with sin because of Adam. But, let's put it this way, even if it were not so, we would still have sin anyway because every human being sins. Even by the act of lying, whoever claims never to have told a lie before is already lying!

Suppose i agree that everybody is born with a sin,and by believing in God we will get salvation but like u said, "Even by the act of lying, whoever claims never to have told a lie before is already lying!" then i can assume that christians do lie too. Then who can really say that they can get salvation if they repeatly sin though they say they believe in God.I understand from dumbdumb! that true repentance is what neccessary from salvation but who can say that they will not ever sin after they believe in Christianity.

wa|th3r SG

Frankly speaking, even as i speak, i have to admit do not really and truly understand what salvation is. Basically in my understanding and what that has been taught, is into heaven.

This is a very neutral yet very true topic. Christians, are no different from other people, except religion, are sinners. Dumbdumb was basically saying that everyone are sinners. As the saying goes "The very body the makes great saints, makes great sinners" This line means that great saints and sinners have the same body as we all do, the human body. Yet here, given the same body, we have sinners as well as saints.

I'll skip explaining true repentence, but speak on what i think you're saying here. It is the sincerity to repent that i think is what God looks into, the heart, something that we cannot see spiritually speaking. And ultimately it is God himself who judge who is to be saved, who is not to be.

As a reminder: Don't be mistaken that Christians are entitled to salvation; this is nonsense and lead to complacency. I say this because there are missionaries who said that to join their faith, we'll be saved, and if not, we'll go to Hell. God is the one who's the true judge of salvation, not us, not anyone, not missionaries, not pastors, not bishops, not even the Pope. Wink

M©+square SG

Originally posted by wa|th3r:

Hi! You sound very Singaporean! ("It's really useless to speak so much.")

While what you said holds certain truths, the true spirit of argument is to unveal the truth (argument is not to dispute or disagree, or it'll be called a dog-fight), especially here in this topic where we talk about people using religion for sex, which is a very sensitive topic here.

Denominational reason puts relativity on facts and "truths" into the picture, therefore making it difficult and unfair to "argue". You are right here in your context.

But here we are dealing with morality, specifically using religion for sex. I believe denominations and the great religions unanimously agree that [b]morality is definite. (Social norms hold that morality is relative. For example, sex before marriage was once seen as taboo, but is now accepted, or more accepted than past. But remember we are dealing with religion, not social norms)

Here, dumbdumb and I both see that immoral sexual behavior is not of Christian teachings, and therefore the churches do not condone such, despite people still attending church for the wrong reasons (in our topic here, sex). Here i also would like to add that I strongly believe that the great religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam preaches on righteousness and seek to purify [the followers from sin], and would therefore not preach encouraging immoral sexual behavior, much less use religion as a lure for sex. [although people still do it]

My point: Religions preaches on righteousness, thus do not doctrinally allow itself (religion) to be used by its members for their sexual gains.[/b]

1. Let me end this short. In case i get carried away and indulge into the discussion.

2. On your fourth para onwards notice how the 'sexual morality' discussion became topic about salvation and believing in God. Out of point. Way way off tangent....

3.You know why?
It's because non believers and believers speak different language.
You speak your language which they don't comprehend...hence your experiences and teaching could not be told and be made understood to them.

4. You may have covered every single area about this topic and have convinced people that this generation should not condone to these immoralities. Esp to clear the name of Christian churches.
My question is, when will the church of God be totally clean of accusations? It's only when God comes and all man will be silent before Him.

5. The language of Christianity is The WALK.
If the walk is so important, should we discount on explaining and talk about the word? God forbid! Josh Mcdowell and other speakers did great job in defending the word and even proving the word to be true. Can you?

6. Lastly i'll end with a statement.

One word of grace, one act of love could speak a thousand words.

Let's walk the talk.

M©+square SG

wa|th3r: you may wish to meet up and we can discuss more on it. Razz

Devil1976 SG

Rolling Eyes

M©+square SG

Aiyoh...no agrees againz. Razz

M©+square SG

A preacher and an atheist went for a walk together.

The atheist said, "What good is religion? Look at all the trouble and misery of
the world! Still there, even after years, thousands of years, of teaching about
goodness and truth and love and peace. Still there, after all the sermons and
teachings. If religion is good and true, why should this be?"

The preacher said nothing. They continued walking until he noticed a child
playing in the gutter.

Then the preacher said, "Look at that child. You say that soap makes people
clean, but see the dirt on that youngster. Of what good is soap? With all the
soap in the world, over all these years, the child is still filthy. I wonder
how effective soap is, after all!"

The atheist protested, "But preacher, soap cannot do any good unless it is
used!"

"Exactly," replied the preacher. "Exactly."

dumbdumb! SG

Originally posted by wa|th3r:
dumbdumb

Strong vibes.

I believe you didnt read at all what i wrote about salvation, my last second paragraph. I mentioned that the plan of salvation extends to, do u still not understand what the word "plan" means?

I can see that you strongly defend for your faith, and i am speaking [b]for you, not against you. I ask you to please re-read what we had written on, and my words parallels to what you said.

Exclamation Never did i say salvation is by good works only, never did i say non-believers have that grace of salvation, and never did i say that we cannot reject salvation. You are putting words in my mouth, let me remind you. Neutral

Salvation is a form of grace. This sentence means that, literally salvation is a form of grace, thus salvation is only one of the graces ppl receive. In my earlier paragraphs, when i said grace, it means general graces, blessings that God gives, like riches even to the undeserving. In my later paragraphs, my "grace" meant salvation. I regret and apologize for not being specific enough. So the grace i had mentioned in addition to the parable meant salvation, if i was clear enough.

Again, i stress that i didn't say non-believers have the "grace of salvation" (which i would like to quote using your own context), i said "plan", not "already have". In my line "God's plan of salvation extends to all", i mean to say that God plans to save every men and women. This line also means that we are going to saved, only if we allow ourselves to be, therefore meaning that we can reject, salvation that is.

Please, please read the what i said before making any disagreement or dispute. Because you did not actually disagree what i had said but what you thought i had said, just as i had mentioned that what i had written parallels to yours. Recognize who is for you, who is against you. Neutral

Cheers. Wink [/b]

woo, sorry abt that. i misunderstood some things then, cuz when u said that everyone shares in the grace, and there was no difference between believers and non believers, i misunderstood, there are cults who preach this u noe, even catholics, they preach that it doesn't matter, all will be saved, which is wrong.
may i know which church are u from? Very Happy

dumbdumb! SG

whu ever said christians dun sin? haha i said liaoz.. christians sometimes are worse.. but the difference is that christians hv forgiveness, cuz someone, pure died in the place of us. thats grace, something we don't deserve. its like a huge cave of gold! and we want to share it as well... its not something we want to selfishly keep and be all self conceited like "HAHA! I'VE GOT SOMETHING YOU DON'T!" no, the fact is we dun deserve it any more than the next average joe, but its something so good, we want to share it. not only do we get salvation, we get the promise of joy, peace, power, and authority.

in times of crisis, we have someone we know who will answer, someone who cares, God. He promised never to leave us nor forsake us, hv u ever had the assurance like that? that you don't have to earn God's answers, but He is always there, like a Father is always there for a son, when u call on His name, He will always answer. we do have worries, but we know we hv the answers to the problems of this world. and these are answers that works. my parents, before they understood, never could hv understand the joy, that no money can buy. being at peace in a world of confusion and chaos. this is priceless.. and we want all to hv an oppotunity to know. choice is still yours to make. your responsibility to know first. before making a choice.

wa|th3r SG

Erm, dumbdumb. Whenever we make statements, especially sensitive topics public, we have to be very responsible over what we say. Because if we make a conclusive statement without first getting the solid facts, ppl would then conveniently assume what we is true. Just i as had made so many statements here, I based all of them on facts, which i had affirmed with many religious ppl i know.

For example:

Myth: Non-Catholics, sadly most Protestants often accuse Catholics of worshipping Mother Mary.

Truth: Mother Mary, to the Catholics, is seen as the model of virtue and purity. A devout Christian who bore sufferings of a mother of a son who was crucified. Catholics therefore constantly believe in her presence (concept Eternal Life), regard her as friend and mother, but not as goddess. Mother Mary is not a god/goddess to the Catholics, and they don't worship her.

"...even catholics, they preach that it doesn't matter, all will be saved..." Therefore here in this statement you have made, I beseech you to research into this rumour by asking the Catholic clergy for the right answer. Simply because i tell you, there is no truth in this statement you have made.

As a reminder, if we don't ascertain facts before declaring them as truth, we are in effect spreading malicious rumor against our neighbor.

wa|th3r SG

"Out of point. Way way off tangent....

3.You know why?
It's because non believers and believers speak different language..."

I had already mentioned about the point of view the religious have on such immorality in contrast to social norms. From what i can understand in your statement, you mentioned believers and non-believers. Believers speak from their point of view, which is from the religious point of view; non-believers speak from their point of view, which is based on our social norms. To elaborate, I would say some of the immorality is already outdated, if i were to speak as a non-religious. But i would say that such immorality remains as stigmatized and even condemned if i were to speak as a Christian/Muslim...

In this, i had stated clear that non-believers and believers already see from different viewpoints. In such, an argument can no longer be possible, similar to what i understand from what you had said.

"You may have covered every single area about this topic and have convinced people that this generation should not condone to these immoralities." Wrong, i am afraid. My point is clear that, from a religious point of view, such immorality is not acceptable. Clearly, i had said such immoralities are not preached by the great religions.

I did not however say to convince "people of this generation should not condone to these immoralities" Wrong, a misunderstanding here. All i wanted to was to convince people of generation that the great religions do not condone to these immoralities.

" ...when will the church of God be totally clean of accusations?" I'm afraid, never. But like what you said "it's only when God comes and all man will be silent before Him.", yes, i strongly believe that such would all things come to light "when God comes and all men will be silent..."

"...other speakers did great job in defending the word and even proving the word to be true. Can you?" To be frank, I can't. Not in my power, not in my abilities. Powerless as i am, I am simply trying my best to explain and unveal the truth to ppl. My desire here is simple, is to hope that ppl would understand and hear what's closest to the truth, given to the best of what i know.

"...Out of point. Way way off tangent..." Because my words weren't listened to in it's entirely, misunderstanding arose.

To conclude: My desire is to unveal to the ppl here what that is closest to the truth, given the best of my knowledge, to clear the fact that ppl use religion for sex, that this practice is not of religious practice and certainly not what that is preached. But rather, such is happening due to godlessness. My desire is also to explain to non-believers that religion see such behavior as unacceptable. Not to explain to the non-believers that they themselves should see it as unacceptable. Lastly, I'm doing all these to clear the stains that have soiled the name of religions, especially the churches. While i may not have the talents like Josh Mcdowell, i only hope that the teachings of the religions to be clearer to other ppl.

Sadly, my words found no ears.

wa|th3r SG

I would love to, but i'm physically crippled as of now. Crying or Very sad

sillyme SG

huh? what happened?

M©+square SG

Clap Clap.

1. You your debative skills is somewhat like a apologist. May you're a CGL or of that calibre.
Very critically executed at any loopholes which challengers may have left out.
That's also a downfall. Rolling Eyes

2. I also need to give credit to you for clearing your motive of presenting your 'vast' knowledge(at your age).
Your desire to present truth is admirable.
Just a tot from me, you sure you've got to the right place to present truth? Ok please don't get defensive and start throwing verses at me. That's a personal question, that's all.

3. Sadly, your words didn't have audience,
You may want to present it differently or consider shortening your essays? Putting away your apologist, debative view may help people recieve in a neutral view.
4. Still my point made it's way that people in different levels may not see eye to eye as what you have presented.

Hence.
What you may have thought is clear is not.
What you think is right may not.
What you may thought was explained may not be delivered in it's fullest form. Worst, people may have taken your message in the wrong light, a greater damage done.
What may be 'right' to you may not be to others. (Give careful consideration. It's all only but personal views)

5. A simple example now to support my points. You can't agree with me fully even though i felt that i've done my best. Neither can i fully agree with you.

6. Sadly too, you ears are definitely not keen to my last last point.
That's my desire presented to you.

Let's meet up. Neutral

wa|th3r SG

(Anyway, i feel that this post is already out of topic)

Sigh, from what i can see. M©+square, I am getting the impression that you're not tackling my statements rather, but me. If in your view, you insist that only ("Just a tot from me, you sure you've got to the right place to present truth?") that I have a right place to present the truth, then I shall not speak. But do let me say that this is not the way to end a debate, argument etc. One should tackle the ball to win the ball, not the man.

"You your debative skills is somewhat like a apologist. May you're a CGL or of that calibre..." Er...what's a CGL?

"That's also a downfall" Please elaborate, i genuinely wish to hear. Smile

"please don't get defensive and start throwing verses at me..." Er...I don't direct at the people arguing, but what that is argued.

"Sadly, your words didn't have audience...my point made it's way that people in different levels may not see eye to eye as what you have presented." Well, I presented my point alongside with social viewpoints and religious viewpoints. this is so to explain to help ppl better understand the difference between social versus religious viewpoints. While you maintain that people at different levels may not see eye to eye, like i said, morality by (most) religious context is absolute and therefore timeless, in contast to the changing norms by social standards. Have i not explained this enough?

Therefore i am saying in effect that, "While other people can't agree or accept the religious standards, such standards remain within the religion." I am also saying in effect, "Non-religious are not expected to follow the religious doctrines", and "so a visitor to a church is not expect to follow the liturgy." [but out of courtesy/respect he/she should at least do what is respectful in the eyes of the host. Even when violated, the visitor is not to be reprimanded or any sort because he/she has a different set of norms/rules]

Here i am not expressing my opinion, but rather the standard, or the doctrine of religions. You can agree/disagree opinions, and that's fair, but arguing doctrines leads close to nothing (i repeat, close to nothing, but not nothing). Anglicans can disagree that divorce is unacceptable, but Catholics see otherwise, that's why there're still so many differences not only among denominations, but also races, ethnicity, culture, norms, etc. Here, i am trying to allow "audience" to adopt a "relativist" view, not a culturo-centric, ethno-centric, or religio-centric view.

"What you may have thought is clear is not." May expresses an opinion, therefore cannot be debated. Out of defense, i know what i, here am saying. (I suspect you'll say that others would feel that i am not)

"What you think is right may not." As per above

"What you may thought was explained may not be delivered in it's fullest form. Worst, people may have taken your message in the wrong light, a greater damage done. What may be 'right' to you may not be to others. (Give careful consideration. It's all only but personal views)" Not many how bad/good i had presented or even the best writer had written, conflicts are inevitable, just as it is obvious misundersandings are. Here, well, i have also tried my best.

So you stand on people dont see eye to eye is clear, but my stand is to present what the doctrines mean. There can be no agree/disagree, there is however accept/unaccept, because u can't agree/diagree doctrines/rules, but you can ignore/accept.

"A simple example now to support my points. You can't agree with me fully even though i felt that i've done my best. Neither can i fully agree with you." I have to remind you that i'm presenting the facts, just like i'm telling everyone that the sun rises from the east, so you're not actually not disagreeing what i had said, but rather impression tells me that you are disagreeing with what i am doing. Question

What was your last point? I genuinely do not know. "Meet up" ?

I had already mentioned that i am crippled, hav a crippled left leg, can't walk for at least a few months. I beg you to tackle to topic, not me. (Please reply me in private, since i feel that this is already went off the mark.)

Cheers. Wink

dumbdumb! SG

whoa… no meeting up, scarly fight, will look dumb. firstly, what is the purpose of the preaching we did? lets be focused to God’s heartbeat, if u know what that means

wa|th3r SG

Shocked Cute.

Hope this is my last post here in this topic. I'm simply standing up and stating the facts, doing my part as a religious. I love when you said to listen to God's heartbeat, to sit by his feet and listen to him.

Cheers Wink

dumbdumb! SG

being religious is always the problem. we aren't supposed to be religious

Devil1976 SG

I don't have to be bothered because I feel that I don't have to be. I've already got the fair share of what I wanted to say and what I wanted to hear. I shouldn't be greedy for now? Rolling Eyes

« Previous Page Next Page »