[Railroader]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

His religion has taught him that genitals are 'dirty' and we should be ashamed of them, and of sex. Sex is horrible, and only sinners have sex. Little do they know Jesus was a player.

His=her

And the Bible teaches that sex is a form of worship and should be done often and intensely. See where ignorance has gotten you?

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Ditto. Ever since women's sexual independence in the 60s, I think the concept of 'waiting til marriage' is rather archiac, and the only kids I knew who actually did that were complete dorks/losers/couldn't get laid anyway. Then again, this is just my experience. Yours may differ.

Yup, it is different. A friend of mine was the home coming king, not a nerd. He waited until marriage and after PA school. His story is not uncommon.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Unlesss those people are telling people who don't feel that way that they're going to hell forever, they're sinners, they're horrible people, that waiting for marriage makes them superior people, etc etc etc.

FUD. You are saying this out of ignorance.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I can assure you it does. I have the bills to prove it. My wife is going through some sexual issues for the past while, because of her childhood/upbringing in super christianity, aka catholic. They teach you that sex is wrong, and an 'animal' desire, and you should be above it because sex is a dirty/base desire bla bla bla sinner...bla bla bla hell bla bla bla don't be sexy bla bla bla sex is horrible. Maybe I can convicne her to post about it, but I'm guessing not.

Sorry about your wife's sexual issues, but I assure you, it is her family to blame and not Christianity.

More FUD from you about sex and Christianity.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I wasn't talking sex ed.. But ok.

I wasn't exclusively referring to sex-ed, but virginity as a virtue. This idea isn't main stream and not even common in conservative circles. Another important difference is that I should have added Catholic to conservative, because Protestants tend to be a lot more progressive than Catholics here.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I am not talking about people who actually practice it. Lots of people believe it's the RIGHT THING TO DO. Just like not lying. But people still lie.

No, not lots, outside of the US (and especially in Germany) it's very few and not lots.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I wasn't exclusively referring to sex-ed, but virginity as a virtue. This idea isn't main stream and not even common in conservative circles.

Any proof at all to back up that claim?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

And the Bible teaches that sex is a form of worship and should be done often and intensely.

Really? I was under the impression that sex was a tool for procreation and not pure pleasure. Or is that an idea that was brought forth by the Church and not the actually teachings of the Bible?

[macgeek2005]

Alright. this thread is moving way too fast. As soon as I get home tonight, i'm gonna sit down and read through the whole thing. I wouldn't wanna miss one of my own threads! It's just, it's been moving so damn fast! 8 frickin pages already!!

[ajprice]

macgeek2005, don't worry, barely any of it is anything to do with you, its mainly handbags at dawn carried over from other threads or cat pictures.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Really? I was under the impression that sex was a tool for procreation and not pure pleasure. Or is that an idea that was brought forth by the Church and not the actually teachings of the Bible?

According to Judaism, at least, sex within marriage is a holy act as it, and its purpose is both pleasure and procreation. Moreover, even if one's wife cannot get pregnant, according to Jewish law the couple is to still engage in intercourse for the sake of the wife's pleasure. Among the greatest blessings in life, according to the Torah, is the blessing of offspring. From the Jewish perspective, sex within marriage is a holy union of creative energy, which furthers the divine plan regarding procreation and fulfills the first command given to Adam and his wife, "Be fruitful and multiply. . ."

[Laminar]

I've always like Proverbs 5:18-19

Let your wife be a fountain of blessing for you.
Rejoice in the wife of your youth.
She is a loving deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts satisfy you always.
May you always be captivated by her love.

[Dakarʒ]

The wife of your youth? What the hell does that mean?

[Oisín]

It means once she’s old and pruney, you won’t be wantin’ to be hittin’ it no mo’.

[Mastrap]

^

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Any proof at all to back up that claim?

Have you ever lived in Germany? Or anywhere in Europe and went to school there? You're simply extrapolating from your own experience in the US and thinking that Europe can't be that far from the US. But the matter of the fact is that with many things, acceptance of global warming, green energy, contraception, health care, evolution, equality of men and women, it's way different from the US.

What strikes me as odd is that even though many of the movements (as well as scientific progress) that led to these concepts originated from the US (or at least had a role here), the pendulum swayed back considerably to more conservative convictions in the US whereas many of these things stuck in Europe, especially Germany. Many of these concepts stayed main stream and evolved. One of them is sexual liberty and self determination (which is not the same as promiscuity, by the way).

And the key as to why this is true is simple: conservative religious convictions are not considered the ultimate yardstick, the `safe' choice, the opinion of the 90 % in the middle is what counts. Religion is something private in Germany and it's considered rude when you boast with it. Our current chancellor hasn't mentioned once her religious upbringing during her campaign, for instance (she is the child of a Protestant minister). Your `salad bar' rant of secular Judaism (something which could have come from a conservative Christian (pick a flavor) or conservative Muslim as well to differentiate themselves from more liberal kins of their denomination of choice) would immediately isolate you as someone with extreme convictions.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I wasn't exclusively referring to sex-ed, but virginity as a virtue. This idea isn't main stream and not even common in conservative circles. Another important difference is that I should have added Catholic to conservative, because Protestants tend to be a lot more progressive than Catholics here.

No, not lots, outside of the US (and especially in Germany) it's very few and not lots.

Like I said, I will talk to them and get their answers.

From what I hear from them it's the opposite.

I am sure it's about who you "hang" with.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

It means once she’s old and pruney, you won’t be wantin’ to be hittin’ it no mo’.

That's pretty much the way it reads.

[Laminar]

It says "of your youth," not "in your youth," so I'm assuming it's referring to the girl you married when you were young(er).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Like I said, I will talk to them and get their answers.

From what I hear from them it's the opposite.

You'll likely hear that there are others (which I'm not denying), but ask them what their classmates at school were doing … I really doubt they've ever told you their convictions regarding sex were main stream.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I am sure it's about who you "hang" with.

No, it isn't. It's a matter of what is and isn't main stream. I have lived in three different cities in Germany (in different states), went to a bunch of different schools, it's not who I hang with, it's just nowhere near main stream. Many of my classmates (not just my friends or `people I hang with') were active in their churches and none of them was trying to wait to have sex until wedding night. Just the way it is, Kevin, and has nothing to do with my friends.

I'm not saying there aren't people who believe they shouldn't have sex before they're married, I'm saying that those people are a miniscule minority.

[Mastrap]

I grew up in Germany and I can only agree with Oreo's post. Not only is the idea of being public about your religious affiliation alien to the vast majority of German people, the idea that sexual abstinence before marriage is a virtue is not a concept that has any kind of popular support.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It says "of your youth," not "in your youth," so I'm assuming it's referring to the girl you married when you were young(er).

To me that implies there might be a second wife, which seems... odd.

[Oisín]

I wouldn’t say it’s a minuscule minority, but it’s definitely a minority, I’ll agree with that. I know of one person who wants to wait until he’s married, everyone else doesn’t consider premarital sex a sin or anything like that (or rather, everyone else is non-believing).

[Laminar]

Technically the Bible's not against polygamy, but that's not what this is getting at. I think it has more to do with keeping the same wife.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

His religion has taught him that genitals are 'dirty' and we should be ashamed of them, and of sex. Sex is horrible, and only sinners have sex. Little do they know Jesus was a player.

...

Ditto. Ever since women's sexual independence in the 60s, I think the concept of 'waiting til marriage' is rather archiac, and the only kids I knew who actually did that were complete dorks/losers/couldn't get laid anyway. Then again, this is just my experience. Yours may differ.

Ummm. no and no. First off, I have no problem saying "penis" and "vagina". I'm not a virgin. I don't think that genitals are "dirty". I don't think that only sinners have sex.

I think that there is nothing wrong with waiting until marriage. What do you have to lose by waiting? You might end up getting dumped by macgeek, but why would you want to date someone who expects you to put out? Love != sex. Happiness != sex. When you bring sex into the picture, it starts to become more and more important unless both of you are mature enough to keep it under control (which rarely happens). For the guy, he starts to expect it more and sees it as an integral part of a healthy relationship. If you do wait, your relationship has time to develop into a mature, well-balanced, symbiotic relationship between two people who love each other for more than what's between their legs.

It is possible for people to have a healthy, well-adjusted, functional relationship without having sex. That you have never accomplished that does not reflect on the rest of the world.

Not only that, but I've said it before and will say it again. Being a virgin does not only apply to women. It has nothing to do with "women's rights" or any other "social movement".

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Unlesss those people are telling people who don't feel that way that they're going to hell forever, they're sinners, they're horrible people, that waiting for marriage makes them superior people, etc etc etc.

Right. I wish you understood that sex != going to hell. People are inherently bad, and the redemption from that is really what Christianity is about. Waiting or not waiting doesn't change whether or not you're "better" than someone. Everyone is equally bad. Waiting to have sex until you're married doesn't make you better than anyone else, and people who believe that are really very wrong.

And, once again, what do you have to LOSE by maintaining your virginity? Let's see here...

You will avoid STDs. You won't have any pregnancy scares. If you're a teenager, you'll be able to focus on things that actually matter (like graduating high school and getting a job) instead of trying to convince your girlfriend to give you a hand job during study hall (which has happened several times in public schools in Indianapolis lately - middle and high schoolers performing sex acts in class). If you're a guy, you'll be able to be in a relationship with a girl without constantly trying to hump her. If you're a girl, you'll be able to be in a relationship with a guy without the pressures of him wanting to have sex with you when you don't want to. You'll be able to get emotionally involved and be there when he is emotionally involved with you instead of focusing on sex all the time (or even most or part of the time).

What about if you do have sex? What do you have to LOSE?

Your virginity. Your life, if you get pregnant or are diagnosed with an incurable STD like herpes or HIV. Your relationship, if your boyfriend or girlfriend wants you to do more than you're willing to do.

I'd have to say that not having sex has a lot more benefits than having sex. Sex is a five-second orgasm. It's an act that two people do to procreate and to get self pleasure. I doubt that most sexually active teenage girls have ever had an orgasm, because most teenage guys are over with it in a matter of moments, before the girl gets to find out how it should feel for her. Sex does not show love. It can be used as a tool to show how you feel about someone, but so can a nice dinner, a jacuzzi, flowers, chocolate, jewelry, kissing, and - oh yeah - telling them.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Yes I can. I don't feel that all religions are total crap, because I don't know enough about others. I just know that the whole jesus one is BS.

See, a statement like this makes it hard for me to give your opinions any value at all, Rob. The basis of Christianity is that all people are inherently bad, and that nothing they can do on their own is enough to redeem them from that. The rest of it is inconsequential at the end of the day.

But the rest of it, for the most part - if you don't become a freak like the people at Westboro Baptist in Kansas - just makes you a better person. Don't murder. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't slander people. Don't take credit for other people's work. Don't hate. Don't intentionally harm people. Don't steal. Respect each other.

The other parts that people today have issues with are things like not having women be ministers and not accepting homosexual behavior as morally acceptable. But when it comes down to it, the majority of what Christianity teaches is pretty standard fare for what any kid is taught in kindergarten.

None of that is specific to any religion. All of that is stuff that we do because it's culturally right for us to do those things.

And the part about being inherently bad? I look at my adopter toddler sister and see that she tends to do the wrong thing without even thinking about it - without being old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong.

It's easier to do the wrong thing. I mean, come on. If you had the opportunity to cheat on a test without any punishment, wouldn't that be easier? It's always easier to steal than it is to pay for something. It's easier to be lazy than to work. It's easier to exact revenge on someone than to forgive them. It's easier to lie than to say "I'm sorry". If given the choice, people will do the wrong thing unless they are taught that the wrong thing is wrong and should be avoided. If you aren't willing to accept this, then so be it. That doesn't, however, translate into you "knowing" that the "whole Jesus thing is BS". If by "the whole Jesus thing" you mean that you don't believe he existed and/or that he was the Son of God, then fine. You can believe whatever you want. But I doubt you can honestly say that the entire moral foundation of Christianity is utter crap. If it was, then you should go out and murder that kid who teased you in grade school, and you should walk into an Apple store and steal an iPod because you don't want to spend $300 on one.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I think it has more to do with keeping the same wife.

I don't know how you get that from that quote.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm not saying there aren't people who believe they shouldn't have sex before they're married, I'm saying that those people are a miniscule minority.

Actually Oreo it's really no different in the US. People who believe you should wait till your married in the US is the minority.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What do you have to lose by waiting? You might end up getting dumped by macgeek, but ........

[Oisín]

But the rest of it, for the most part - if you don't become a freak like the people at Westboro Baptist in Kansas - just makes you a better person. Don't murder. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't slander people. Don't take credit for other people's work. Don't hate. Don't intentionally harm people. Don't steal. Respect each other.

None of that is specific to any religion. All of that is stuff that we do because it's culturally right for us to do those things.

Exactly. It forms part of nearly every religion on the planet. In other words, when judging a religion, all that stuff can really be overlooked and ignored, since it’s shared by all the other religions (and non-religions) as well. What you’re left with, then, is that which defines Christianity (in opposition to other religions), and far too many of the things you’re left just seem to be more negatively defined (limiting and narrowing) rather than positively defined (accepting and broadening). What you call the basis of Christianity, that “everyone is inherently bad”, is a good example of that.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Actually Oreo it's really no different in the US. People who believe you should wait till your married in the US is the minority.

That's why I said miniscule minority to give you an idea about the relative sizes. It's not a common idea. In the US you can actually meet people in high school and all around you who want to wait to have sex (I've had a few experiences like that in PA), it's a lot, lot less likely to meet someone like that in Germany. Abstinence is even in sex-ed curriculum as be-all-end-all solution to stop STDs (or so they'd like to believe). In Germany: no such thing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Exactly. It forms part of nearly every religion on the planet. In other words, when judging a religion, all that stuff can really be overlooked and ignored, since it’s shared by all the other religions (and non-religions) as well. What you’re left with, then, is that which defines Christianity (in opposition to other religions), and far too many of the things you’re left just seem to be more negatively defined (limiting and narrowing) rather than positively defined (accepting and broadening). What you call the basis of Christianity, that “everyone is inherently bad”, is a good example of that.

What gives us the ability to realize it's the right thing to do?

[Oisín]

Actually Oreo it's really no different in the US. People who believe you should wait till your married in the US is the minority.

There’s still a difference, though. Firstly because of the size of the minority (bigger in the US than in most of Europe), but more importantly because considering virginity-till-marriage to be a virtue in itself is not considered extremist. There are many politicians at all levels of American politics who make this precise dilemma an important point in their election campaigns and policies, and it’s considered either something you agree with or something you don’t agree with, but not extremist.

I don’t know about Germany or other places, but I can think of absolutely no politician here (not even locally) who has made abstinence a point in policies or campaigning. And wisely so, because they would be considered extremist by most people, in the same way that ‘politicians’ of the Danish People’s Party are considered extremist for their borderline racist campaigning and policy issues. The same goes for abortion, really. Both abstinence and abortion are issues that are actually discussed and relevant in American politics; but in European (or at least Danish) politics, they’re quite irrelevant, since nearly no one believes that abstinence before marriage or forbidding abortions is a viable option.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What gives us the ability to realize it's the right thing to do?

A person's ability to think for himself and form opinions of his own.

[Oisín]

What gives us the ability to realize it's the right thing to do?

Our upbringing, of course, as well as our own ability (when older) to think for ourselves and make our own decisions.

The fact that it’s part of our upbringing, however, merely proves that it’s part of a social inheritance, one that’s been slowly developed and refined throughout millennia of humans living as a society. The fact that ‘the right thing to do’ is so similar in virtually all societies on the planet shows that the entire concept is based on what has, throughout millennia, been proven to be the most beneficial behaviour to the society you live in. That’s also, of course, the reason why it’s the main core of religions; but it doesn’t mean that it’s dependent on religion to survive—it’s not.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Exactly. It forms part of nearly every religion on the planet. In other words, when judging a religion, all that stuff can really be overlooked and ignored, since it’s shared by all the other religions (and non-religions) as well. What you’re left with, then, is that which defines Christianity (in opposition to other religions), and far too many of the things you’re left just seem to be more negatively defined (limiting and narrowing) rather than positively defined (accepting and broadening). What you call the basis of Christianity, that “everyone is inherently bad”, is a good example of that.

I can accept that as your own opinion on Christianity (or any other religion).

Religion is not supposed to be open-minded, and I almost want to avoid calling Christianity a religion. It's not supposed to be a bunch of rules that you blindly follow. It's supposed to be a whole new way of living your life.

But, no, Christianity is not progressive or "accepting and broadening" - which is why the progressives/liberals of the world dislike it so much. If you believe that absolute truth does not exist (e.g. that all humans are sinful or that there are certain moral values that simply should not be bent for the convenience of yourself or others), then there is no religion on the planet that will fit you.

But, again, it's not about finding a religion that fits you. It's about fitting yourself to a way of life that, overall, will end up making you a better person. I'm sure that there are plenty of agnostics/atheists/etc. that are "good people" for the most part. I'm just saying that for a good number of people, finding Christianity did make them happier and more moral.

All I was trying to get at originally was that Rob saying that he knows the "whole Jesus thing is BS" is silly. None of know what happens after death. None of us know for certain that God does or doesn't exist. I already know that, on this forum, there is a wide range of opinion on faith and the part it plays in one's life, so that's probably not worth arguing here. But saying you know something to be true is a lot different from saying that you believe it, even if you believe it 100% with all your heart. It's like differentiating between fact and theory. A fact is something we can prove for certain - if you throw a brick at a windshield, you're going to break the glass. A theory is something we can't prove for certain - the universe was formed by a "big bang". Likewise, I don't know, for instance, that the gods of Hinduism don't really exist. I'd never be so stupid or naive as to say that they do or don't. I can believe with every ounce of my being that Hinduism is a false religion, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth.

And the whole concept of some people having no faith is stupid in itself. If you believe in evolution, that's a little faith right there. If you believe that God doesn't exist, that's faith too. Faith is not confined just by religion. It's believing in anything that you can't absolutely, 1000% prove is true.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

TBoth abstinence and abortion are issues that are actually discussed and relevant in American politics; but in European (or at least Danish) politics, they’re quite irrelevant, since nearly no one believes that abstinence before marriage or forbidding abortions is a viable option.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's probably no viable to ban abortions, because then you'd go back to coathanger abortions and women dying at the hands of black-market abortion clinics.

But abstinence? Not as a law, but as a choice - how is that not a viable option? Unless you're raped, nobody forces you to lose your virginity to someone.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That doesn't make sense to me. It's probably no viable to ban abortions, because then you'd go back to coathanger abortions and women dying at the hands of black-market abortion clinics.

But abstinence? Not as a law, but as a choice - how is that not a viable option? Unless you're raped, nobody forces you to lose your virginity to someone.

I think the "not a viable option" was aimed at abortion only.

[Oisín]

But abstinence? Not as a law, but as a choice - how is that not a viable option? Unless you're raped, nobody forces you to lose your virginity to someone.

Obviously, abstinence is perfectly applicable as a choice—but as a personal choice. I think I worded my last post rather muddily: what I meant was that no one here really believes that abstinence should be taught and encouraged in school, in sex-ed, for instance; or that parents ought to bring their children up to believe that sex is something you shouldn’t do till you’re married. That’s where the difference lies, I think. Many American politicians seem to believe/make a point of wanting to make abstinence the sex-ed education, almost; or at least that abstinence should be taught at least equally in sex-ed.

Over here, abstinence is not mentioned in sex-ed as a ‘point of its own’, so to speak—it’s simply assumed that, since it’s taught that everyone has the right to decide whether or not they want to have sex with someone and pushing your boyfriend/girlfriend into having sex with you is bad, that people will be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to wait till they’re married to have sex.

[Kerrigan]

I just realized that half of this thread is a rubbish Punch & Judy colloquy between Dakar and Gossamer.

[Laminar]

hehehe

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

But, no, Christianity is not progressive or "accepting and broadening" - which is why the progressives/liberals of the world dislike it so much. If you believe that absolute truth does not exist (e.g. that all humans are sinful or that there are certain moral values that simply should not be bent for the convenience of yourself or others), then there is no religion on the planet that will fit you.

I disagree with both these points. You're making a sweeping statement about a large group of people that you cannot possibly back up. Also, not all religions believe in an absolute truth.

My personal feelings about this whole issue are expressed in my signature.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I just realized that half of this thread is a rubbish Punch & Judy colloquy between Dakar and Gossamer.

I just skimmed the wiki entry, but I don't think I understand the reference.

[macgeek2005]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

It means once she’s old and pruney, you won’t be wantin’ to be hittin’ it no mo’.

See, there's plenty of funny stuff in here. I am gonna read the whole thread when I get home.. I don't wanna miss anything good. I also liked "What do you have to lose by waiting? You might get dumped by macgeek but...".

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Have you ever lived in Germany? Or anywhere in Europe and went to school there? You're simply extrapolating from your own experience in the US and thinking that Europe can't be that far from the US. But the matter of the fact is that with many things, acceptance of global warming, green energy, contraception, health care, evolution, equality of men and women, it's way different from the US.

Oh, I wasn't saying anything about Europe. Much of Western Europe is a decaying mess. Thank the Lord that the United States has not yet given into the temptation to follow old Europe lockstep into socialism, atheism and nihilism. As for the points you mentioned: Man-made global warming is a crock (but that does not mean I don't care about the earth); the US recently approved morning after pills so I think there's not much difference there; Americans don't believe in bankrupting our country for a nightmare of socialized medicine; evolution is up to debate in America; I don't see inequality between men and women. (If you're talking about wages and if you think it's true that women make less in the same positions, then I ask you why haven't businesses chosen to employ many more women than men because of the ability to pay them less?) By the way, while I have studied Germany, you'll never find me there. 6 Million of my people were murdered by a modern, "cultured" Germany. The Torah forbids me from ever going to Egypt because of what we suffered there, and Germany definitely outdid Egypt in that regard.

What strikes me as odd is that even though many of the movements (as well as scientific progress) that led to these concepts originated from the US (or at least had a role here), the pendulum swayed back considerably to more conservative convictions in the US whereas many of these things stuck in Europe, especially Germany. Many of these concepts stayed main stream and evolved. One of them is sexual liberty and self determination (which is not the same as promiscuity, by the way).

You're talking about sex outside of committed relationships (if not marriage), with or without contraception and consequent demand for abortions. Well, if you think that's a positive thing, you're entitled to such beliefs, however irrational. I don't see how society benefits from such behavior. When sex is degraded to nothing more than a means of pleasure, without even the pretense of commitment, fidelity, any greater significance, society suffers. Is it good that women can have sex without having to fear high risk of pregnancy? Yes, sure it is. But does that mean they should have sex indiscriminately because they are "liberated?" That's a ridiculous view. There are recent psych studies that suggest women are wired to associate sex with a love and a relationship, so the liberation you speak of may hurt them more than anything else.

And the key as to why this is true is simple: conservative religious convictions are not considered the ultimate yardstick, the `safe' choice, the opinion of the 90 % in the middle is what counts. Religion is something private in Germany and it's considered rude when you boast with it. Our current chancellor hasn't mentioned once her religious upbringing during her campaign, for instance (she is the child of a Protestant minister).

Power is mostly located in the center of the spectrum in the United States, too. It's just that you have a more difficult time grasping American politics because in America there's the right and the left and our country is almost evenly split between them, whereas in Europe most of the power is found in the left of center and the hard left. Western Europe went fascist in 1930s and was nearly destroyed so it swung socialist thereafter and will likely be nearly destroyed again because of it. When a conservative is in office Europeans call America extreme, but in fact Europe is the continent of political extremism. Your friends across the pond are just too self-righteous and deluded to realize it.

A lot of it has to do with European fanaticism in regard to religion. Yes, I said it, Europeans are fanatic when it comes to religion. For a large portion of its history, Europe was steeped in bloody religious wars because the concept of freedom of religion didn't exist. And it still really doesn't exist. Sure, Europe is far more tolerant now of all kinds of religions, but that tolerance is really false in comparison to the tolerance found in America. In America we are tolerant because we respect religion. In Europe they are tolerant because they think people are fooling themselves with religion. The Christian sects of Europe are shells of what they formerly were (with the exception of the Vatican, of course). Perhaps it's due to the fact that European society gave rise to so much evil that there's an indifference to moral based code found in religion now, or perhaps the collective guilt in Europe manifests as misplaced antipathy for faith, or maybe it's the influence of Marxism and its offspring secular humanism, but whatever the case may be Europe is bereft of its traditional religious base and consequently much of the moral fiber and character that Judeo-Christian thought is responsible for. Europe is so bereft that it threatens to be subsumed by its growing Muslim population, a portion of which subscribes to the view that Sharia should rule the globe.

Your `salad bar' rant of secular Judaism (something which could have come from a conservative Christian (pick a flavor) or conservative Muslim as well to differentiate themselves from more liberal kins of their denomination of choice) would immediately isolate you as someone with extreme convictions.

It certainly could have. My sentiments come from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism; iIf you wish to characterize traditional Jewish philosophy, which was the only kind of Jewish philosophy from far back in antiquity to the early 20th Century as extreme, that's your call.

[G4ME]

wow ten pages and you just realized that?

thats pretty sweet

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

I am gonna read the whole thread when I get home.. I don't wanna miss anything good.

Yes, we gathered that from the previous 2 times you communicated the exact same sentiment.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh, I wasn't saying anything about Europe. Much of Western Europe is a decaying mess. Thank the Lord that the United States has not yet given into the temptation to follow old Europe lockstep into socialism, atheism and nihilism. As for the points you mentioned: Man-made global warming is a crock (but that does not mean I don't care about the earth); the US recently approved morning after pills so I think there's not much difference there; Americans don't believe in bankrupting our country for a nightmare of socialized medicine; evolution is up to debate in America; I don't see inequality between men and women. (If you're talking about wages and if you think it's true that women make less in the same positions, then I ask you why haven't businesses chosen to employ many more women than men because of the ability to pay them less?) By the way, while I have studied Germany, you'll never find me there. 6 Million of my people were murdered by a modern, "cultured" Germany. The Torah forbids me from ever going to Egypt because of what we suffered there, and Germany definitely outdid Egypt in that regard.


You're talking about sex outside of committed relationships (if not marriage), with or without contraception and consequent demand for abortions. Well, if you think that's a positive thing, you're entitled to such beliefs, however irrational. I don't see how society benefits from such behavior. When sex is degraded to nothing more than a means of pleasure, without even the pretense of commitment, fidelity, any greater significance, society suffers. Is it good that women can have sex without having to fear high risk of pregnancy? Yes, sure it is. But does that mean they should have sex indiscriminately because they are "liberated?" That's a ridiculous view. There are recent psych studies that suggest women are wired to associate sex with a love and a relationship, so the liberation you speak of may hurt them more than anything else.


Power is mostly located in the center of the spectrum in the United States, too. It's just that you have a more difficult time grasping American politics because in America there's the right and the left and our country is almost evenly split between them, whereas in Europe most of the power is found in the left of center and the hard left. Western Europe went fascist in 1930s and was nearly destroyed so it swung socialist thereafter and will likely be nearly destroyed again because of it. When a conservative is in office Europeans call America extreme, but in fact Europe is the continent of political extremism. Your friends across the pond are just too self-righteous and deluded to realize it.

A lot of it has to do with European fanaticism in regard to religion. Yes, I said it, Europeans are fanatic when it comes to religion. For a large portion of its history, Europe was steeped in bloody religious wars because the concept of freedom of religion didn't exist. And it still really doesn't exist. Sure, Europe is far more tolerant now of all kinds of religions, but that tolerance is really false in comparison to the tolerance found in America. In America we are tolerant because we respect religion. In Europe they are tolerant because they think people are fooling themselves with religion. The Christian sects of Europe are shells of what they formerly were (with the exception of the Vatican, of course). Perhaps it's due to the fact that European society gave rise to so much evil that there's an indifference to moral based code found in religion now, or perhaps the collective guilt in Europe manifests as misplaced antipathy for faith, or maybe it's the influence of Marxism and its offspring secular humanism, but whatever the case may be Europe is bereft of its traditional religious base and consequently much of the moral fiber and character that Judeo-Christian thought is responsible for. Europe is so bereft that it threatens to be subsumed by its growing Muslim population, a portion of which subscribes to the view that Sharia should rule the globe.


It certainly could have. My sentiments come from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism; iIf you wish to characterize traditional Jewish philosophy, which was the only kind of Jewish philosophy from far back in antiquity to the early 20th Century as extreme, that's your call.

...and then the thread really got going.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Really? I was under the impression that sex was a tool for procreation and not pure pleasure. Or is that an idea that was brought forth by the Church and not the actually teachings of the Bible?

If by "Church" you mean Catholic Church, you may be right. But us "wacko evangelicals" of the reformed Church believe sex is beautiful and an act of worship.

Proverbs 5:18-20 NIV
18 May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.

19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be captivated by her love.

Song of Solomon 7:7-9 NIV

7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.

8 I said, "I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit."
May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine,
the fragrance of your breath like apples,

9 and your mouth like the best wine.

Beloved

May the wine go straight to my lover,
flowing gently over lips and teeth. [a]

[Dakarʒ]

Hmm... I wonder if this means people will start to consider my nymphomania just strong religious devotion.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

...and then the thread really got going.

I started making a list of all the factual errors in his post but then got distracted.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

A person's ability to think for himself and form opinions of his own.

Why does the conscience even exist? Or a sense of right or wrong?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Our upbringing, of course, as well as our own ability (when older) to think for ourselves and make our own decisions.

The fact that it’s part of our upbringing, however, merely proves that it’s part of a social inheritance, one that’s been slowly developed and refined throughout millennia of humans living as a society. The fact that ‘the right thing to do’ is so similar in virtually all societies on the planet shows that the entire concept is based on what has, throughout millennia, been proven to be the most beneficial behaviour to the society you live in. That’s also, of course, the reason why it’s the main core of religions; but it doesn’t mean that it’s dependent on religion to survive—it’s not.

That replies your last post as well as the previous one, Kevin.