Readers’ Responses to Our Question (262)

It’s not about plain sex which only serve the purpose, like you eat when you feel hungry.

It’s about sexual rights upon each other. YOU CAN EAT, BUT CAN'T STEEL......STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELA.

Does every body know the difference?
I guess yes?

But is every single soul who become in control is JUST & FARE??? How could we make sure?????

How could we prevail justice and fareness?
THE ANSWER IS, ONLY BY FOLLOWING & "IMPLEMENTING" FARE AND JUST RULES "IN SEXUAL RELATIONS AS WELL".

I can understand that my comments will hurt the DEVILS (SEX PROMOTERS IN GENERAL MEDIA AND WESTERN SOCIETY, TRADERS, PERVERTS & HIDDEN SUPPORTERS (RULERS IN THE WHOLE WEST) FOR THERE OWN CRIMINAL INTENSIONS).

FOR THEM EVERY THING GOES AND OKAY UNTIL THERE DAUGHTER IS SAFE ! (ONLY in front of there eyes....)

My beloved is mine and I am his, by night on my bed I sought him whom I love

But I found him not, in his absence I console myself with the fact that we belong to each other

In comparison to all others, there is none with his voice or with his touch

The taste of his lips is better than any wine; his love is like no other

My heart loves him as strong as flames of fire that many waters cannot quench

I will love him, I will be faithful to him, and we will know enduring love for a lifetime

As long as we live and have our being in a world of duality we will encounter opposites such as good and bad. Sex itself is neither good nor bad...it just is what it is.

Sex serves a purpose until it is no longer needed.

May Allah guide us all to the right path, Ameen!

Mut'a initially was allowed for very very short period in the beginning of Islam when people were newly reverting. To have open lawful relation and not the secret, lying, manipulated hidden one (adultery & fornication). But later VERY SOON FORBIDDEN CLEARLY as mentioned in on record Sahi Hadiths.

In Shia sect it is still accepted by very small number of "Mujtahidins".

It is important to mention that how Shia sect came into being and what is the difference between main stream Muslims and Shia Muslims.

Shia sect was founded by Abdullah bin Saba (a Jewish convert hypocrite). ( Like Molis in Christianity).

His points of propagations were:

1- Only Hazrat Ali (r.a) was the rightful Caliph and Imam of Muslim Ummah and not the first 3 Caliphs. Because he was the direct descendent of Prophets Family. There Grandfather was same and he married to Prophets daughter. And variously quoted hadith, "Prophet (PBUH) said, I'm Knowledge and Ali (r.a) is gate to the knowledge".
2- The Imamat and Chilapht will only be transferred to Prophets Family as in case of previous prophets.

Due to his evil propagation against teachings of Islam, first he was expelled from the city by the Governor of Baghdad, and then expelled form Basra. And then he hides and settled in the city of Kofa and made it his center of activities.

Clearly he was propagating against the teachings of Islam and Prophet (PBUH). EVEN HAZRAT ALI (r.a) HIMSELF WHEN HE BECAME CALIPH ORDERED HIS DEATH, BECAUSE HE WAS CREATING "FITNA" AMONG MUSLIMS.

But main stream Muslims always respected Shia’s because the foundation and BASIC RELIGION IS SAME THAT IS BASED ON “QUR’AN AND SUNNAH ONLY”.

AS EVERY MUSLIM KNOWS :
–i- Ijtahad, -ii- Fiqah –iii- Tafseer -iv- Fatwa –v- Sharia (Islamic Law) etc ARE NOT RELIGION.
THEY ARE ONLY EXPLATIONS AND ELOBORATIONS. AND AT ANY TIME IF PROVEN CONTRADICTING TO RELIGION CAN BECOME NULL AND VOID.

The main stream Muslims always refuted Shia’s by quoting following:

- If previous 3 Caliph’s were not right then Hazrat Ali (r.a.) had never taken “Baat” on them (Voted in their favor himself, even after few days in case of first Caliph). As ALL Prophets and even rightful disciples or people never bowed in front of falsehood or lie. Hazrat Ali’s (r.a.) baat it self is proving MAIN SHIA BELIEVE WRONG. Because after Prophet (PBUH) Shia’s believes in Ali (r.a.).
- In the absence of Prophet (PBUH), Hazrat Abu Bakar (r.a) first Caliph use to take the place of Imamat in Namaz (prayer). Once somebody else tried but Prophet (PBUH) stopped the person and according to Sahi Hadith said after me Abu Bakar (r.a.) is the only rightful person for Amamat.
- Prophet (PBUH) also said about second Caliph- Sahi Hadith, “I’m the seal of Prophet’s, none after me will be coming, but if there could any, it would be Omer (r.a)”.

SURLY Abdullah Bin Saba (the Jew convert) was a HYPOCRATE who introduced Shia Sect among Muslims and also introduced and continued so many other forbidden practices in Shia’s like Mut’a.

Mut'a initially was allowed for very very short period in the beginning of Islam when people were newly reverting. To have open lawful relation and not the secret, lying, manipulated hidden one (adultery & fornication). But later VERY SOON FORBIDDEN CLEARLY as mentioned in on record Sahi Hadiths.

In Shia sect it is still accepted by very small number of "Mujtahidins".

It is important to mention that how Shia sect came into being and what is the difference between main stream Muslims and Shia Muslims.

Shia sect was founded by Abdullah bin Saba (a Jewish convert hypocrite). ( Like Molis in Christianity).

His points of propagations were:

1- Only Hazrat Ali (r.a) was the rightful Caliph and Imam of Muslim Ummah and not the first 3 Caliphs. Because he was the direct descendent of Prophets Family. There Grandfather was same and he married to Prophets daughter. And variously quoted hadith, "Prophet (PBUH) said, I'm Knowledge and Ali (r.a) is gate to the knowledge".
2- The Imamat and Chilapht will only be transferred to Prophets Family as in case of previous prophets.

Due to his evil propagation against teachings of Islam, first he was expelled from the city by the Governor of Baghdad, and then expelled form Basra. And then he hides and settled in the city of Kofa and made it his center of activities.

Clearly he was propagating against the teachings of Islam and Prophet (PBUH). EVEN HAZRAT ALI (r.a) HIMSELF WHEN HE BECAME CALIPH ORDERED HIS DEATH, BECAUSE HE WAS CREATING "FITNA" AMONG MUSLIMS.

But main stream Muslims always respected Shia’s because the foundation and BASIC RELIGION IS SAME THAT IS BASED ON “QUR’AN AND SUNNAH ONLY”.

AS EVERY MUSLIM KNOWS :
–i- Ijtahad, -ii- Fiqah –iii- Tafseer -iv- Fatwa –v- Sharia (Islamic Law) etc ARE NOT RELIGION.
THEY ARE ONLY EXPLATIONS AND ELOBORATIONS. AND AT ANY TIME IF PROVEN CONTRADICTING TO RELIGION CAN BECOME NULL AND VOID.

The main stream Muslims always refuted Shia’s by quoting following:

- If previous 3 Caliph’s were not right then Hazrat Ali (r.a.) had never taken “Baat” on them (Voted in their favor himself, even after few days in case of first Caliph). As ALL Prophets and even rightful disciples or people never bowed in front of falsehood or lie. Hazrat Ali’s (r.a.) baat it self is proving MAIN SHIA BELIEVE WRONG. Because after Prophet (PBUH) Shia’s believes in Ali (r.a.).
- In the absence of Prophet (PBUH), Hazrat Abu Bakar (r.a) first Caliph use to take the place of Imamat in Namaz (prayer). Once somebody else tried but Prophet (PBUH) stopped the person and according to Sahi Hadith said after me Abu Bakar (r.a.) is the only rightful person for Amamat.
- Prophet (PBUH) also said about second Caliph- Sahi Hadith, “I’m the seal of Prophet’s, none after me will be coming, but if there could any, it would be Omer (r.a)”.

SURLY Abdullah Bin Saba (the Jew convert) was a HYPOCRATE who introduced Shia Sect among Muslims and also introduced and continued so many other forbidden practices in Shia’s like Mut’a.

Mut'a initially was allowed for very very short period in the beginning of Islam when people were newly reverting. To have open lawful relation and not the secret, lying, manipulated hidden one (adultery & fornication). But later VERY SOON FORBIDDEN CLEARLY as mentioned in on record Sahi Hadiths.

In Shia sect it is still accepted by very small number of "Mujtahidins".

It is important to mention that how Shia sect came into being and what is the difference between main stream Muslims and Shia Muslims.

Shia sect was founded by Abdullah bin Saba (a Jewish convert hypocrite). ( Like Molis in Christianity).

His points of propagations were:

1- Only Hazrat Ali (r.a) was the rightful Caliph and Imam of Muslim Ummah and not the first 3 Caliphs. Because he was the direct descendent of Prophets Family. There Grandfather was same and he married to Prophets daughter. And variously quoted hadith, "Prophet (PBUH) said, I'm Knowledge and Ali (r.a) is gate to the knowledge".
2- The Imamat and Chilapht will only be transferred to Prophets Family as in case of previous prophets.

Due to his evil propagation against teachings of Islam, first he was expelled from the city by the Governor of Baghdad, and then expelled form Basra. And then he hides and settled in the city of Kofa and made it his center of activities.

Clearly he was propagating against the teachings of Islam and Prophet (PBUH). EVEN HAZRAT ALI (r.a) HIMSELF WHEN HE BECAME CALIPH ORDERED HIS DEATH, BECAUSE HE WAS CREATING "FITNA" AMONG MUSLIMS.

But main stream Muslims always respected Shia’s because the foundation and BASIC RELIGION IS SAME THAT IS BASED ON “QUR’AN AND SUNNAH ONLY”.

AS EVERY MUSLIM KNOWS :
–i- Ijtahad, -ii- Fiqah –iii- Tafseer -iv- Fatwa –v- Sharia (Islamic Law) etc ARE NOT RELIGION.
THEY ARE ONLY EXPLATIONS AND ELOBORATIONS. AND AT ANY TIME IF PROVEN CONTRADICTING TO RELIGION CAN BECOME NULL AND VOID.

The main stream Muslims always refuted Shia’s by quoting following:

- If previous 3 Caliph’s were not right then Hazrat Ali (r.a.) had never taken “Baat” on them (Voted in their favor himself, even after few days in case of first Caliph). As ALL Prophets and even rightful disciples or people never bowed in front of falsehood or lie. Hazrat Ali’s (r.a.) baat it self is proving MAIN SHIA BELIEVE WRONG. Because after Prophet (PBUH) Shia’s believes in Ali (r.a.).
- In the absence of Prophet (PBUH), Hazrat Abu Bakar (r.a) first Caliph use to take the place of Imamat in Namaz (prayer). Once somebody else tried but Prophet (PBUH) stopped the person and according to Sahi Hadith said after me Abu Bakar (r.a.) is the only rightful person for Amamat.
- Prophet (PBUH) also said about second Caliph- Sahi Hadith, “I’m the seal of Prophet’s, none after me will be coming, but if there could any, it would be Omer (r.a)”.

SURLY Abdullah Bin Saba (the Jew convert) was a HYPOCRATE who introduced Shia Sect among Muslims and also introduced and continued so many other forbidden practices in Shia’s like Mut’a.

Without prescription pharmacy http://rxwithoutprescription.com/

mrs ahmed must be quite the radiant one

Mrs. Merriot-
Thank you for your research and your enthusiasm. I find it remarkably hypocritical that those who would demand that children be taught about how to have (safe) sex, would complain that,as a society, and not a dictatorship- we cannot also give children the tools and self- esteem necessary and teach them how NOT to have sex!

If people dont want a social more shoved down the throat of children, that includes their own!

And offering only one possibility to a child or young person is the same as telling them this is what all of society accepts as normal- when ALL of society does not- yet ALL of society pays the price-

INDOCTRINATION IS INDOCTRINATION

Your figures speak for themselves.
There is nothing wrong with offering a child a CHOICE-
and abstinece is the best choice for young people.

Not everyone in America comes from a well educated confortable middle class background where such "accidents" as unplanned pregancies and STD's and even AIDS can be absorbed into their health plans and bank accounts.

Most of the young people you are speaking about are in poverty loops- and decisions need to be made that take them into account and how this affects their lives.

As you noted, prison stats, fatherless homes, lack of education opportunity, health care...

But the reactionary response seems to be from those who are only worried about how this will affect their own freedom, without caring about how this affects the freedoms of the most vulnerable memebers of our society.

Freedom doesn't mean freedom from social responsibility to all people.
And teaching irresponsible sexual "freedom" to young people is an abdication of our duties as adults to teach our children well.

God bless you

Free prescription FedEx overnight shipping pills

Trust God making sex such fun. Most even pronounce His name during this act. Is there a message in this? I mean if we abstained we would be extinct. So, why provide such an act for pro-creation and load it with sooo much pleasure and then punish us for even contemplating it!

Its like opening the box of lollies to a child and asking him not to touch it. Such a cruel act.

I say have it and enjoy it between loving couples. And no cheating please, we are British!
They say it also increases endomorphines which puts a smile on the face with a rosy cheek. Trust God making it also good for us. Like eating chocolate and not getting fat.

Have fun 3x/day.

To ALL you atheists,
PLEASE read the following letter sent to Senator Obama--on the individual and societal devastation -particularly to blacks since we accepted the liberal godless view that human sexuality that one can choose to engage in with any sexual partner or many partners, male or female, with NO boundaries as long as it makes me feel good-which has permeated our T.V., movies, C.D's and culture--read the devastation --we have MILLIONS dead/injured from this godless version--maybe it's time to return to the mutual monogamous IDEAL of traditional MARRIAGE_-it worked for MOST societies for over 4000 years-here is the letter:

have been blessed for the last 8 years to direct youth to the healthy, responsible MORAL directive of abstinence education-which has only been funded under Title V since 1996-- which is now being attacked by SIECUS and others who want to continue the FAILED low expectation of comprehensive sex-ed which is LARGLEY how to continue the HARMFUL behavior of sexual behavior, -as long as they use condoms.
I have done much research as a nurse practitioner and an abstinence educator for the last 8 years, and was honored to write a chapter in a social ethics text which details the HIGH disparities in social ills like rates of poverty, rates of STD‘s, abortion rates, as well as the devastation to youth in fatherless homes-with increased rates of criminal behavior, drug and alcohol abuse, school drop out rates, and other devastation like emotional rates of depression and suicide rates, I hope you agree that directing ALL American youth to the HIGH expectation of abstinence education is the conservative IDEAL that would greatly reduce all of these ills --teaching ALL youth to abstain from not only drugs, alcohol and smoking, but especially sexual activity as there are MANY more negative consequences related to that ONE behavioral choice!
I believe it is time for ALL citizens who believe these statistics are UNACCEPTABLE, and begin to intervene to see how we can GREATLY reduce the rates of these sad statistics particularly for blacks and minorities which suffer with higher rates as a percentage of the population:

Sadly, blacks have higher rates as a percentage of the population-13%--of ALL of these social ills, BUT other statistics from the CDC state that they engage in these behaviors in higher rates--THUS more devastation. But, we have seen GREAT reductions-25% in teen pregnancy, and related 30% drop in child poverty, since we began funding Title V abstinence education in 1997,-BUT have not seen that GREAT news in the media-! Also, if we KNOW that so many social ills are linked to ONE behavior-- why wouldn't we invest MANY more dollars to be spent for that healthy, responsible directives?


Blacks account for 12-13% of the U.S. population--yet they have higher numbers as a percentage of their race in ALL of the following social ills:

POVERTY-The #1 group trapped in poverty are single female -headed
households--NO marriage--blacks have a 70% out--of-wedlock birth rate--THUS MORE POVERTY--CHOOSING to engage in sex before marriage is the causal factor!

STD's --Blacks have higher numbers of ALL STD's -not just HIV/AIDS--which in
some areas they account for 50% of the new cases--but also for Herpes,
Chlamydia, Gonorrhea..and others,.-we KNOW that STD's are LARGELY spread by CHOICES to engage in sex outside of MARRIAGE!

CRIME--WE KNOW that blacks have higher rates of criminal behavior AND on
more black victims--we also know that 70% of the men in prison came from
homes with NO fathers--NO marriage--thus NO positive role model--people
CHOOSING to engage in sex outside of MARRIAGE-and then abandon their
responsibility!

ABORTION--We know that since 1973-Roe v. Wade that 45 million unborn babies
have been KILLED in legal abortion--BUT 1/3rd of those-15 million-- were
black and Planned Parenthood-et.al. sets up more inner city abortion clinics
targeting blacks--that is GENOCIDE ! that citizens SADLY ignore!

*******My research from the CDC states that black youth engage in sex at younger ages and with more partners than their peers--THUS-more of ALL of these devastating numbers!




NOW for the solution--conservatives have funded and want to expand abstinence until MARRIAGE funding so that ALL youth will understand the consequences of that behavior -teach them how NOT to get STD's -or end up in poverty as a single mom or have to CHOOSE to KILL her baby in abortion. Also we would like to teach young men-why they need to exercise self-control and wait, and commit to the mom in MARRIAGE-that it is healthy for the child to grow up with a father and a mother and have a better chance of NOT engaging in criminal behavior and other negative behaviors!

I have a tape of some politicians from C-Span who say it is "unrealistic" to teach some youth abstinence--isn't that soft bigotry of LOW expectation--that blacks CANNOT
be taught self-control like their white peers-- I believe that IT IS RACIST to not teach
them the HIGH standard of abstinence AND we have studies which state black
youth do abstain after this healthy, responsible, MORAL directive of abstinence
education!


SO--I hope we will begin to challenge those who say they want less poverty, less crime, less STD's, less abortion -to join with conservatives and DEMAND abstinence education for ALL youth--so that we can GREATLY reduce these sad statistics-especially for blacks!

I also want to include the devastation from emotional effects of pre-marital sex like
increased rates of depression and suicide, loss of self-esteem and MANY
other emotional crisis that we spend MILLIONS on counseling!

***I am personally volunteering to come anywhere in the U.S. to show you a summary of the 2 hour presentation that we give to our students, and I KNOW that you will agree that ALL American youth are entitled to this HEALTHY, RESPONSBLE, MORAL directive, instead of the irresponsible, unhealthy, 30 year-old failed directive of “Just use your condom education“ which has as described in Chapter 3 of our Catholic Social Ethics text has HARMED so many!

Lastly, I am sending you correspondence with the Dep. Sec of O.P.A. and many other state and federal authorities concerning Title X federally-funded family planning clinics which are NOT reporting under-aged statutory rape victims, and are instead handing them condoms/birth control with OUR tax dollars allowing these ILLEGAL relationships to be subsidized--this is a CRIME and these are victims of crime and should be reported so that their rapist partners can be jailed--PLEASE read the letters and imagine if this was your child that did not get reported--PLEASE assemble a Senate panel to examine this policy and put an end to under-aged minors not being protected.



I PRAY that you will prayerfully consider looking at the UNBELIEVABLE individual and societal costs to enabling our youth to continue to engage in the one behavioral CHOICE that causes all of these social ills--AND challenge them with the FACTS and with the solution--which is to direct ALL American youth to the healthy, responsible, directive of abstinence until MARRIAGE! I hope that after reading the correspondence on the issue of Title X clinics handing condoms/birth control to under-aged minors, that you agree that under-aged minors who visit clinics should be reported and their ILLEGAL relationships ended - and the rapist partner should be put in jail and you will cut off funding for Title X if these violations continue.
I know you are busy, but IF you read this material, I think as you head into this presidential race, you can use this information to inform ALL Americans that you are the PRO-LIFE, PRO-ABSTINENCE and PRO-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE candidate--and that these conservative ideals are the solution to greatly reduce poverty, rates of STD’s and many other social ills, that intact families with concerned mothers and fathers make healthy societies. I will PRAY for you and your family daily!

GOD BLESS-US-EVERYONE!

Ret. Major Laura Merriott
-a PROUD abstinence educator
814 835-0249
5235 Wolf Rd. Erie, Pa. 16505

I would be honored for you to call me @ 814 835-0249 so that I may mail you and/or I would be glad to show you a presentation of how to direct youth to this HEALTHY, RESPONSIBLE, MORAL directive!

I strongly advise cohabitation before marriage. If I had lived with my first husband before we married, I could have saved myself a lot of money and pain (both physical and emotional) by simply moving out instead of the hassle and expense of divorcing the s-o-b.
It's important to know if you can actually llive cheek-by-jowl with another person before legally binding yourself to them. And it's important to know if you are capable of physically satisfying each other.

Of course, if you re-look at the statistics with a stricter use of the word 'Christian' (weeding out the liberals, those who call themselves evangelicals but only attend church on Christmas and Easter, and other 'non-committed' sorts) those stats change VERY SIGNIFICANTLY. There's a clear distinction between the divorce rates of Bible believer, regular church attenders (true-believers, let's call'em) and the surrounding culture.

"C S Lewis, a deeply committed Christian, made the best case for divorce in certain circumstances, assuring serious Christians that Jesus is a God of compassion and mercy who forgives human beings."

If you have ever been to a Christian wedding, you know that marriage is a big deal. You have the priest or minister standing with the couple reading from the Bible and praying. The ceremony takes place in a church -- the house of God. Dozens or hundreds of witnesses are on hand. In front of God, a representative of God and all of these witnesses, a couple declares that they will wed "til death do us part."

The Christian faith also puts a very, very large stigma on divorce. For example, in Matthew 5:32 Jesus says:

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

In Matthew 19:9, Jesus repeats that sentiment:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Adultery is a major problem in the Christian faith. First, one of the commandments in the Ten Commandments specifically forbids adultery. Even worse, in Leviticus 20 we find this:

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

Adulterers get the death penalty. Clearly, God and Jesus want Christians to stay married for life.

So let's review. When a Christian couple gets married, we have all of these forces that should be working to keep them married:

1. The marriage is performed in God's presence...
2. ...in God's house...
3. ...in front of God's representative (a minister or priest)...
4. ...and in front of many Christian witnesses.
5. The couple presumably prays before and after the wedding for a good marriage...
6. ...as do all of the witnesses...
7. ...and the minister/priest.
8. The couple knows that if they divorce/remarry, it is an act of adultery...
9. ...which God has forbidden...
10. ...and which the Bible says is punishable by death.

And don't forget this important line from the ceremony:

What God has joined together let no man put asunder.

Now think about this. God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe. If God puts something together, shouldn't it be impossible to break it? Isn't that what "all-powerful" means?

Given all of this, and given the fact that an all-powerful, prayer-answering God is supposedly looking over the lives of a Christian couple, guiding them in the spirit and so on, what would you expect the divorce rate for Christians to be? Clearly, the Christian divorce rate should be zero.

But when we look at the divorce statistics of American couples, and compare Christian vs. non-Christian divorce rates, we find this strange statistic: divorce rates among Christians match those among the rest of the population. It does not matter whether the couple is Christian or not.

According to this article, "'While it may be alarming to discover that born-again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time,' said George Barna, president of Barna Research Group." There are a millions ways to crunch the data, but no matter how you slice it, it is easy to see that Christians divorce just as often as non-Christians.

The reason for the high divorce rate among Christians is easy to see: God is imaginary.

scmiyphr mgfvubpah rkxhlc zshwdij yosquabh thuc hdonqly

scmiyphr mgfvubpah rkxhlc zshwdij yosquabh thuc hdonqly

scmiyphr mgfvubpah rkxhlc zshwdij yosquabh thuc hdonqly

scmiyphr mgfvubpah rkxhlc zshwdij yosquabh thuc hdonqly

I think this was a really good post that makes more sense than most, so I am re-posting it. I'm tired of reading so many posts of people who think to rationalize is to be wise. I can find reasons why pre-marital sex could be good, but that doesn't mean that there aren't answers that are so much better out there...or that they're even morally right at all. Anyone can rationalize.

This comment was from Soja John...

"Tips: The five authors who stand out in my mind (now)who helped shape my values on sexuality are:

1. C S Lewis - His essay on sexuality is a very down to earth and rational discussion of the subject.

2. D H Lawrence - The prologue in his book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is really an insightful essay on sexuality.

3. Erich Fromm - His book "The Art of Loving" discusses sexuality from an evolutionary point of view and provides a broader context for describing different kinds of love. He points out to the fact that the lower down an animal is on the evolutionary scale, the less differentiated is its sex pattern. The difference he points out is that animals act only in accordance with their instinct and their need without excesses but human beings don't: Animals have mating seasons, they don't think about sex all the time as humans do; the species of animals that bond, bond predictably without the need to try out several relationships like some humans do; for an animal sex is just sex and it behaves in a predictable fashion in accordance with its instinct, whereas in humans, sex is associated with all sorts of other emotions both good and bad, among the less honourable - an ego trip, an expression of power, a tool for manipulation etc.

4. Carl Rogers - His book "My needs, Your Needs, Our needs". He emphasizes why it is vitally important to reserve our first sexual experience, to an emotionally meaningful relationship. Once we get used to the idea of having sex without any emotional attachment, the harder it gets to associate emotions with sex. The Buddhists call it, "Using the other human being as a toilet."

5. Patrick Carnes - "Don't call it love". Carnes has done very important work on sexual addiction. For those who think sex without any restraint is a sign of liberation, one should take a good, honest, and clinical look at what forms such "liberation" can take, so that one does not glorify sex for the sake of sex to the extent morality and self-control is considered a weakness.

I wish to emphasize that none of the above authors discuss sexuality from the point of view of religion and morality imposed by religion. It is based on the observation of human behaviour in history. The wonderful thing however is that the morals propagated by religions suddenly take on a new meaning, and is no longer seen as kill-joy instructions and power games played by people of God.

I wish to close with a Zen story. It might seem like an extreme example, but it shows the value of training in celibacy and self-control without resorting to any denial or repression tactics. It is really about developing the capacity to become fully aware of one's sexuality and yet not acting it out inappropriately. It goes without saying that celibacy is a skill one must master in order to remain faithful to one's partner when one is exposed to temptation outside that relationship.

A young monk (in the days when Zen Buddhist monks in Japan had to be celibate and spent many many years in meditation to attain enlightenment)was troubled by his sexual fantasies during meditation. The advice he got from his master was always the same - to let the thoughts and images come and go, without suppressing it or engaging it in treacherous conversation or dwelling on it; without passing any judgement on the quality; and to draw his mind back to his breath over and over again, minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month. His life become hell due to the sexual fantasies which always emerged when he started to meditate and thoughts were supposed to subside and the mind expected to get silent. But he was determined not to give in to give in to his sexual urges and leave the monastery because he wanted to be enlightened. A few years passed but there was still no sign of either enlightenment or an end to the sexual fantasies. One day he finally decided he had had enough. Accepting defeat at the hands of his sexual fantasies and giving up his burning desire to be enlightened, he said goodbye to his master and left the monastery to fulfil his sexual desires. He went straight to a brothel. At the sight of the prostitute ready to offer him her services, he was enlightened. He turned away immediately and left the brothel without touching the prostitute and returned to the monastery to continue his meditation. Enlightenment was only the beginning.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia"

I think this was a really good post that makes more sense than most, so I am re-posting it. I'm tired of reading so many posts of people who think to rationalize is to be wise. I can find reasons why pre-marital sex could be good, but that doesn't mean that there aren't answers that are so much better out there...or that they're even morally right at all. Anyone can rationalize.

This comment was from Soja John...

"Tips: The five authors who stand out in my mind (now)who helped shape my values on sexuality are:

1. C S Lewis - His essay on sexuality is a very down to earth and rational discussion of the subject.

2. D H Lawrence - The prologue in his book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is really an insightful essay on sexuality.

3. Erich Fromm - His book "The Art of Loving" discusses sexuality from an evolutionary point of view and provides a broader context for describing different kinds of love. He points out to the fact that the lower down an animal is on the evolutionary scale, the less differentiated is its sex pattern. The difference he points out is that animals act only in accordance with their instinct and their need without excesses but human beings don't: Animals have mating seasons, they don't think about sex all the time as humans do; the species of animals that bond, bond predictably without the need to try out several relationships like some humans do; for an animal sex is just sex and it behaves in a predictable fashion in accordance with its instinct, whereas in humans, sex is associated with all sorts of other emotions both good and bad, among the less honourable - an ego trip, an expression of power, a tool for manipulation etc.

4. Carl Rogers - His book "My needs, Your Needs, Our needs". He emphasizes why it is vitally important to reserve our first sexual experience, to an emotionally meaningful relationship. Once we get used to the idea of having sex without any emotional attachment, the harder it gets to associate emotions with sex. The Buddhists call it, "Using the other human being as a toilet."

5. Patrick Carnes - "Don't call it love". Carnes has done very important work on sexual addiction. For those who think sex without any restraint is a sign of liberation, one should take a good, honest, and clinical look at what forms such "liberation" can take, so that one does not glorify sex for the sake of sex to the extent morality and self-control is considered a weakness.

I wish to emphasize that none of the above authors discuss sexuality from the point of view of religion and morality imposed by religion. It is based on the observation of human behaviour in history. The wonderful thing however is that the morals propagated by religions suddenly take on a new meaning, and is no longer seen as kill-joy instructions and power games played by people of God.

I wish to close with a Zen story. It might seem like an extreme example, but it shows the value of training in celibacy and self-control without resorting to any denial or repression tactics. It is really about developing the capacity to become fully aware of one's sexuality and yet not acting it out inappropriately. It goes without saying that celibacy is a skill one must master in order to remain faithful to one's partner when one is exposed to temptation outside that relationship.

A young monk (in the days when Zen Buddhist monks in Japan had to be celibate and spent many many years in meditation to attain enlightenment)was troubled by his sexual fantasies during meditation. The advice he got from his master was always the same - to let the thoughts and images come and go, without suppressing it or engaging it in treacherous conversation or dwelling on it; without passing any judgement on the quality; and to draw his mind back to his breath over and over again, minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month. His life become hell due to the sexual fantasies which always emerged when he started to meditate and thoughts were supposed to subside and the mind expected to get silent. But he was determined not to give in to give in to his sexual urges and leave the monastery because he wanted to be enlightened. A few years passed but there was still no sign of either enlightenment or an end to the sexual fantasies. One day he finally decided he had had enough. Accepting defeat at the hands of his sexual fantasies and giving up his burning desire to be enlightened, he said goodbye to his master and left the monastery to fulfil his sexual desires. He went straight to a brothel. At the sight of the prostitute ready to offer him her services, he was enlightened. He turned away immediately and left the brothel without touching the prostitute and returned to the monastery to continue his meditation. Enlightenment was only the beginning.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia"

The only sinful sex is sex without the partner's informed, rational consent (which isn't sex - it's rape) or sexual activity that violates a trust (such as adultery - if you promised monogamy, you need to keep that promise).

Adult/child sex is without consent. The child is not in a position to give informed, rational consent, and at the same time, often does not have the ability to say "No" and back it up. Any time a position of authority is used to gain sex from another person, it's wrong.

Human/animal sex is without consent, as an animal cannot give consent.

My only objection to teens having sex with each other is that they are not prepared to deal with the possible consequences of their actions. A 15-year-old get pregnant, but that does not mean that she is capable of parenting a child. And it's a damned shame for someone to contract a life-long (or life-threatening) STD at such a young age.

I see no problem with sex between consenting adults of the same gender, or with groups of other consenting adults.

Those whose religions frown on homosexuality or polyamory are free to abstain from such activities. But they shouldn't get to make the rules for everyone else.

Just a thought, Religion is more about power over somebody else's life...w/ vicious penalties.

Has nothing to do w/ SPIRIT/Spirituality!

Noonespecial: "Just think ,when you are getting married ,what would you rather have in a marriage mate ,a virgin ,or someone that has sex other people"

I don't really care whether or not my husband slept with other women, or other men for that matter, before we met, as long as his sexual past does not affect my present or future. If he had an STD, I would need to know he had it, so that I could avoid contracting it. I would not need blow-by-blow details of how or from whom he acquired it.

If he had progeny for whom he was obligated to pay child support, I would need to know that they existed, because it would affect our household budget. I would not need to know in what position they were conceived.

If you have no diseases and no kids, then your level of prior sexual activity are no one else's business. My husband and I both have friends of the opposite sex with whom we have had recreational sex in the past when we were unattached, and with whom we are still friends. It doesn't matter that these people slept with our SO in the past, because we both know that neither of us is going to have sex with anyone else NOW.

All this talk about sex and if it right or wrong before marriage .Just think ,when you are getting married ,what would you rather have in a marriage mate ,a virgin ,or someone that has sex other people.And this goes for men ,and women.Be honest with yourself.

maybe some religions see sex as a sin as they misunderstand the mysteries of it. they see sex as a taboo were religions that see it as sacred understand full well the mysteries that surround it. some may see that it is a sin becouse it is been outside "wedlock" but maybe people need to move forward from that small mindedness and embrace the fact that a world that views sex as sinful will most ultimately not populate the world as fast as people who do not see it as sinful but as sacred and a form of seeing as an act that shows love.

In my opinion, if you have any love for yourself and/or God, you'll wait until you're married.

Sex is not intrinsically sin or sacred, but it can be either depending upon the context in which it occurs. Sex that is out of bounds, that is prohibited, immoral or betrays one's vows of marriage is sin. Sex that is not prohibited, immoral and does not betray one's vows of marriage is sacred.

If taken outside of religion, sex should at least be positive for society, and not negative. Sex that results in diseases spreading, financial problems for society, or offends societal standards of decency should be considered wrong, while sex that does not contribute those wrongs to society should be considered as acceptable.

Both of these tend to encompass the same behavior. Monogamy falls within the sacred and acceptable, while promiscuous and unprotected sex tends to fall in the sin and wrong status. A simple, honest look at what is considered sin tends to reveal that the true beneficiary of avoiding sin benefits both the individual and society. Seeking sin almost always has a negative result for either the individual or society, and usually both.

The trouble is that we humans are very selfish and rebellious children in the way we act. We like doing the wrong thing, even when it hurts us, and we feel constrained by rules or edicts that tell us what to do. Which is why we always stick our fingers into the light socket of sin, even though we will most certainly get a shock and death as a result.

I have no intention of critizing anyone's religion. So please no one take what im about to say in the wrong way.
First of all. Sex before marriage is a sin. Just a few verses talkin about it are (2 Corinthians 12:21;Galatians 5:19;1 Thessalonians 4:3)

But sex after marriage is not a sin at all, its very healthy and is needed in a marriage. God does not frown upon that at all. He made it as a gift to married people. But too many people take advantage of it and abuse it. You are to have sex with your husband/wife and thats it. Here are some verses (Genesis 1:28;1 Corinthians 7:2-5;)

As for monks and nuns. Its not that they frown upon sex or marriage they just feel they should devote all of their time and energy to the lord and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So in conclusion. Sex is a sin when it is before marriage, with someone other than your mate, or of course with an animal, family member, etc.
But when your married there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex. The Bible proves that. God wants people who are married to enjoy sex and have babies. Sex is a beautiful thing when it is used the right way.

I have no intention of critizing anyone's religion. So please no one take what im about to say in the wrong way.
First of all. Sex before marriage is a sin. Just a few verses talkin about it are (2 Corinthians 12:21;Galatians 5:19;1 Thessalonians 4:3)

But sex after marriage is not a sin at all, its very healthy and is needed in a marriage. God does not frown upon that at all. He made it as a gift to married people. But too many people take advantage of it and abuse it. You are to have sex with your husband/wife and thats it. Here are some verses (Genesis 1:28;1 Corinthians 7:2-5;)

As for monks and nuns. Its not that they dont frown upon sex or marriage they just feel they should devote all of their time and energy to the lord and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So in conclusion. Sex is a sin when it is before marriage, with someone other than your mate, or of course with an animal, family member, etc.
But when your married there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex. The Bible proves that. God wants people who are married to enjoy sex and have babies. Sex is a beautiful thing when it is used the right way.

Sex is the initiator of life, not a moral disease.

Sex is the initiator of life, not a moral disease.

Sex is the initiator of life, not a moral disease.

I think that the moral aspect of consensual sex is often over-emphasized.
As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, and there is no breach of trust involved, and care is taken to avoid the transmission of STD's and to prevent unwanted pregnancies, then I don't see the problem.

Since rape involves lack of consent, it would still be a crime. Same with child molestation.

Since prostitution is basically a sales transaction, it should be legal for one adult to pay another a mutually agreed-upon fee for the use of the other's body for mutually agreed-upon sexual activities under mutually agreed-upon conditions.

If mutual monogamy is a condition of a couple's relationship, then breaking those vows by having sex with someone else would be a breach of trust, and as such, would be wrong. But if a couple agrees to an open relationship, where each is free to pursue sexual pleasure elsewhere, then it's ok.

Why do you think some religions have regarded sex as sacred while others have regarded it as a sin?

Isn't that a false dichotomy? Any belief system that has the concept of 'wrong', 'disharmony' or 'sin' regards some sex as sin. I don't know of any belief system that would all forms of coercive sex (rape) as acceptable and non-sinful (though some approve of it under certain circumstance).

On the other hand, many ancient pagan religions and many forms of modern Christianity regard sex as sacred. In Christianity, it's precisely *because* sex is sacred that some forms of sex are also sinful. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians in the Bible that because in some spiritual sense as well as in a physical sense, 'two become one' in sex, and this is his justification for going on to prohibit prostitution as a sin.

Certainly other religions appreciate the value of sex as not only a method of procreation but as a way to join people together in at least an emotional if not always a spiritual (sacred) sense - see Song of Solomon, a love story in the Jewish religious text, or divine sex as a way to enlightenment in Hinduism.

It seems most belief systems recognize the value of sex as a very special or even sacred act, and most for this very reason attempt to set boundaries on sexual behavior by labeling some forms of sex or sex in certain contexts as immoral.

Why do you think some religions have regarded sex as sacred while others have regarded it as a sin?

Isn't that a false dichotomy? Any belief system that has the concept of 'wrong', 'disharmony' or 'sin' regards some sex as sin. I don't know of any belief system that would all forms of coercive sex (rape) as acceptable and non-sinful (though some approve of it under certain circumstance).

On the other hand, many ancient pagan religions and many forms of modern Christianity regard sex as sacred. In Christianity, it's precisely *because* sex is sacred that some forms of sex are also sinful. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians in the Bible that because in some spiritual sense as well as in a physical sense, 'two become one' in sex, and this is his justification for going on to prohibit prostitution as a sin.

Certainly other religions appreciate the value of sex as not only a method of procreation but as a way to join people together in at least an emotional if not always a spiritual (sacred) sense - see Song of Solomon, a love story in the Jewish religious text, or divine sex as a way to enlightenment in Hinduism.

It seems most belief systems recognize the value of sex as a very special or even sacred act, and most for this very reason attempt to set boundaries on sexual behavior by labeling some forms of sex or sex in certain contexts as immoral.

Religion is a combination of personal and group worship and common beliefs sometimes referred to as faith. A believer’s worldview, morals, values, thoughts, feelings, and actions are largely derived from their religious beliefs which are obtained through cultural story telling, traditions, sacred historical writings, and their own spiritual experiences. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the first ethical precepts were passed down by word of mouth from parents and elders, but as societies learned to use the written word they began to write down their ethical beliefs. These records constitute the first historical evidence of the origins of ethics ("ethics"). These teachings serve as a positive authority to guide lives and conduct. Religion also promotes giving, healing, optimism, love, and a measure of right and wrong making it a force for good in our society. Not all people see religion as positive force though.
According to Newsbusters,
Bill Maher, host of HBO’s "Real Time," appeared on the April 16 edition of "The View" to voice his opposition to all religion. Maher asserted that "pretty much all religion" is bad and all religion is "childish destructive nonsense." Co-host, Joy Behar inquired "What about people who just like to go to church, you know, the old ladies in my neighborhood who used to go and light a candle?" Maher responded likewise. "They are certainly better than people who fly planes into buildings, yes. But they are enablers for some thing that is worldwide and winds up killing more people, distracting us from more good works." According to Maher’s logic, the Salvation Army, Father Joe’s Villages, and church going conservatives who donate more to charity than secular liberals, are all distracted from more good works (qtd. in McCarthy).
Bill Maher is not the only person in society that believes religion is a driving force for evil. There are a number of other people and articles that agree with him. The majority lack a full understanding of the religions they write about and don’t take into account the number of people that merely say they are religious, but are not sincerely practicing their said faith. Many do not take into account the length of time a person has been practicing their faith, which makes a difference as to the amount of knowledge and maturing a believer has done spiritually. They also seem to lack the concept that just because there may be a correlation between two variables that does not mean there is a cause and effect relationship between them.
While people are busy accusing religion of all evil in the world, there are thousands of religious organizations fighting for social justice, peace and compassion. Religious organizations all over the world reach out to help feed, cloth, and shelter people. They have a passion to love their neighbors as themselves. Yet many in our society continue to only focus on a small faction of fanatics. Religious organizations are a force of good in society and should never be compared to a fanatical group that clearly only claims to be religious, but clearly is not. As Christianity says you can tell a tree by the fruit it bears.
Charity without question is another force of good in our world. According to a recent study from Syracuse University, ninety-one percent of regular church attendees give to charity each year, compared with sixty-six percent of those who said they do not have a religion. That is a huge difference in giving. “Religious people give four times more money per year than their secular counterparts”, according to Brooks who wrote Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Brooks states that “religious people also donate twice as much blood” (Zylstra). Charity begins and ends with the individual. Surely if there was no religion people would still give. But what makes religious people give more? An important value of many religions is the importance of giving.
The Department of Psychology at the University of Alabama did a study that explored the relation between religious faith, spirituality, and mental health in the outcomes of 236 individuals recovering from substance abuse. They found that recovering individuals tended to report high levels of religious faith and affiliation. The results also indicated that among recovering individuals, higher levels of religious faith were associated with a more optimistic life orientation, greater perceived social support, higher resilience to stress, and lower levels of anxiety (U.S. National Library of Medicine). 45% of participants in a religious treatment program for opium addiction were still drug-free one year later, compared to only 5% of participants in a nonreligious public health hospital treatment program (Desmond and Maddux, 1981). For every person that turns away from drugs that is one less evil in our society.
According to Dr. Dixon of Churchill College of Cambridge, “religion may have been the occasion for various social and political wrongs, but it is not the cause”. If anything, man wrongly uses religion as an excuse for their own wrongs. If religion was done away with, people would still identify themselves with some other group and go to war over territory, political conflict or some other issue. Man’s injustice to one another like elitism and bigotry are sadly a part of human nature with or without religion (Dixon).
Religious traditions provide us with a common set of morals and values in an age where relativism reigns. With relativism there is not a clear cut definition of truth because the relativist believes that right and wrong is relative to circumstance. This means that, according to relativism, right and wrong is constantly changing. Society needs the moral insight of religious traditions, which have been past down from many generations of spiritual wisdom to guide us regarding ethical matters. We need to recognize that not only does spirituality have many benefits for the individual, but it has many benefits for society as well. Religion helps people work toward a common good for all of mankind. Dr. Dixon stated, “Religion, when practiced seriously and sincerely, is a force for good in the world promoting humility, morality, wisdom, equality, and social justice”. I couldn’t agree more.

Sex, biologically speaking is a powerful physical neccessity on any animal with a drive to procreate and continue its species. In the wild such courtships can be brutal to the prospective males who must perform well to be deemed worthy of the female after all she does not want to waste her procreative powers on weak genes. While nature has very rough and crude ways of handling what gets made and what survives to repopulate the species humans have it much easier in some ways. Because we live longer, and have alot more kids in the time we are alive, and our social structure has us in communities survival of the young is improved. There has to be a break somewhere. I don't know how it is that some religions think that sex is a sin it is a neccessity really. Even from a Biblical veiw we are commanded of God.. to populate the earth and to fill it and subdue it. He gave us a pair a man and a women to accomplish that. But here lies the rub why did they wait till after their rebellion to have kids? Some think that the rebellion is what gave the pair to the notion of procreation or at least the know how and thus this knowlege being had at the cost of their relationship with God resulted in a sort of guilt so some speculated that the cost of knowing how to have sex made it sinful. However lets reflect that He commanded us to procreate and also commanded us not to eat off that dang tree. I think incidently it was a matter of timming. Presumably humans had from what the bible tells us very long life spans if we take the whales into consideration they only calve a young once or twice in a hundred or so years. If humans lived as Adam did 900 years or more what great need would there have been to procreate as often as we do now and the events that transpired in the Garden with the rebellion might only have taken place before they felt the need to do so. A brute beast needs no tree to know its mate well enough to spawn its next generation I hardly think that humans needed a fruit from a tree to have sex and procreate. Sex is survival, and God made sure that it would be a very powerful influence and bonding so that they would continue to make more babies. With that said even though its hardwired into our make up via them hormones at puberty to satisfy sexual activity we are sentient and we like the natrual world around us have a responsibility not just to procreate but to teach the young to survive and thrive, or die trying. Human life span is barely over a hundred years now on average only 70 or 80 and we breed faster then we should and in alot of cases we do so out of no regard for the young. So in my assessnment irresponsible use of our procreative ability for say recreation and failing that killing the young that result and or neglecting their rearing is what is sinful, both religiously as well as in the natural order of things. As for homosexuals. I think they are natures way of putting on the brakes on our reclace breding. So leave them alone.

Changing the Tides
see how Islam is being destroyed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEIGw8NtNA

Changing the Tides
see how Islam is being destroyed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEIGw8NtNA

To Pacific PanDeist (Ref post 4 March 2007 11:10 PM):

Free sex for all with all was tried out in the 1960s and 70s in the hippie communes you know and it didn’t work out. Human beings were found to be badly suited for the role of sex machines. Many who set out to become sex machines discovered that they had emotions as also bonding needs attached to sex, at least after some of the initial enthusiasm had worn off. As you well know the whole adventure was ultimately dropped because it wasn’t considered worth the price. I do not want to pass any kind of judgement on your religious practice, but from the way you describe it, I wonder how many sex addicts are being created in the process of practising free sex with all as part of religious worship, whether older people get to enjoy the same privileges, how families are created and how they survive, and how many broken lives need mending.

In the name of God, peace to those who follow guidance.

The prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "...in the sexual act of each of you there is a charity." They said: "O Messenger of God, when one of us fulfills his sexual desire will he have some reward for that?" He said: "Do you not think that were he to act upon it unlawfully he would be sinning? Likewise, if he has acted upon it lawfully he will have a reward."

Islam teaches us that sex is sacred inside of marriage and a sin outside of it. The Islamic position is the most balanced position. Sex is a beautiful thing but we must take full responsibility for our actions. That is why Islam raises marriage to such a high pedestal. You recognize the beauty of having a partner and also assume responsibility for your actions.

The West pretends to have a thorough understanding of sex and love but in reality what they really understand is sex and lust. It is about fulfilling a physical desire without a commitment. Islam stresses commitment and responsibility and provides a framework for fulfilling your desire and having a healthy family life.

Friend, the answers to this and every other question are in PanDeism, the marriage of PanTheism and Deism. PanDeism shows how God not only created the Universe, but in fact became the Universe in order to experience existence through the experiences of the Universe (and thereby to learn what it was like to face obstacles and limitations unknowable to a deity)....

The sacredness of sex is one of the core concepts of PanDeism, for under PanDeism, our sexual practices are understood to be a fantastic gift to God, who shares in these experiences.... thus there can be few better lives lived than those in which the experience of giving and receiving pleasure is maximized by the sharing as much of this joy with as many willing partners as possible!! I say again that all of our positive experiences, including our consensual and mutually enjoyable sexual practices, are a fantastic gift to God!!

Jonathan,

You : Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.

Me : So, how do we get people off religion, like off drugs, alcohol or cigarettes? Those are addictive too. Have you undertaken psy tests on religiously inclined people to say that they have no self-confidence or are lonely?

You : Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.

Me : How so? People spend more time at their workplace than at churches, temples or mosques. Contributions towards religious entities depends on the religious entities. And donations (or tithes as you call them) are specifically for the needy. Up to you to contribute how much you want to spend time in churches, temples, mosques as well as contributions to religious entities. Unless the religious entities how much, the percentage of your incomes goes to it. Fight that then.

You : Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.

Me : Even the Taliban are dancing at weddings. If you want to party with lots of dancing, copious flow of alcohol and engage in pre-marital sex when drunk and could not remember what happen the morning after, and made a fast exit to the door, that is up to you. Being drunk after consuming alcohol and excusing what was said and done when drunk is a terrible excuse for personal responsibility. Alcohol is also a mind altering substance, a liquid drug. Or else there won't be alcoholism.

You : So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!

Me: Prayers is only part of religious piety and devoutness. It is not what you pray for, but how you live your life by your beliefs. What do you believe in?

You : I say ban religion!

Me : Of course. Let us all lobby our state and nation's legislators to ban religion. However, freedom of freedom of belief, freedom of thought and freedom of religion is also a fundamental human rights. As of now, there are more believers than unbelievers. Would be hard going to ban religion. Is there a legislator that dare say s/he wants to ban religion? The best they can muster without losing votes is to call for seperation of state and church. As of now, non-believers could not even get religion out of state affairs and policies. Is there really seperation of church and state in state affairs and policies from gay rights to abortion to evolution/creationism?

Yes, well, belief/religion is addictive for it is affirming for the individual is a person, and the community as a group. The alternative as you seem to propose for a well rounded or life well lived -alcohol, dancing, pre-marital sex, is not that fulfilling for many, but perhaps for you. Whatever gets you through the nights and days Jonathan.

Jonathan,

You : Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.

Me : So, how do we get people off religion, like off drugs, alcohol or cigarettes? Those are addictive too. Have you undertaken psy tests on religiously inclined people to say that they have no self-confidence or are lonely?

You : Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.

Me : How so? People spend more time at their workplace than at churches, temples or mosques. Contributions towards religious entities depends on the religious entities. And donations (or tithes as you call them) are specifically for the needy. Up to you to contribute how much you want to spend time in churches, temples, mosques as well as contributions to religious entities. Unless the religious entities how much, the percentage of your incomes goes to it. Fight that then.

You : Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.

Me : Even the Taliban are dancing at weddings. If you want to party with lots of dancing, copious flow of alcohol and engage in pre-marital sex when drunk and could not remember what happen the morning after, and made a fast exit to the door, that is up to you. Being drunk after consuming alcohol and excusing what was said and done when drunk is a terrible excuse for personal responsibility. Alcohol is also a mind altering substance, a liquid drug. Or else there won't be alcoholism.

You : So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!

Me: Prayers is only part of religious piety and devoutness. It is not what you pray for, but how you live your life by your beliefs. What do you believe in?

You : I say ban religion!

Me : Of course. Let us all lobby our state and nation's legislators to ban religion. However, freedom of freedom of belief, freedom of thought and freedom of religion is also a fundamental human rights. As of now, there are more believers than unbelievers. Would be hard going to ban religion. Is there a legislator that dare say s/he wants to ban religion? The best they can muster without losing votes is to call for seperation of state and church. As of now, non-believers could not even get religion out of state affairs and policies. Is there really seperation of church and state in state affairs and policies from gay rights to abortion to evolution/creationism?

Yes, well, belief/religion is addictive for it is affirming for the individual is a person, and the community as a group. The alternative as you seem to propose for a well rounded or life well lived -alcohol, dancing, pre-marital sex, is not that fulfilling for many, but perhaps for you. Whatever gets you through the nights and days Jonathan.

Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.
Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.

Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.

So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!

I say ban religion!

Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.
Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.

Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.

So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!

I say ban religion!

Get a much clearer and more plausable understanding of Jesus in The Second, and Last Coming, A Movin-On Novel by Luigi Enrico Pietra d'Oro. Visit www.revolvingdoorbooks.com

God has balls, Mary wasn't a virgin, and the Holy Spirit moves us towards each other sexually.

Can you believe what we believe!

Soja,

I'm sorry if I gave you the idea I was condoning polygamy in christianity. After all, in my examples I was trying to show how many great men of the bible were having children by women they were'nt married to. I only mention one completely polygmist relationship with Lamech. Ammon and Moab are nations born out of incest and rape. Doesn't sound to cool to me but God blesses one those nations immensely, even bringing them in on the line of messiah. (Ruth)
New Testament examples, Mary sister of Lazurus, washes Jesus feet with her hair and tears. She's called an adulteress doesn't seem to bother Jesus since this is the second time he defends her actions. Women at the well, Jesus tells her how many times she's been married and that she currently lives with a man she's not married to. Men throw a women in front of Jesus and accuse her of adultery. Jesus tells them he who is wthout sin cast the first stone. Three occassions Jesus does not demand the Law prevail.
Both Old and New Testaments are written in a time that arranged marriage is fairly common on the whole planet not just the middle east. Love is not a reason for marriage throughout the whole book but it doesn't mean that many of the stories don't include love between husband and wife. My point is that the morality of thou shalt , thou shalt not is carried out only for control one person to another.