Sex Outside of Marriage

Is sex outside of marriage a sin?
An authoritative answer to this question can come only from our Creator—Jehovah God. And in his Word he tells us to “flee from fornication.” (1 Corinthians 6:18) Just what does that mean? The Greek word translated “fornication” is not restricted to sexual intercourse but includes a variety of lewd acts. So if two unmarried people engage in oral sex or in fondling each others’ reproductive organs, they are guilty of fornication.
The Bible exhorts Christians to flee not only from fornication itself but also from all forms of unclean conduct that could lead to it.(Colossians 3:5)

Sex outside of marriage is nothing more than the “temporary enjoyment of sin.” (Hebrews 11:25) It can cause lasting physical, emotional, and spiritual harm.

King David’s sexual sin endangered his friendship with God and nearly led to his spiritual ruin. (Psalm 51) And while David recovered spiritually, he suffered the consequences of his sin for the rest of his life.

Jehovah designed sexual relations to be pleasurable. This was in harmony with his original purpose for humans to populate the earth. (Genesis 1:28) Nevertheless, God never intended for us to misuse our procreative powers. “Each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor,” says the Bible. (1 Thessalonians 4:4) To act upon every sexual desire would be, in a sense, as foolish as hitting someone each time you felt anger.

Sexual relations are a gift from God, a gift that is to be enjoyed at the appropriate time—when one is married. When a person engages in sex outside of marriage, they are abusing the gift that God has provided.

True Christians will “abstain from fornication” in all its various forms. (1 Thessalonians 4:3)

THE QUESTION
From Clinton to Craig, from Swaggart to Paulk, America seems obsessed with sex scandals. Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Is it a public matter? Is it forgivable?
Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on November 28, 2007 6:31 AM

ANS.
What is the primary natural purpose of sex? Is its primary purpose “sex for pleasure alone?” We’ve seen what that has wrought from the Sexual Revolution, namely, adultery, fornication, live-ins, and homosexuality and the Culture of Death, death of the body and death of the soul.

Consequently, what ensues are high divorce rates,, single parent families, some 48 million unborn legally murdered by abortion, AIDS, STDs, and a diminishing of one’s selfworth. Today suicide is becoming the leading cause of death. That should make it obvious that sex is only legitimate in the context of marriage.

Moreover, sex for pleasure only is for self-gratification, demeans the individuals involved, and is an act of selfishness of those who engage in it. Shack ups personify a lack of true love and commitment to those engaged illicit sex. The woman is more vulnerable because she houses the temple of human life and generally endures the most of the risk of pregnancy.

If illicit sex results in a pregnancy, the child is either legally murdered by abortion or brought into the world without a father. A recent poll showed that some seventy percent of Black pregnancies occur outside of marriage and some 55 percent end in abortion. That is a problem for the prodigy of the State. The State has an obligation to insure the stability of the family to ensure the social order and its own viability as well as the families.

Are they violations of the moral law and the co-inhabitants forgivable? God can forgive if one can seriously seek his forgiveness. Man can forgive, but the Natural Moral Law does not forgive; hence, these social iniquities naturally evolve and disrupt society and they burden the State, impugn the social order, and threaten the posterity of the State.

Sex outside of marriage is a frustration of the natural and sacred ends of the sexual union that is only licit in marriage.

Though God created man and woman, he also created the institution of Marriage. "The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.

The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature, marriage is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament.

Marriage is based on the consent of the contracting parties, that is, on their will to give themselves, each to the other, mutually and definitively, in order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love. Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage.

Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its 'supreme gift,' the child and entails moral responsibility.

The woman, 'flesh of his flesh,' his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a 'helpmate;' she thus represents God from whom comes our help. Therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Every man experiences evil around him and within himself. This experience makes itself felt in the relationships between man and woman. Their union has always been threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, and conflicts that can escalate into hatred and separation. This disorder can manifest itself more or less acutely, and can be more or less overcome, according to the circumstances of cultures, eras, and individuals.

From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive; furthermore, in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state by a special sacrament.

The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself. From their covenant arises "an institution, confirmed by the divine law, even in the eyes of society." The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God's covenant with man: "Authentic married love is caught up into divine love.

Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility.

By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

Questions, Answers on Islam
Why do we need to know about Islam?
• Islam is the second largest religion in the world, after Christianity, and will soon be the second largest in America.
• Muslims are, and will increasingly be, our neighbors, our colleagues and our fellow citizens.
• Our ignorance about Islam distorts our view of one-fifth of the world’s population and causes us to misinterpret important events and phenomena in the US and abroad.
• Peace and safety cannot be achieved in ignorance, but can be promoted through knowledge and the understanding that grows from knowledge.
Why do we need to know about Islam?
• Islam is the second largest religion in the world, after Christianity, and will soon be the second largest in America.
• Muslims are, and will increasingly be, our neighbors, our colleagues and our fellow citizens.
• Our ignorance about Islam distorts our view of one-fifth of the world’s population and causes us to misinterpret important events and phenomena in the US and abroad.
• Peace and safety cannot be achieved in ignorance, but can be promoted through knowledge and the understanding that grows from knowledge.
How did Islam originate?
Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam originated in the Middle East, where monotheism had flourished for many centuries. In the sixth century of our era, Makkah was emerging as a new commercial center with massive new wealth but also with a growing division between rich and poor that challenged the traditional system of Arab tribal values and social security. This was the time and the social environment in which the Prophet Muhammad received his divine revelation and called all to return to the worship of the one God and to a socially just society. Muhammad is thus not considered the founder of a new religion but rather a religious reformer.
The revelations Muhammad received emphasized social justice, corrected distortions of God’s revelations in Judaism and Christianity, and warned that many had strayed. The revelations called on all to return to what the Qur’an refers to as the “straight path” of Islam, the path of God, which was being revealed one final time through Muhammad, the last or “seal” of the prophets.
What do Muslims believe?
Like Jews and Christians, Muslims are monotheists. They believe in one God, the creator, sustainer, ruler and judge of the universe. Muslims believe in prophets—not just the Prophet Muhammad, but also the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, including Abraham and Moses, and of the New Testament, Jesus and John the Baptist. They also believe in angels, heaven, hell and the Day of Judgment. Islam teaches that God’s revelation was received in the Torah, the New Testament and the Qur’an. Thus, Muslims view Jews and Christians as “people of the book,” communities of believers who received revelations through prophets from God in the form of scriptures or revealed books.
As Christians view their revelation as both fulfilling and completing the revelation of the Old Testament, Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad received his revelations from God, through the angel Gabriel, to correct human error that had made its way into the scriptures and belief systems of Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, Muslims believe, Islam is not a new religion with a new scripture; rather, Islam is the oldest religion, because it represents the original as well as the final revelation of the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.
What role does Muhammad play in Muslim life?
During his lifetime and since, Muhammad has been the model for Muslims to follow as they strive to do God’s will. In contrast to what is often a spiritualized Christian view of Jesus, Muslims look upon and love Muhammad as an entirely human figure—but one who had great spiritual as well as political insight and was guided by God. In turn, they look to his example for guidance in all aspects of life: how to treat friends as well as enemies, what to eat and drink, when to wash or pray, how to divide an inheritance, how to make love and war. Muslims’ observations or remembrances of what the Prophet said and did were passed on orally and in writing. These detailed records of Muhammad’s actions, interactions, judgments, decisions and dicta provide guidance for Muslims as to what is required to follow the word of God.
Where do most Muslims live?
Muslims are the majority in 56 countries worldwide, including Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq and Nigeria. In addition, significant Muslim populations can be found in India, China, the Central Asian republics and Russia, as well as Europe and America, where Islam is the second- and third-largest religion, respectively. The majority of Muslims are not Arab—in fact, only 20 percent of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims originate from Arab countries. The largest Muslim populations are in Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.
Are all Muslims the same?
There is one divinely revealed and mandated Islam, but there are many human interpretations of Islam. There are Sunni and Shii Muslims, representing 85 percent and 15 percent of the world’s Muslims, respectively. Within these two major branches are diverse schools of theology and law; in addition, Islam has a rich mystical tradition. The basic unity of Islamic belief and practice expresses itself in diverse ways within many different cultures around the world.
Who are the Muslims in America?
Although estimates vary considerably, it is safe to say that there are at least six million Muslims in America today, making Islam the third-largest religion in the country, after Christianity and Judaism. Muslims have been present in America since the time of Columbus. Moriscos (Spanish Muslims forced to hide their faith) migrated to both Spanish and Portuguese settlements in America. In addition, between 14 and 20 percent of the African slaves brought to America from the 16th to the 19th century were Muslim, although they were forced to convert to Christianity. Other Muslims, particularly Indians and Arabs, also immigrated as free persons during this period and were able to maintain their spiritual, cultural and social identity.
The numbers of Muslims in America increased in the late 19th century with the arrival of significant numbers of immigrants from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Many settled in the Midwest and Canada, found blue-collar jobs and assimilated into American society. After World War II, significant numbers of immigrants from Palestine and elites from the Middle East and South Asia came to America. In recent decades, many students from the Muslim world have come to study, and many well-educated professionals and intellectuals have come from South and Southeast Asia as well as from the Middle East for political and economic reasons. Many Muslim immigrants have worked hard to sustain their Islamic identity and pass it down to their children, and to establish institutions and community structures—including mosques, Islamic centers, Islamic schools, Islamic publication organizations, interest-free financial institutions and charitable organizations—to support these goals.
About two-thirds of America’s Muslims today are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. The other third is made up of African-American and other converts to Islam. The largest Muslim communities in the United States are in Boston, New York, Detroit, Dearborn, Toledo, Chicago, Houston and Los Angeles/Orange County.
How is Islam similar to Christianity and Judaism?
Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in contrast to Hinduism and Buddhism, are all monotheistic faiths that worship the God of Adam, Abraham and Moses—creator, sustainer and lord of the universe. All stress moral responsibility and accountability, Judgment Day and eternal reward and punishment.
All three faiths emphasize their special covenant with God, Judaism through Moses, Christianity through Jesus and Islam through Muhammad. Christianity accepts God’s covenant with and revelation to the Jews but traditionally has seen itself as superseding Judaism with the coming of Jesus. So, too, Islam and Muslims recognize Judaism and Christianity, their Biblical prophets (among them Adam, Abraham, Moses and Jesus) and their revelations (the Torah and New Testament).
Peace is central to all three faiths, which use similar greetings: shalom aleichem in Judaism, pax vobiscum in Christianity and salaam alaikum in Islam. All three phrases mean “peace be with you.” Yet leaders of each religion—Joshua and King David, Constantine and Richard the Lion-Hearted, Muhammad and Saladin—have engaged in holy wars to spread or defend their beliefs.

What is Islamic law?
The word islam means “surrender [to the will of God],” and the will of God is articulated in Islamic law, whose purpose is to regulate two types of interactions: those between human beings and God—that is, worship—and those among human beings—that is, social transactions. Throughout history, Islamic law has remained central to Muslim identity and practice, for it constitutes the ideal social blueprint for the believer and provides a common code of behavior for all Muslim societies.
In addition to the Qur’an and the Sunnah (example) of Muhammad, Sunni Muslims recognize two other official sources to guide the development of Islamic law: comparative analogical reasoning (qiyas) and consensus (‘ijma). Shii Muslims accept the Qur’an and Sunnah as well as their own collections of the traditions of Ali and other imams.
The Qur’anic texts provide moral directives, laying out what Muslims should aspire to as individuals and achieve as a community. The Sunnah of Muhammad, recorded in hundreds of thousands of individual narratives describing the Prophet’s private and public life and his individual and communal activities, illustrates Islamic faith in practice, and supplements and explains Qur’anic principles. Qiyas is used to determine parallels between similar situations or principles when no clear guidance is found in the Qur’an or Sunnah. The fourth source of law, ‘ijma, or consensus, originated from Muhammad’s reported saying, “My nation will never agree on an error.” This came to mean that consensus among religious scholars could determine the permissibility of an action.
Differences exist between the major Islamic schools of law that reflect the different geographical, social, historical and cultural contexts in which the various jurists were writing. In the modern world, Islamic law faces the challenge of distinguishing the divine prescriptions and eternal principles of the Qur’an from regulations arising from human interpretations in response to specific historical situations.

Is Islam compatible with democracy?
In pre-modern times all the world’s religions supported monarchies and feudal societies and then moved to accommodate modern forms of democracy. Similarly, Muslims today are debating the relationship of Islam to democracy. While most wish for greater political participation, government accountability, freedoms and human rights, there are many different ways to achieve these goals.
There are various reactions to democratization in the Muslim world. Some argue that Islam has its own mechanisms and institutions that do not include democracy. Others believe that democracy can only be fully realized if Muslim societies restrict religion to private life.
Still others contend that Islam is fully capable of accommodating and supporting democracy. They argue that traditional Islamic concepts like consultation (shura) between ruler and ruled, community consensus (‘ijma), public interest (maslaha) and interpretation (ijtihad ) can support parliamentary forms of government.
Many believe that, just as the modern democracies of America and Europe accommodate diverse relationships with religion, Muslims too can develop their own varieties of democratic states that are responsive to indigenous values.

Why don’t Muslims practice separation of church and state?
While Christians believe in rendering unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God, Muslims believe that their primary act of faith is to strive to implement God’s will in both their private and public lives, calling all to worship God,
promoting what is good and prohibiting what is evil. In their view, religion cannot be separated from social and political life because religion informs every action that a person takes.
The Qur’an proclaims that, like Jews and Christians before them, Muslims have been called into a covenant relationship with God, making them a community of believers who must serve as an example to other nations (Chapter 2 Verse 143) by creating a moral social order. The Qur’an states, “You are the best community evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong” (3:110).
In the ideal Islamic state, the political authority carries out the divine message. Such a state is a nomocracy, a community governed by God’s law, and not a theocracy or autocracy that gives power to the clergy or ruler. It should provide security and order so that Muslims can carry out their religious duties. Legal processes in a truly Islamic state implement rules and judgments from the Shariah , rather than creating new legislation.
Does the Qur’an condone terrorism?
The Qur’an does not advocate or condone terrorism. Islam, like all world religions, neither supports nor requires the illegitimate use of violence or acts of terrorism. Islam does permit, and at times requires, Muslims to defend themselves, their families, their religion and their community from aggression.
The earliest Qur’anic verses dealing with the right to engage in a defensive jihad, or struggle, were revealed shortly after the emigration of Muhammad and his followers to Madinah in flight from their persecution in Makkah. At a time when they were forced to fight for their lives, Muhammad is told: “Leave is given to those who fight because they were wronged—surely God is able to help them—who were expelled from their homes wrongfully for saying, ‘Our Lord is God’” (Chapter 22 Verse 39). The defensive nature of jihad is clearly emphasized in 2:190: “And fight in the way of God with those who fight you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors.”
The Qur’an also provided detailed guidelines and regulations regarding the conduct of wars: who is to fight and who is exempted (48:17, 9:91), when hostilities must cease (2:192) and how prisoners should be treated (47:4). Most important, passages such as Chapter 2 Verse 294 emphasized that the response to violence and aggression must be proportionate.
However, Qur’anic verses also underscore that peace, not violence and warfare, is the norm. Permission to fight the enemy is balanced by a strong mandate for making peace: “If your enemy inclines toward peace, then you too should seek peace and put your trust in God” (8:61), and “Had God wished, He would have made them dominate you, and so, if they leave you alone and do not fight you and offer you peace, then God allows you no way against them” (4:90). From the earliest times, it is forbidden in Islam to kill noncombatants.
But what of those verses, sometimes referred to as the “sword verses,” that call for killing unbelievers, such as “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush” (9:5)? This is one of a number of Qur’anic verses that are selectively cited to demonstrate the supposedly violent nature of Islam and its scripture. In fact, however, the passage above is followed and qualified by, “But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat , then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind” (9:5). The same is true of another often quoted verse: “Fight those who believe not in God nor in the Last Day, Nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, Nor hold the religion of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book,” which is often cited without the line that follows, “until they pay the tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).
Are Women Second-Class Citizens in Islam?
The status of women in Muslim countries has long been looked to as evidence of “Islam’s” oppression of women in matters ranging from the freedom to dress as they please to legal rights in divorce. The true picture of women in Islam is far more complex.
The Qur’an declares that men and women are equal in the eyes of God; man and woman were created to be equal parts of a pair (Chapter 41 Verse 49). The Qur’an describes the relationship between men and women as one of “love and mercy” (30:21), so that men and women are to serve as “members of one another (3:195), as “protectors, one of another” (9:71). They are to be like each other’s garment (2:187).
Men and women are equally responsible for adhering to the Five Pillars of Islam. Chapter 9 Verses 71–72 states, “The Believers, men and women, are protectors of one another; they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil; they observe regular prayers, pay zakat and obey God and His Messenger. On them will God pour His mercy: for God is exalted in Power, Wise. God has promised to Believers, men and women, gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein.” This verse draws added significance from the fact that it was the last Qur’an verse to be revealed that addressed relations between men and women. Some scholars argue, on the basis of both content and chronology, that this verse outlines the ideal vision of that relationship in Islam—one of equality and mutuality.
Women have been assigned second-class status in Muslim society based upon a misinterpretation of the Qur’an’s Chapter 4 Verse 34, which says “Men are the guardians of women, (on the basis) that God has granted some of them merits greater than others and (on the basis) that they spend of their property (for the support of women).” However, contemporary scholars have noted that the “guardianship” referred to in this verse is based upon men’s socioeconomic responsibilities for women. It does not say women are incapable of managing their own affairs, controlling themselves or being leaders, nor does it say that all men are superior to, preferred to or better than all women.
Another justification of second-class status for women may have been derived from the Qur’anic stipulation (2:282) that two female witnesses are equal to one male witness. If one female witness errs, the other can remind her of the truth because of there regularly changing physical and psychological conditions. Over time, this was interpreted by male scholars to mean that a woman’s testimony should always be given half the weight of a man’s. Contemporary scholars point out that the verse specifies witnessing in cases of a written transaction, contract or court case. At the time the Qur’an was revealed, most women were not active in business and finance, and a woman’s expertise in these fields was likely to have been less than a man’s.
Another area in which gender discrimination has been apparent historically is in the matter of divorce. The Qur’an, however, guarantees women equality with respect to the right of divorce. The Qur’an also restricts the practice of polygamy. Chapter 4 Verse 3 commands, “Then marry such of the women as appeal to you, two, three or four; but if you fear that you cannot be equitable, then only one.” A corollary verse, 4:129, states, “You will never be able to treat wives equitably, even if you are bent on doing that.” Contemporary interpreters have argued that these two verses together prohibit polygamy and that the true Qur’anic ideal is monogamy.
The 20th century has brought numerous significant reforms for women’s rights in both the public and the private spheres. In the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries, women have the right to public education, including at the college level. In many countries, they also have the right to work outside the home, vote and hold public office. Particularly notable in recent years have been the reforms in marriage and divorce laws.

Why does Islam separate men and women?
Many, though not all, Muslim societies practice some gender segregation, the separation of men and women in public spaces. Thus, in many mosques men and women have separate areas for prayer or are separated by a screen or curtain, and unmarried men do not mix with unmarried women except in very specific contexts, such as a meeting between two potential spouses that occurs in the presence of a chaperone.
The practice of separation has both religious and cultural origins. Muhammad’s wives were told to keep themselves apart from society. In the Qur’an (Chapter 33 Verses 32–33) we see, “O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any of the other women. If you fear God, do not be complaisant in speech so that one in whose heart is a sickness may covet you, but speak honorably. Stay quietly in your homes and do not display your finery as the pagans of old did.” Verse 53 tells Muslim men, “And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from before a screen. That makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs.”
The practice of segregation is also tied to the concept of women as a source of sexual temptation for men. Social interaction between unrelated men and women is regarded as potentially leading to immoral sexual activity. Because modesty and chastity are prized virtues in Islam, some Muslims therefore believe that unrelated men and women should have no contact with each other.
Opinions today vary about the necessity of separation of the sexes. Many Muslims continue to hold fast to the belief that women are the culture-bearers of Islam, as well as the source of male honor, but they also believe that the requirements of modesty can be met through appropriate dress and the limitation of interaction with unrelated males.
John L. Esposito is accepted by Muslims and Christians alike as one of America’s foremost expositors of Islam. He is University Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, and Director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. His more than 30 books include What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?, The Oxford History of Islam and, forthcoming in spring 2004, The Islamic World: Past and Present.
This article appeared on pages 21-28 of the September/October 2003 print edition of Saudi Aramco World.
POSTED BY JOHN L. ESPOSITO ON JULY 20, 2007 10:59 AM

however, that is not to say that muslims have not been very vocal and have welcomed debate with christians!

http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/frameset.asp

You are well come Victoria!

Thomas Baum:

Christians always have there own decieving way with there language.

-I and Father are the one.
means we are on the same side, the rightous side)

-If you have seen me you have seen the father, I'm the way and the truth.
(means like on their times all the previous Prophets are the way and the truth and who have seen them seen the Father OR the way of the Father OR the way choosen by the Father).

And please don't avoid many QUESTIONS raised in by my previous 2 mails.
LIKE YOUR CHURCH AND PREISTS ALWAYS DO!!! NEVER CAME TO OPEN PUBLIC DEBAT WITH MUSLIMS??????

Questions like few mentioned below:
1- To whome Jesus(A.S) use to prostrate? Does God prostrate in front of any body???
2- To whome he refered greater them him?
3- To which people house Jesus(A.S) prefer to come again, (i)to the house of people how claim they love him (christians) BUT BREAK EACH AND EVERY LAW HE CAME TO FULFIL or (ii) to the house of people who follow each and every law of Jesus(A.S) as well which he came to fulfil (We muslims)???

AND ALL THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS IN MY PREVIOUS MAILS? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU DARE TO ANSWER?

One needs to see through the FABRICATED LIES which are constantly REVISED AND REMOVED till today and hardly left with any authenticity.

Christians always have there own decieving way with there language.

-I and Father are the one.
means we are on the same side, the rightous side)

-If you have seen me you have seen the father, I'm the way and the truth.
(means like on their times all the previous Prophets are the way and the truth and who have seen them seen the Father OR the way of the Father OR the way choosen by the Father).

And please don't avoid many QUESTIONS raised in by my previous 2 mails.
LIKE YOUR CHURCH AND PREISTS ALWAYS DO!!! NEVER CAME TO OPEN PUBLIC DEBAT WITH MUSLIMS??????

Questions like few mentioned below:
1- To whome Jesus(A.S) use to prostrate? Does God prostrate in front of any body???
2- To whome he refered greater them him?
3- To which people house Jesus(A.S) prefer to come again, (i)to the house of people how claim they love him (christians) BUT BREAK EACH AND EVERY LAW HE CAME TO FULFIL or (ii) to the house of people who follow each and every law of Jesus(A.S) as well which he came to fulfil (We muslims)???

AND ALL THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS IN MY PREVIOUS MAILS? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU DARE TO ANSWER?

One needs to see through the FABRICATED LIES which are constantly REVISED AND REMOVED till today and hardly left with any authenticity.

i have to agree with soja here-
ive been around several relaionships like the ones butterfly lady describes, and there were always inconsistencies and insecurities abounding

even if the favorites change - there are still faovrites- and the dynamics in reality had to be forced-

the supposed benefits didnt seem to work out equitably either-

in communal situations it always broke down in the same way- the workers and responsible ones end up picking up the slack for the loafers- and resented it

and people would just naturally pair off anyway-
they always did

theres always slights and tiffs

more people, more conflict
even when trying to present themselves as a superior unit- you could eventually if oyu were close see the cracks, small injustices- and it never really was fair

just an observation

Thomas & Ross,

1- I havent qouted the exact words but more or less the same expresion.

2- One better speak upon evidence and not upon personal opinion. Read both the books and evaluate your self which is human/satan handy work keep on changing taking out lies/ incorrect maths/information and which is divine unchanged/correct? And ask your self does God lies and decieve or satan????

3- I would also expect your answer to my questions in this post and previous???

Thomas & Ross,

1- I havent qouted the exact words but more or less the same expresion.

2- One better speak upon evidence and not upon personal opinion. Read both the books and evaluate your self which is human/satan handy work keep on changing taking out lies/ incorrect maths/information and which is divine unchanged/correct? And ask your self does God lies and decieve or satan????

3- I would also expect your answer to my questions in this post and previous???

Soja:
"I have lived for twenty years in the West without coming across the kind of plural marriage you referred to."

I didn't say it was a widespread phenomenon. I simply said that I knew people for whom it apparently worked and worked quite well.

"Yes, I have met people who lived the "free sex" relationships of the hippies without being married (without being impressed enough to be part of it by virtue of being an incurable romantic with no emotional capacity for casual sex and multiple partners)."

So have I. That's not the relationship I was describing.

"Genuine companionship is possible only with one other person, not with many."

So a relationship model must be one-size-fits-all in order to be valid? I don't buy it. As I've said before, I can only deal with one significant other at a time, but I don't assume that what works for me is the only way it should be. To say that because monogamy is the only way that works for me means that it is the only way that works at all would be as wrong as to say that because heterosexuality is the only way that works for me that is is the only way that works at all.

"Nuclear families, highly differentiated and monogamous relationships, individuality, is a development in the evolutionary process, not the other way around."

That just makes them one viable model among many.

LEPIDOPTERYX:

I have lived for twenty years in the West without coming across the kind of plural marriage you referred to. I thought the attempt to create such a living style by hippies ended in great failure. Yes, I have met people who lived the "free sex" relationships of the hippies without being married (without being impressed enough to be part of it by virtue of being an incurable romantic with no emotional capacity for casual sex and multiple partners). I didn't get the impression that those who lived the style were particularly happy (in fact I knew one who was very lonely and wanted out but somehow was trapped in the lifestyle). They were most definitely not happier than the happily married couples or those in steady relationships I have known. It is my impression that one compromises on the depth in a relationship when there is more than one partner, even if the partner agrees to the plural relationship. Genuine companionship is possible only with one other person, not with many. I have found people who have been in long term loving monogamous relationships with genuine fidelity on the part of both partners to be deeply secure and emotionally stable.

People lived as communities in the past, and joint families were a part of such a society. Relationships were less differentiated. In India, the tribals live a rather loose sexual lifestyle with no rigid rules concerning marriage, not because they are modern, but simply because their values and personal identities are less differentiated. Nuclear families, highly differentiated and monogamous relationships, individuality, is a development in the evolutionary process, not the other way around.

Moody, Moody, Moody and Moses, Moses, Moses,

Step back a bit more in time. Good Christians, Jews, Pagans, atheists and Muslims follow the rules and codes of the ancients that were entered into the OT, NT and koran by "borrowing"/plagiarizing scribes of said religions. So honor people like King Hammurabi not the OT Moses, Jesus or Mohammed.

So in reality

MUSLIMS OBEY JESUS (A.S.) AND HIS GOD OF WHOLE CREATION MORE THEN CHRISTIANS!!!

Thomas Baum,

I don't mind your language because by now I came to conclusion that it is common norm in west, false accusations and slinging dirt on others IGNORING CONCRETE PROOFS.
And now in reply to your post: BRINGING PROOF FROM YOUR OWN BIBLE BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN IT SO YOU NEED IT TO VARIFY,
AS MUSLIMS PROOF AND WHAT WE BELIEVE IS QURAN.

Lies or Truth: Evidence speaks for it self.

1- There is not a single verse in ANY VERSION of Bible where Jesus (A.S) said, worship me OR I'm god. Instead he said,” I speak what I hear from father”, “My Father is greater than me."

2- Again word "Trinity" is not mentioned in ANY VERSION of the Bible. The closest verse to trinity that,” Father, Holy Ghost & spirit is one" is thrown out in your REVISED VERSION on Bible. As all your high priests said,” It was a concoction, fabrication, addition, a lie in the Bible, as no such verse is found in the most ancient scriptures".
So please ask your own priests who is lying and fabricating??????

3-We Muslims FOLLOW more in Jesus (A.S) commandments then you Christians:

(You say, you love Jesus (A.S.), but you disobey his every commandment).

4-From Adam to Jesus (PBUT) MENTIONED IN YOUR BIBLE, all prophets when prayed to God, they prostrated like we Muslims.
Do you follow Jesus, how to pray?

5- In ALL Bibles more than 3 times Jesus said swine-pig in forbidden to eat. We Muslims follow him, but you Christians follow PAUL and disobey Jesus (A.S.) commandments.

6- More than 4 occasions in ALL Bibles Jesus (A.S) told wine has bad attributes on the humans. But Paul quotes the "FIRST MIRACLE OF JESUS" and since then wine is flowing like water in Christendom and NOT AT ALL in Muslimdom. (Bible said water tasted like wine and never said turned into wine).

7- Jesus said," I came to keep all the commandments of the God and not to break them". But you Christians broke EACH AND EVERY of them.
Hale-aluu-Yaa to Church, Paul, Mathew, John and Luke!!!!!

8-According to Christian Bible first miracle of Jesus (A.S.) was turning water taste like wine and recovering the shortage in the gathering. But according to Quran the first miracle of Jesus was talking to Jews when he was infant in his mother’s arms.

When after birth, Mary came:
9-According to the BIBLE she told the Jews that she hear voices and then had a child birth. Do you believe your daughter or sister, if she come and tell you she had birth after hearing voices? Do you think when she had told that to the Jews, they would have believed it???
But Quran tells that the Jews accused her, she knows that Jesus (A.S) was the miraculous birth. So she told the Jews ask the infant. And miraculously Jesus (A.S) talked to them and told them to be nice and respectful to my mother as she is among the highest of the pious. Quran gives highest respect to Mary, even there is a complete chapter by her name in Quran. You have chapters named by Mathew, Luke, John or lying Paul and many others but not a single by his mothers name Mary.
Which version would you like to tell to your children, HEARING VOICES AND GETTING PRAGNANT or MIRACULOUS TALK????

10-Christians says Jesus (A.S) was the BEGOTTEN SON. What are you trying to apply here? So what you are trying to put in all the humans throat is that the All Mighty God who made every thing miraculously from Adam to every thing of this world needs to come done to seed…. (God forgive us for such satanic thinking). Allah tells in Quran that when He wants to do some thing, He just says and it happens. He begets not nor He begotten. Human miracles are not the proof of any kind of divinity. Jesus (A.S) was the prophet like all other prophets with miracles.

11-Christians says Jesus (A.S) get crucified for there sins. And a son of god (not mentioned any where in the Bible he himself never said that). And dozens of Bible verses proving that he was not died through crucifixion. You Christians are also divided about it.
So basically what you are making to swallow us (the whole human race) is that the whole nation rape, kill and do bad atrocities and when brought for justice there King hang his own son instead of punishing them. IT DOES REALLY MAKE SENSE! Hale- alu- Yaa PAUL and the greatest deceiving of the human history.

4- Jesus says “ He is jealous God only pray to Him”. But Christians are eager to make partner to Him. We Muslims only pray to God and don’t make any partners to Him.

So I am asking you a question:

Next time does Jesus (A.S) come to the house of people who are obeying his commandments OR who are TOTALLY disobeying his commandments???

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Correct the flaws in your warmongering religion and then we can go on to less important issues.

In the meantime, this quote summarizes the issue:

"Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe"

well i guess this post has been commandeered by lib

i guess sally and jo will have to use their emromous intellects to come up with another fluff question

how about, what does hanukah mean to you and your family?

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

So observant of you, I guess. Please note that my comments were addressed to Moody who continues to struggle with his koranic brainwashed neurons even more so than you. Apparently, Moody assumes that the centuries-old civil war/hatred is centered only in Iraq but you and I know that is not true.

And you still fail to see the major issue i.e. the flaws in Islam and how they affect world peace. You should have these flaws memorized by now so I will not repeat them but if you somehow forgot, I have them ready for a quick and essential repeat. That famous quote,

"Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe"

should bring the complete list of flaws back into your immediate focus.

thanks for the link moody-

liberated- what on earthi is your point?
youve been posting that article for a year now- what possible conclusion are you attempting to communicate here?

clearly whatever is in your head, and seems obvious to you, the rest of us are just gliding over it-

so are you saying the shia are your friends and the sunni are your enemy?
or what?

does that include the shia in iran? or do you have to reorganize who you hate and who you dont hate to accomodate that?

whose side are you on anyway?
i cant even figure that out

for instance, in iraq, i think(its hard to keep track of) the shia are the allies, right?

and we went to clean out the WMDS (oops- didnt exist) and then to liberate the shia, right?

but now we want to go and kill the shia in iran?

its hard to keep track of-
it reminds me of 1984 (in the movie version) where winston is watching the trucks of prisoners being trucked through town, and asks, werent they our allies last week?

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Only Iraq????

From: CNN,

"Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.

Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

And it "ain't any better" in Palestine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22jihadists.html?ex=1311220800&en=477ff07cfa579449&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"On Web, a Sunni-Shiite Split on Hezbollah"

Ohhhhhh, please, get on with it already. By now, this subject is as stale as the spot on Monica's dress.

Seems the posters kinda got off subject. Let's try to get it back on track:
Is America's pubilc obsession with sex good or bad?
I'd say it is overall negative, it distracts many people from real issues when directed toward public figures. We like the voyeuristic, vicarious candy of the moment so we don't have to settle for the carrots of being informed. (OK, poor metaphor, so sue me)

Is extramarital sex a sin?
Yes, it is clearly that by any religious or philosophical viewpoint. And for those who don't subscribe to any such thing, it complicates life and relationships, causing problems that may manifest in other facets of a life. Yes, a bad thing and a sin (because it is bad; it isn't bad because it is a sin)

Is it forgivable?
Yes. My Christ teaches to forgive even egregious hurts. Besides the purely practical reasons adultery is bad, it is a spiritual failure that is - - not allowed, not expected per se - - something that Jesus paid for, asking us only to forgive and withhold judgment (He will take care of that).

Is it a public matter?
Obviously it is for public figures. They have chosen their walk and it includes no privacy. One of the practical considerations of public life is that a public figure can't really hide anything any more, and some (Rudy G., for instance) don't hide it but rather play it up some for the political rehabilitation fans.

Since it is dangerous and counterproductive to judge the hearts of others, the spiritual aspect of the sin is between the sinner and his Maker, while the practical aspects of the act dominate the scope of newsies and busybodies.

Thanks

Moody, Moody, Moody, Ahmed, Ahmed, Ahmed,

Your Three B affliction is at a high level. The cure has been presented and requires no doctor or drugs just some common sense.

You can watch free Islamim tv on this link:

http://islambox.tv/watch/PeaceTVUSA.ashx

Dear ANDIE,

Type only peacetv
on google. And you will find the info. Some how so many Islamic sites are corrupted on search engines.

Well you can guess why?

CCNL:

Shia and sunni, why only in Iraq and why only after US invasion?
In Bush and bushers opinion the world is stupid!

Dear Indie,

In on line, read Quran with understanding and it will open your heart.

If you find something hard to understand and in case of difficult questions in your mind, ask the true scholars and don't fall pray to the twisted and wrong meanings given by disbelievers. They only see what they have!
Mostly it is easy to understand.

For your reference go to www.peacetv.com
There you will find authentic scholars from all over the world, like Dr. Zakir Naik, Sheikh Ahmed Dedaad, Mr. Abdul Raheem Green, Mr. Yousaf Astis and many more.
You will find there the MOST SATISFACTORY answers of any difficult question.

And dear true believe is a journey sometime with lots of hick-ups and mistakes. And can only be acheived with Allah's Will.

Thomas:
I can read, partially speak and understand Arabic.

Ross:
I'm mentioning THE TRUTH and all you are talking about the discoveries about the truth. The point is not by whom BUT discovered. I DON'T BLAME YOU IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE!

CCNL:
You and like your have no shame comparing couple of thousand with millions of FREEDOM SPONSERED killings. Where many of those unjust actions have NO PROOF to link with the TERROR FIGHTERS.
e.g., 9/11
Click on google just 9/11 and you will find all kind of expert, professional and scientific PROOFS showing that those planes couldn't at all possibly collaspe the towers.
Let me give you line of direction towards the investigation to find the truth.
1- Why all the jews of towers were on holiday on 9/11?
2- See the demolition and destruction of all kind of building, bombed, burned for MANY DAYS and not couple of floors for FEW HOURS on google.
3- See the pattern of buildings falling when destroyed and compare with technique of IMPLOSION is applyed? see on google!
4- On google you will also find the towers timely and systematic blasts on each floor flim captured.
5- On google see Pentagon crach recording. Where are the impact of wings in the hole of the wall? Was it a plane crash?? Where is the rubble? See on google.
6-How could the passport of terrorist found, safe and perfect OUT OF PLANE??
BUSH AND IN THERE ADMINISTRATIONS OPINION, THE WHOLE WORLD IS STUPID....right CCNL!

Your tax dollars pays for this religion of control and pre-emptive nuking of anyone who does not agree with you. talk about the log in your own eyes:

http://www.islamicity.com/m/news_frame.asp?Frame=1&referenceID=35045

Ahmed, Ahmed, Ahmed,

Hopefully your radar will detect some "pwtfft"s!!!! And maybe a flying chariot pulled by camels??? And maybe its rider, the wandering, warmongering, illiterate, womanizing, hallucinating Arab will finally say something original to you and Islam.

And for your contemporary list of facts:

A Partial Body Count and why "Until the koran is deflawed, no one is safe!!!!

1) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 800 injured,

2) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 77,573 – 84,502 Iraqi civilians http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

3) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

4) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

5) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

6) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

7) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!!

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. Although a bit dated, the terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends.

14. And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

judeochristian mass tongue and genitalia.
jc mass ideology,mass tongue and mass gen is the same ,is sequel of one another and circle of one another.
1-jc have one tongue in god but yet another tongue in the so called son of god.
2-one tongue in christ and another tongue in jefferson.
3-2 minds,one mind in the mass sex media and another mind in the mass fideility.
4-one tongue in democracey yet another tongue and another gen in people bussiness and property.
5-one tongue in science and logic and another tongue in the rotten fossilism of relics .
5-one tongue in church idealism and another whole different tongue and gen in real practical life,they preach jc on sunday but the rest of the week they practice secularism.
6-one tongue and gen in the church pool, yet another tongue and gen in the mass buck pool.
7-one tongue and gen in peace yet another tongue and gen in oppression and injustice.
8-one tongue and gen in loveing god yet another tongue and gen in disobeying god.
9-one tongue in the just god and another tongue in the constitutional god.
10-one tongue and gen in this life and another tongue and gen in the hearafter.

the double standard of judeochristian mass culture will never lead mankind to none but destruction.

Concerned

You have such flawed judgement. To avoid looking at your own mischief you keep harking at muslims in general. Take a close look at your own self-righteous foreign policy before you accuse me of anything. In this day of internet, nothing is hidden except your head in the fake sand of your own thoughts.

Wake up and admit to the fact that your country has the biggest power and it is using it in a major negative way and your taxes pay for that.

Like a cracked record with its needle stuck, you hark on a 1000 years of injustices that I never had a part in but try to avoid what injustices you inflict today. Right now. Concern yourself with NOW.

This is my last post addressing your cracked record. You have moved from my radar.

America seems obsessed with gossip of any sort.

Or is that maybe just human nature at work?

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

When the sexual escapades of public figures result in scandal, the media are quick to contact evangelical leaders for a comment. After the evangelical leader comments, the reporter then asks him why he's so obsessed with someone else's sex life.

I think the media is much more obsessed with sex than the average person and then in order to justify their constant coverage of sex scandals, they claim that this is what the public wants. Meanwhile ratings go down.

Adultery is a sin and it is forgivable. It involves only the people directly affected by it.

Gaby,

How about one last crack at the perverted Kennedy family? Those great examples of big money trumping truth and fidelity!!! Those mentors of "Billy Boy"!!!! Amoral adulterers and "womanslaughterers" are they!!!

I think it's time to change the subject.

Dear Moody,
I am the one you describe as "don't come to believe even after more than 1000 miraculous signs".
What do I do?

A woman's preference being above all, the choice of mate, as fathering of an child. Where father not always being the best partner, as partner not always the best father. Woman, at all times must be given, allowed freedom, as given respect when having choice to make in such matters. The matter of SEX it an act of pleasure which being open to all, as should not be retricted within marriage. SEX is to be enjoyed, and of course it being from a loving base, where there being no intention of preying on children. Causing harm. At the present stage of human development the sexual component vital, therefore be respected finding a balance, important, as understanding experience grows, ajusting the balance fitting, all needs, within common agreement... .. .

SOJA:
**I am yet to meet a couple who are passionately in love with each other, feel incomplete or miss a third party! It is only couples (one partner) who do not love each other who are "bursting" with excess "love" and need to have sex outside their committed relationships!**

I do know people who are in committed gorup situations, and I don't think it's a case of a lack of real love. Everyone in the group is commmitted to the group, and bringing someone new into the group must be a unanimous decision. It's so much more than just a matter of a sexual round robin.

I would not presume to say that they don't really love each other. From what I can tell from my interaction with them, they most certainly do. It's just not a model that works for me. Same-sex doesn't work for me either - but I would never presume that because I could not feel romantic/erotic love for another woman that it means that a lesbian friend isn't really in love with her wife, or a gay friend isn't really in love with his husband.

Gaby and Lepidopteryx

I have really enjoyed reading how you both would react if your partners cheated on you - kick the partner out with the door attached to him. Really cute!

Your attitudes towards fidelity in a relationship brings home a really important point. The pain of adultery is ultimately about hurting another human being and betraying the trust that has been placed in a relationship. I am yet to meet a couple who are passionately in love with each other, feel incomplete or miss a third party! It is only couples (one partner) who do not love each other who are "bursting" with excess "love" and need to have sex outside their committed relationships! Then evolutionary biology and the need to spread their seed or whatever becomes suddenly a good excuse. The pseudo religious give it a religious spin, about "universal love" and "holistic" view of human life etc.

You can close your eyes or do not accept for what ever reasons you have..
BUT YOU CAN'T DENY THAT EVERY RAIONAL INTELLIGENT LOGICAL KNOWLEDGE & SICENCE IS TESTIFYING FOR QURAN....AFTER EVERY NEXT DISCOVERY AND AWARENESS!

MODREN SCIENCE AND QURAN (ISLAMIC DIVINE BOOK)

Quran is not a book of science BUT a book of signs. It has more than 6000 verses out of which more than 1000 verses giving CLEAR signs about the modern scientific proven facts in recent couple of hundred years. (WHICH BY ANY POSSIBLE MEANS CANNOT BE SAID BY US HUMANS 1400 YEARS BACK)

- For some people ONE sign is enough to believe.
- For some people 10 signs are enough.
- But some people don't come to believe even after more than 1000 miraculous signs.

Verses about:

1- Big bang theory (in a nut shell).
2- Geo spherical Ostrich egg shaped earth.
3- Cosmic dust (referred more perfectly as smoke).
4- How water seep into the earth and rain cycle through AIR.
5- Sweet and salt water of oceans and barrier between them.
6-Expanding sun, solar system and universe for given period of time
7- Earth, sun and stars revolving on their axis and path (orbits).
8- Sun and moon have different paths (orbits).
9- Sun and stars consuming there energy.
10- Reflected sun light of moon. In Arabic mooneer (moon) it self means reflected light.
11- Upper thin layer of earth, which is hold by mountains as nails (bigger in size deep in earth) from shacking.
12- Perfect shape and stages of human embryo.
13- All living being made out of water.
14- All plants and even fruits have male and female atributes.
15- The exact way of plants and animals behaviour and how they communicate.

AND MANY MORE............

THESE ARE ALL RECENT DISCOVERIES AND SIGN FOR THOSE SINCERELY SEEKING TRUTH!!!!!! AND REMEMBER THAT IS NOT WHAT QURAN IS ALL ABOUT... THESE ARE JUST TESTIFYING SIGNS WITHOUT ANY FLAW OR FAULT.

Ahmed,

How do you know so much about "decadence" in the West? Hmmm, checking out all those porno and gambling sites? Be careful, nothing is secret on the internet and that knock at your door is probably the local imam's "stone em" group.

And no degree of deflection will change that famous quote,

"Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe."

The Western society is an openly permissive society under the guise of freedom and democracy. Check out your porn/drugs/gambling websites. Then the very same people who vote and expect their presidents and reps to be clean Jesus-like figures, themselves indulge in every kind of obscenity.

What does that make one?

You deserve the government you get. It has nothing to do with sin or religious beliefs. One can hold high moral values and still fall for another woman. But would you crucify him/her? Under your moral value judgments yes, you tried impeaching Clinton.

But someone like Bush who has lied to you. Taken the country to war, continues to lie, has so much conflict of interest and all his yes men around keep repeating lies to take the country to another war with Iran. Someone like him with so much blood on his hand, can go scott-free.

Tell me who is the sinner??

All of this Clinton-bashing, and not a word about Saint Rudy of 9/11 and his "Tryst Fund"? Not only charging security for his mistress to the NYC government, but they had to chauffeur her around? And his love nest in WTC 7? I hope all of you who are getting on your high horse about Bill Clinton's affair aren't planning on voting for Guiliani. After all, if a politician cheats on his wife (and charges it to the taxpayers), he'll cheat the public. Right?

Argh my bad The response to the second question, 'Is sex outside of marriage a forgivable sin?' should have been yes, of course.

Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Of course! Why? Because the Bible says selfishness is a sin and promiscuity is, at heart, a selfish act.

Is it unforgivable? No.

It is public matter to the extent that one of the parties involved chooses to make it so or if it is done in Public or if it places one in the position of committing an illegal act as in the case Of Bill Clinton's perjury before the Arkansas court.

The minister after his sunday morning fleecing service was saying his goodbyes to the flock as he always does, when young Nancy came up to him in tears. 'What's bothering you so, lamb for the slaughter ?' inquired the minister. 'Oh I've got terrible news,' she replied. 'Well what is it ?' It's George my husband, he passed away last night. 'Oh,' said the minister, that's terrible. Tell me, did he have any last requests ?' 'Well, yes he did, replied Nancy. 'What did he ask ?' 'He said, "Please, honeypie, put down the gun",'

I continue to be amazed about the silence concerning the perverted Kennedy family. After all, did they not serve as sexual mentors for "Billy Boy"?????

Hmmm, murder, womanslaugther, adultery, and more adultery!!! Then there is their favorite "Reverend" Jesse J. Well at least "Billy Boy" did not DUI with Monica in a car!!! And "Teddy Boy" continues to get re-elected. So much for "proper conduct" being an issue in Massachusetts politics!!!!!

Some body asked an American settled in Afganistan, WHY?

He replied,"When I was a child, homosexuality was a crime in America. When I grow up, it became legal, so I rushed out before it become compulsory."

PRIVER:
**I suspect the obsession with sex scandals is due to the fact that most people here are not taught about sex in a way that allows people to be comfortable with themselves as sexual beings.**

I'm sure that's a big part of people's avid (sometimes rabid) fascination with the sex lives of celebrities. Who's Paris Hilton making home movies with this week? Did Britney wear panties when she went club-hopping last night? Who was Anna Nicole Smith's baby-daddy? Let's start an office pool on how many babies Brangelina will have/adopt. It's a way to vicariously enjoy "doing the nasty" without the guilt of actually doing it.
Fromthe time she first accidentally walked in on me changing a tampon and later on her dad in the bath when she was four, and noticed that he had parts that she didn't, my daughter has known the proper names for body parts and what their functions are. By the time she hit puberty and started developing a sex drive, she knew why it was not a good idea for her to have sex until she was much older, and she also knew how to protect herself from someof the unpleasant possible consequences if she decided to do it anyway.
I didn't tell her not to have sex because it would make Baby Jesus cry - that's not a good reason. I wanted her to know that her body belonged to her, and that to share it with someone else was a big decision, and one that should wait until she was old enough to be able to make that decision with her eyes wide open. As a result, she felt comfortable coming to me and asking me to make her an appointment with my OB/GYN when she decided that she wanted to go on the pill, rather than sneaking around and trying to hide things from me. She and her boyfriend are planning to move in together as soon as they graduate.

I suspect the obsession with sex scandals is due to the fact that most people here are not taught about sex in a way that allows people to be comfortable with themselves as sexual beings. People don't always know what it is, how it works, what the risks are and how to respect themselves and each other. People don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. Trying to suppress something as natural as sexuality tends to backfire. Instead of regarding it as a healthy human drive it gets distorted, and what is to me something sacred between two consenting adults is made into something that is used to gain power over others. Especially those who cannot defend themselves.

I don't think of things in terms of 'sin'. I think of things in terms of who is harmed. It is the person on the other side of the commitment (with or without the legal documents) who can decide on forgiveness and its place, if there is to be one at all.

It is and should remain private unless a crime is committed.

MATTHEW:16:19...I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will be bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loose on earth, be already lost in the heavens.....The keys refer to the heart as brain, bringing understanding, as experience. Through time all understanding as experience the very essence of creation.There being those whom show frustration whom feel that little achieved. In truth we have come a long way on our journey, yet that some tire it be understood as such it taken into account. With the "Children of God". As now The Family, it "Ellya" a spirit of the wind comes whispering the secret of the keys...

For those who have claimed that Bill Clinton used power to get Monica maybe you do not remember some facts.
That Monica also had an affaire with her drama teacher(a married man) when in College.
That she admitted to makeing a special trip to the Oval Office to flip her jacket and show her Thong. That she was 21 and not an innocent child that was taken advantage of.
That when Clinton called her and called it all off, she went to the gates of the WH crying and begged to be allowed in, and was refused.

Clinton was wrong, not in haveing tet a tets in the oval office...but in being an oath breaker. Breaking the trust of his wife and harming his daughter.Not in harming the public, we would not have known a thing about it except for the hypocritical republicans.

What I do not understand is why then, when Hillary was the wronged spouse...why is she hated by those who also hate Clinton? Is it because they worked to over come what he did and through therapy stayed together...is it because Religious Conservatives have a higher rate of divorce then the liberal population does?

It's so easy to hate Clinton to make yourselves feel better.It's easy to point the finger at him and his stupidity and say ohh but he lied! Maybe its after 7 years of Bush pushing fear and lies that have killed and ruined the lives of so many, that I see Clinton's affaire with monica as unethical and sad...it could not have been very fulfilling. And his actions were not worthy of the ability and promise he had.

But gosh people, stop claiming it was all about sex..it was about the repugians wanting to use all the ammo against him they could, even the lies they spread...and what was stupid is Bill gave it to them. For a smart man, he was dumb as a box of rocks on that one.
terra

Moody, Moody, Moody,

First, if you want cite laws, please cite the laws of the ancients like Greek and Roman laws and the Codes of Hammurabi i.e. the sources of human law, not the "laws" supposedly given to an hallucinating Arab whose scribes plagiarized willy-nilly existing codes and laws and said they were delivered by a "pretty wingy talking, flying, fictional thingie".

Next it is typically too darn hot to commit a lot of crime in Saudi Arabia and with their oil profits most Saudis have no need to even consider stealing etc.

And with news being controlled in Islamic theocracies and Islamic dictatorships, crime statistics are not available or believable even if they were.

And once again, your Breeding, Birth and Brainwashing in Islam discredits anything you have to offer. When you finally address the flaws in the founders and foundations in your warmongering, bloodletting "crimed", terror-"crimed", and torture "crimed" religion, get back to us.

If coming to realize that religious organizations, being but run by criminals, whom in reality having the same moral standing as the common fraudsters, whom prey on the weak minded, the frail, uneducated whom be always vulnerable, open to abuse. If being a long term victim of religious abuse, do not let, initial freedom, be ruled by the feelings of past abuse, to such extent, in anger throwing the baby out with the bathwater... .. .

ADDITION AND REVISION………

THE REALITY FACT IS SOCIALIST WESTERNS ARE AFRAID OF BETTER ISLAMIC LAWS COMPARE TO THEIR LAWS WHICH HAS ALREADY LOST THE MORAL AND PRINCIPLE GROUNDS AND A HOUCH POUCH OF CONFUSION AND DOUBLE STANDARDS!

Though in 49 Muslim countries it is not fully implemented in any. But still where it is implemented partially in socialist or Monarchs form of Muslim govt. They are receiving the fruits and positive results.

1- Saudi Arabia one of the country which has the lowest crime rate in the world.
2- Sudan Khartoum (previous British colony) When Islamic sharia implemented according to BBC ALL kind of crime gone dramatically done more than 50% with in days in previously chaotic Sudan.

Islamic laws are strict and discouraging, result oriented. You know what you get if break the law.

That’s why Racist west don’t waste a single chance THROUGH THERE MOSTLY JEWISH MEDIA (you can link all Christian and Jewish reasons) trying to make a ridicule of RARE strict law occasions in particular Islamic countries. TO PORTRAY BAD IMAGE OF 1.6 BILLION OF PEACEFUL Muslims. With out KNOWING IN DEPTH THE REASON AND LOGIC and with out inquiring and putting the real facts in front through media, twisting and manipulating! MAKING LAME EXCUSES OF ATTACKING MUSLIM LANDS. TRYING TO JUSTIFY THERE BARBARIC ACTIONS BY BRAIN WASHING THERE PUBLIC.

Muslims who are not suffering like west in general from the following problems, which is only the BRAND OF WEST IN GENERAL:

1)Every second women raped in west.
2)Adultery and fornication is now normal in West. You even don’t bother imagining your wife, husband or daughter experimenting around.
3)Teenage pregnancies are out of control. You can imagine of kids moral values and sex condition.
4)Crime rate and violence is high.
5)More people there die by suicide then HIV.
6) Children are molested and not properly raised by there parents and guardians.
7) You so extremely selfish that when your turn comes, don’t take care of your parents.
8) Unrealistic and Unjust division of RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROPERTIY among man monkey and woman monkey. (like unnatural laws about kids).
9) Unjust laws of equal RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITY about women. Instead of Fair Laws for women. They need Fare Laws as they are not same like man in so many ways, BUT EQUAL THEY ARE. (RIGHTS CAN ONLY BE EQUAL WHEN MAN ALSO START GIVING BIRTH).
10) Your “social, capitalist, evolution theory” based of humans evolved from monkeys. And happy human monkey HAS NO OTHER PURPOSE and for happiness needs only :
i)Beautiful mate for sex and to satisfy there animal instincts.
ii)Success in form of capital, good house, bank balance and property, OTHER WISE YOU ARE A LOSER.
iii)By hook or crock Power over world resources.

IS THE REAL CAUSE OF ALL BARBARICISM AT PRESENT IN THE WORLD.
Also your two faced racist laws and practices MOSTLY AGAINST Muslims in your lands. Shows your real hypocrisy and ugly two faces.

THE REALITY FACT IS SOCIALIST WESTERNS ARE AFRAID OF BETTER ISLAMIC LAWS COMPARE TO THEIR WHICH HAS ALREADY LOST THE MORAL AND PRINCIPLE GROUNDS AND A HOUCH POUCH OF CONFUSION AND DOUBLE STANDARDS!

Though in 49 Muslim countries it is not fully implemented in any. But still where it is implemented partially in socialist or Monarchs form of Muslim govt. They are receiving the fruits and positive results.

1- Saudi Arabia one of the country which has the lowest crime rate in the world.
2- Sudan Khartoum (previous British colony) When Islamic sharia implemented according to BBC ALL kind of crime gone dramatically done more than 50% with in days in previously chaotic Sudan.

Islamic laws are strict and discouraging, result oriented. You know what you get if break the law.

That’s why Racist west don’t waste a single chance THROUGH THERE MOSTLY JEWISH MEDIA (you can link all Christian and Jewish reasons) trying to make a ridicule of RARE strict law occasions in particular Islamic countries. TO PORTRAY BAD IMAGE OF 1.6 BILLION OF PEACEFUL Muslims. With out inquiring and putting the real facts in front through media, twisting and manipulating! MAKING LAME EXCUSES OF ATTACKING MUSLIM LANDS. TRYING TO JUSTIFY THERE BARBARIC ACTIONS BY BRAIN WASHING THERE PUBLIC.

Muslims who are not suffering like west in general from the following problems, which is only the BRAND OF WEST IN GENERAL:

1)Every second women raped in west.
2)Adultery and fornication is now normal in West. You even don’t bother imagining your wife, husband or daughter experimenting around.
3)Teenage pregnancies are out of control. You can imagine of kids moral values and sex condition.
4)Crime rate and violence is high.
5)More people there die by suicide then HIV.
6)Your “social, capitalist, evolution theory” based of humans evolved from monkeys. And happy human monkey HAS NO OTHER PURPOSE and for happiness needs only :
i)Beautiful mate for sex and to satisfy there animal instincts.
ii)Success in form of capital, good house, bank balance and property, OTHER WISE YOU ARE A LOSER.
iii)By hook or crock Power over world resources.

IS THE REAL CAUSE OF ALL BARBARICISM AT PRESENT IN THE WORLD.
Also your two faced racist laws and practices MOSTLY AGAINST Muslims in your lands. Shows your real hypocrisy and ugly two faces.

geopolitique of the genitalia.
mankind body is created from the geo.what make the mudy body of mankind tic and kik is the soul that is breathed in by the creator lord.
the soul is the command control of the body,when the soul goes,goes the body when the soul is crooked the body is crooked.
the above reality is ejaculating around the clock the following reality:
1-the command control of genitalia is the soul,when the soul is crooked the gen is also crooked.
2-in order to align the toe and camber of the gen you need to align the soul first.
3-the gen is not private but mass public,mankind doesnot leave his gen in the closet when he/she go to the public office,look at antonio and cleopatra,antonio carried his gen all the way to egypt.and look at the history of the kings of england and look at the history of the capital hill.and look at the collossal and aphrodite of old athen.
4-underestimating and overestimating the gen is not only damageing to the private gen but to the mass society of mankind.

mankind respond to the reality of the gen is as :
1-those who they burried their gen deep under the altar of the lord who died for the sin of mankind(????????????????)who they do not face the reality of mankind body and soul where they end up no matter how deep they go under the altar they end up over comed by their natural need to fullfil the gen but no solution to the soul nor the gen.
2-those who ran from the church are no better, they burried their gen under the altar of lord science and prophet logic who also died for the sin of mankind without provideing any solution to the mass gen of mankind.
3-those who they recognize their body and soul reality as part of this creation wich need the creator supply and direction in filling the soul and body.

it,s all about love it,s all for love.if you put your gen in the right place you get rewarded for it. the mercey of the creator god never died for no body,s sin .

"I don't like lying, cheating people. And I especially don't like them when they are in a position of leadership."
____

So I take it you don't like THIS:

http://www.armchairsubversive.org

This bidness ain't POLITICAL, oh, no. Compare Bill Clinton with the vermin on that site. Go ahead.

Religion & morality. Yuck.

Religion claims that morality is BIOLOGICAL -- yet, for instance, the New Testament (major religion, there) states that Jeebus Kripes is his own Dad.

Yuck.

The claim by religious organizations that SEX, be an SIN, which stop one enter an fictional place called heaven, as paradise. That JESUS born of an virgin, he being pure in spirit, whom having the ability of removing the sin in others, being free one given access to a fictional heaven, paradise. IT ALL MARKETING OF A PRODUCT, WHICH HAVING MADE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, RICH AS POWERFUL... .. .

"It's that they lied and abused their power/authority."

For me, it's not so much the lie (the lie being a conditioned response from a lifetime of denial). I can't forgive the abuse of power and authority. Literally and figuratively, they were among the first to throw stones.

ANANYMOUS:

Now could you please translate that into English?

SEX preached by religious orders as being sin, that sinners would be denied entry unto paradise, heave.,....H O W E V E R ...... JESUS..it being claimed was the son of God, being born of VIRGIN thus free from sin...as such divine having the ability to remove, washing away SIN of allowing them, being FREE FOM SIN thus gaining open access unto paradise as heaven.....SUCH AN EARLY EXAMPLE OF PRESENT DAY IN MARKETING A PRODUCT. WHERE YOU CREAT A PROBLEM...example, SEX AN SIN..THE CURE BEING JESUS..... SUCH THE SUCCESS (SEX & JESUS) IT AN BUSINESS THAT HAVING GROWN OVER HUNDREDS OF YEARS. RAISING BILLIONS, IN ANY CURRENCY....WHERE UNEDUCATED AS EDUCATED, BEING BUT TREATED AS MERE SHEEP TO BE FLEECED, LAMBS FOR THE SLAUGHTER....

Most faiths are based on the concept of wholeness: we are, by definition, not one with our God(s), but, through religion, that is what we are seeking. Or, as in Buddhism, we seek to become our highest or best expressions.

So when you bring in the concept of sexuality, if you leave out the goal of wholeness and focus merely on sensual gratification for gratification sake, you present yourself with essentially "broken" behavior. Random sexual acts do not fulfill the lover; the lack of committment confuses and even degrades the soul because it leaves out the necessary elements of love such as being cherished and being honored.

The more we live "broken" lives, the less we are able to understand our relationship with God. God is the ultimate study of having a relationship with the "other." To get there, we need to practice on each other.

Why, then, should we allow ourselves to not be in a God-oriented relationships with everyone in our lives, including our sexual relationships?

It's like seeking to have a healthy body while eating at McDonald's and Taco Bell every night, and then wondering, um, what's wrong with my body? We bring in disruption and disease to our souls when we disregard our objective of being whole. Just look at AIDS: we know it's out there, yet high-risk behavior continues.

Ultimately, we need to choose between what feels good now and what will sustain and bless our souls so that we feel good for the rest of our lives.

Athena,

"Bill Clinton's indiscretions were years ago. Let it go, already! He's not on the ballot now. His wife is. If you don't agree with her decision to stay with him, don't vote for her. "

That has nothing to do with it. I don't care if it was Clinton, Bush or John Doe. It's the principle involved.

I don't like lying, cheating people. And I especially don't like them when they are in a position of leadership. Whether it's in the White House or elsewhere.

I have the same view as Lepi, once you have made a commitment to someone, you honor that commitment. If you need to sow your wild oats, get out of the commitment, have at it and make it clear to the new partner that it's just sex and nothing else.

By the way, as far as the primary goes, I am on the fence as well. Not a single one of the candidates strikes me as an acceptable otion so far.

Lee, to each his own. If you'd rather your wife have an affair and not tell you, that's certainly your prerogative.
I can't function that way in a relationship.
You remind me of Tomas in Milan Kundera's "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." He loves his wife Teresa, but at the same time, has sex with practically every woman he encounters. To him, "Love is love. Sex is like football." If it works for you that way, groovy. It doens't for me.
My husband and I have a running joke about who our "free passes" are - people who, if they made one of us an offer, the other would have to look the other way. For me, the list includes Eric Clapton, Lyle Lovett, Peter Coyote, Keb Mo, and Harvey Keitel. His includes Renee Zellwegger, Charlize Theron, Judy Carmichael, Diana Krall, and Susan Sarandon. He recently told me that he had added Bonnie Raitt to his list, and I told him that if Bonnie Raitt made him an offer, he had to share. Of course, for us, this is strictly fantasy. First of all, the chances of said offers being made is nil, and second, neither of us really wants a sexual encounter with anyone else.

stupid question, stupid answers

Is it a sin? the question evokes contextual variables; the "adulterer's" personal religious and cultural affiliations, definition of sin itself, etc.
Personally I do not think it should be a public matter regardless of the office held by the "sinner", although a smack on the hand is advisable for the wrong choice of the rendezvous spot. One's own bedroom is frowned upon, and so should be the Oval Office.
Forgivable or not, I believe is the decision of the partner in that relationship. Personally, I think no one can pronounce a genuine viewpoint unless they are in the midst of it. Then and there one has to decide whether to forgive, or jus' forget, and carry on with what's in the larger picture, i.e. family. Or maybe it's jus' not worth it at all and drop the person, who chose perfidy over commitment, like a piece of hot potato

Is it a sin? the question evokes contextual variables; the "adulterer's personal religious and cultural affiliations, definition of sin itself, etc.
Personally I do not think it should be a public matter regardless of the office held by the "sinner", although a smack on the hand is advisable for the wrong choice of the rendezvous spot. One's own bedroom is frowned upon, and so should be the Oval Office.
Forgivable or not, I believe is the decision of the partner in that relationship. Personally, I think no one can pronounce a genuine view point unless they are in the midst of it. Then and there one has to decided whether to forgive, or jus' forget, and carry on with what's in the larger picture, i.e. family. Or maybe it's jus' not worth it at all and drop the person who chose perfidy over commitment like a piece of hot potato

lepidopteryx: "If you promise another person monogamy AS ONE OF THE BASES OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP, you shold honor that promise FOR THE DURATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP."

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I think a promise like that is by its very nature unbinding. A promise that limits basic personal freedoms does not have to be followed.

"If you decide you no longer want to be monogamous, let the other person know your intent so that they can decide whether they wish to continue in the relationship without monogamy."

This often makes no sense in the real world. If I was happily married, I'd much rather my wife have an affair and not tell me than tell me she was going to so I'd have the "option" of leaving. To me, that's a no-brainer.

Someone said that sex outside a "committed relationship" is not an inalienable right like free speech. But what exactly does "commitment" mean? It doesn't make sense to say someone has a right to divorce their spouse anytime they want for any reason, and then say it's wrong to have an affair because of the "commitment" to the spouse. And someone can be sexually unfaithful, but in other ways be more committed that people who are faithful. Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton come to mind. Both had affairs, but (it seems to me) had better marriages than the average person

"Mr. Clinton, as President, was also Commander-in-Chief of the US military forces. As such he should fall under the same restriction as other military personnel for adultery, sexual misconduct and fraternization."

The President is not a member of the Armed Forces in any capacity, so he should not be judged under the UCMJ. And those regs against fraternization and adultery are awfully subjective. I've known many a military person (of either gender) who was cheating on their spouse who wasn't prosecuted. If the Blackwater cowboys, who are contractors to the U.S. military, aren't considered to be under the UCMJ, why should the President be?

Bill Clinton's indiscretions were years ago. Let it go, already! He's not on the ballot now. His wife is. If you don't agree with her decision to stay with him, don't vote for her.

(Just as a caveat - I'm undecided when it comes to the primary...)

Going way back to see some early thinking about adultery:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ham/ham02.htm
The Code of Hammurabi- 1792–1750 BC

"If she had been a bad wife, the Code allowed him to send her away, while he kept the children and her dowry; or he could degrade her to the position of a slave in his own house, where she would have food and clothing. She might bring an action against him for cruelty and neglect and, if she proved her case, obtain a judicial separation, taking with her her dowry.

No other punishment fell on the man. If she did not prove her case, but proved to be a bad wife, she was drowned. If she were left without maintenance during her husband's involuntary absence, she could cohabit with another man, but must return to her husband if he came back, the children of the second union remaining with their own father. If she had maintenance, a breach of the marriage tie was adultery. Wilful desertion by, or exile of, the husband dissolved the marriage, and if he came back he had no claim on her property; possibly not on his own."

Hmmm, there appears to be a lot of Judaism and Islam in this Old Code. Plagiarized? Hmmm, probably!!!

See added comparisons at "Comparing the content of
Hammurabi's Code, Mosaic Law, and Justinian Law"

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw03hammurabijustinlaw.htm

" If a man and woman were caught in adultery, Hammurabi and Moses decreed that both man and woman be put to death. (i.e. "Billy Boys" had short life spans in the good old days!!!!!) Each set of laws also prohibited a man from having more than one wife at a time. In addition, Justinian and Biblical law required parental consent for any marriage. "

Oh come off your high horse about holding men in elected office to a higher standard. You really need to think about the underlying personality structure of the kind of men willing to subject themselves to running for public office. (Not to be sexist, women have their own issues that we can consider another day). I am sure they are all motivated to "do good" when they start out, but what keeps them in politics after they get a taste of the kind of personal attacks they both take and must dish out? They love the power! And what makes a middle aged man feel more powerful than the adoring gaze of a sweet young thing?

Men who crave power rarely have affairs with women of their age and equal intellectual prowess. They have them with adoring sweet young things and bimboes. If you want men in office who are not power seekers, then don't turn away the good ones by buying into the dirty politics dished out by the media. Imagine if we all actually read each candidate's position statements and investigated the veracity of their words instead of allowing the media to define the candidates for us. In the presidential campaign Cheney talked about how choked up he got seeing the rows of crosses when his helicopter flew over Arlington cemetery all the time. They don't have rows of crosses in Arlington. Yet Gore got labelled as the fabricator.

Clinton's mistake was caving in to the Rule of Law and testifying under oath to begin with. George Bush and Dick Cheney refuse to testify uner oath, as in their book executive privilege makes them immune from rule of law.

MARC:

"Had this been the president of a multi-national company, many organizations would have called for his firing. Had this been a professor and a student, the professor would never be allow to hold that position at any college in the land."

I am with you on that one, it is unfortunate that ADG right above your post writes:

"As a professor in a liberal arts school that has gone off the deep end on this issue, it's becoming so very tiresome (and a the laughing stock for most students) Faculty engage in all sorts of "activities" between one another (tenured and untenured which is problematic when tenured faculty determine the tenure of the untenured faculty), same sex relations between faculty and students are not touched or spoken of (God forbid one gets called a homophobe), administrators sleeping with people whose salary they determine...it goes on and on--and most of you can only imagine the hypocrisy involved here."

If these things are truly going on then they are clearly unlawful under sexual harassment and constitute a violation under ethical behavior of most government and private institutions.

I do not view this whole discussion point as sin, but rather as unethical behavior, when a couple has made a commitment to each other to be monogamous. (And no, sex outside a committed realtionship is not an inalienable right such as free speech as an earlier poster suggested.)

I am well aware that many people chose to have one night stands with another consenting adult, and although it is something that I personally find objectionable, I see no ethical quagmire here.

Mr. Clinton, as President, was also Commander-in-Chief of the US military forces. As such he should fall under the same restriction as other military personnel for adultery, sexual misconduct and fraternization.

Here is an excerpt of Army Fraternization policy:

Prohibited Relationships

Relationships between soldiers of different rank are prohibited if they:

(1) Compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command.

(2) Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness.

(3) Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of rank or position for personal gain.

(4) Are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature.

(5) Create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission.

Relationships Between Officers and Enlisted

Certain types of personal relationships between officers and enlisted personnel are prohibited, even if they don't meet the above criteria. Prohibited relationships include:

(2) Dating, shared living accommodations other than those directed by operational requirements, and intimate or sexual relationships between officers and enlisted personnel.

Commanders should seek to prevent inappropriate or unprofessional relationships through proper training and leadership by example. Should inappropriate relationships occur, commanders have available a wide range of responses. These responses may include counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, or adverse action. Potential adverse action may include official reprimand, adverse evaluation report(s), nonjudicial punishment, separation, bar to reenlistment, promotion denial, demotion; and courts martial.

Anonymous wrote:

"Hmmm, "think out of the box", do you now??? It appears you are still trapped in the koranic box of "hallucinogen-derived", "pwtfft" passages or have you read books like Hirsi Ali's Infidel??"

The correct word is "church box" and I invented it (that's because I always think out of the box)! Obviously you follow my writings on this board. Only a muslim would redirects the arguments to its religious roots because there is no fear or conflict in what they write. I always use logic and support it with scripture and scientific evidence. Yet, all I get is a media response, much like what you hear on CNN, FOX, ..etc. As if people can no longer think or come up with their own thoughts. Even worse, your own response, mentioning a book and leaving the meaning of your reference to insinuations. You seem like a lazy person. Even when it comes to choosing an alias, you put down "anonymous"! Too lame to understand a serious subject as religious beliefs.

Somalitrade ,

Hmmm, "think out of the box", do you now??? It appears you are still trapped in the koranic box of "hallucinogen-derived", "pwtfft" passages or have you read books like Hirsi Ali's Infidel??

LEE: **I disagree with lepidopteryx's comment that "if you've promised someone else monogamy, you need to honor that promise." I think the right to have sex with another consenting adult is an inalienable one, like the right to free speech or freedom of religion. A promise, in my opinion, is not binding where this is concerned. What if someone promised their spouse they would never divorce them, and the spouse expected them to keep that promise? Would that mean they could never get divorced? In my opinion, it would not. To be honest, the idea that breaking a promise concerning an issue of fundamental personal freedom is wrong seems rather lame.**

I'll clarify. If you promise another person monogamy AS ONE OF THE BASES OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP, you shold honor that promise FOR THE DURATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP. If you decide you no longer want to be monogamous, let the other person know your intent so that they can decide whether they wish to continue in the relationship without monogamy.
Don't go making promises you don't intend to keep. If you don't wish to be monogamous, don't promise it. Tell the other person from the start that you do not intend to limit your sexual appetite to one dish.
And I'd never promise my husband that I will never divorce him. I can't predict the future. All I can do is hope that nothing happens that would necessitate my divorcing him, and enjoy the relationship we have in the meantime.

Ooops. That last "anonymous" was me.

Canyon Shearer,

This is in reference to the 'Sex, Power and Sin' artcile by Susan Brooks.

I understand where your logic is taking you, just as I undrstand where Thomas is coming from. But there seems to be an imbalance between the both of you, as was hinted (lopsided I might add) by Angela.

Love and Justice. God is both. However, in saying, even hinting as you do so cowardly by using "logic" to support your anger that someone will go to hell is unacceptable. Not because it is unfounded, but because it came from a place of judgement.

If you can honestly tell me that you meant that vile comment as a way of helping Thomas then I sincerely apologize.

I look forward to your response, as do the rest of the people who have probably already stopped reading.

"I used the number of Plan B prescriptions as an indicator of sex/libido addiction and careless, sexual relations. I could have easily used the number of prescriptions for antibiotics given to cure STD's if such data were available."

Umm... nothing says sex/libido addiction like popping a pill to make a guy "stand and deliver." But, for Christians, illicit sex is always the woman's fault. Makes you wonder why Christians don't call for women to be veiled, so that men won't be tempted by their beauty to molest them. You know, like another desert monotheist religion does. :D

Canyon Shearer,

This is in reference to the 'Sex, Power and Sin' artcile by Susan Brooks.

I understand where your logic is taking you, just as I undrstand where Thomas is coming from. But there seems to be an imbalance between the both of you, as was hinted (lopsided I might add) by Angela.

Love and Justice. God is both. However, in saying, even hinting as you do so cowardly by using "logic" to support your anger that someone will go to hell is unacceptable. Not because it is unfounded, but because it came from it came from a place of judgement.

If you can honestly tell me that you meant that vile comment as a way of helping Thomas then I sincerely apologize.

I look forward to your response, as do the rest of the people who have probably already stopped reading.

Concerned wrote:
"Your breeding, birth and brainwashing in Islam continues to exude from your koran thumping neurons. The Five Point Deprogramming of these neurons is available on a 24/7 basis and has been forwarded to you and your fellow Muslims."

I use arguments, scriptures, and my own intution to get around this board. That is completely anti-brainwashing approach. Brainwashing is something that I contineously ask people to avoid and urge them to think out of the box. You, on the other hand, do nothing but shout, halucinate, and attack anyone with any thought.

Let's keep things private. As a professor in a liberal arts school that has gone off the deep end on this issue, it's becoming so very tiresome (and a the laughing stock for most students) Faculty engage in all sorts of "activities" between one another (tenured and untenured which is problematic when tenured faculty determine the tenure of the untenured faculty), same sex relations between faculty and students are not touched or spoken of (God forbid one gets called a homophobe), administrators sleeping with people whose salary they determine...it goes on and on--and most of you can only imagine the hypocrisy involved here. It will be no surprise to the readers that at faculty meetings the most vocal supporters of "sex rules" of all sorts (and the systematic invasion of privacy under the guise of "protecting" students and faculty )are the worst offenders of the very standards they propose. One way out is to keep things private. A caveat: I am not talking about assaults, harrassment etc. Of course at my institution consent is impossible for a woman [not much mention of men] unless there is a relationship between same sex couples: then somehow things are different---it is okay. In the end, on this view, *every thing* other than same sex relationships, become a form of power and assault. This is silly stuff, yet taught on regular basis in my institution and all other institutions for that matter. Cynically, administrators and boards of trustees do this so they can protect themselves from law suits.

In addition, in most of academia there is no due process to protect ones self either: one can be spiked anonymously and then one is left to fend for her/himself as they are subjected to a degradation ceremony in which one is guilty once the rumors begin and you are guilty even if you able (almost impossible) to prove the rumors wrong....you become one of the "Duke players:" forever stigmatized by some no matter what one does. Let's keep our private lives private!

Let's keep things private. As a professor in a liberal arts school that has gone off the deep end on this issue, it's becoming so very tiresome (and a the laughing stock for most students) Faculty engage in all sorts of "activities" between one another (tenured and untenured which is problematic when tenured faculty determine the tenure of the untenured faculty), same sex relations between faculty and students are not touched or spoken of (God forbid one gets called a homophobe), administrators sleeping with people whose salary they determine...it goes on and on--and most of you can only imagine the hypocrisy involved here. It will be no surprise to the readers that at faculty meetings the most vocal supporters of "sex rules" of all sorts (and the systematic invasion of privacy under the guise of "protecting" students and faculty )are the worst offenders of the very standards they propose. One way out is to keep things private. A caveat: I am not talking about assaults, harrassment etc. Of course at my institution consent is impossible for a woman [not much mention of men] unless there is a relationship between same sex couples: then somehow things are different---it is okay. In the end, on this view, *every thing* other than same sex relationships, become a form of power and assault. This is silly stuff, yet taught on regular basis in my institution and all other institutions for that matter. Cynically, administrators and boards of trustees do this so they can protect themselves from law suits.

In addition, in most of academia there is no due process to protect ones self either: one can be spiked anonymously and then one is left to fend for her/himself as they are subjected to a degradation ceremony in which one is guilty once the rumors begin and you are guilty even if you able (almost impossible) to prove the rumors wrong....you become one of the "Duke players:" forever stigmatized by some no matter what one does. Let's keep our private lives private!

Using your position of power to engage in sexual activity is immoral. Regardless of sex, color, religion, creed, or upbringing.

This is not a religious issue, but an ethical one.

Had this been the president of a multi-national company, many organizations would have called for his firing. Had this been a professor and a student, the professor would never be allow to hold that position at any college in the land.

But remember, his crime was not this betrayal of ethical behavior. It was the second, criminal betrayal of ethical behavior: lying under oath. As the leader of this great Nation, Mr Clinton proved only that he had no respect for the laws he swore to uphold and defend with his testimony, and no respect for the people who elected him with his repeated unethical behaviors.

I don't think that just because you are a public figure in any capacity warrants the public knowing your private life. In that case all of us in ordinary life should be placed on display as well. What I feel we fail to recofnize it that these people hold a job and what goes on in their private lives is none of our business as long as it does not affect the performance of the job. To impeach a President on his private life is riddiclous, if so I beleive a coke snorting President should have never been a elected, or a President who lures our nation in to a war on false hoods, instills fear in our nation and continuing to ruin our economy should be impeached. Ah but what does it matter since he will be leaving his poop for someone to clean up.

I would imangine these concerns are not of any importance.

Boy,are the hypocrites and Repukes out on this.

I have yet to see any comments on Jesus' passage about divorce and adultery. So what do we find??

Mark 10:1-12,
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

However with respect to Mark 10: 1-12, it appears to be unique to Jesus. Whether John the Baptizer influenced Jesus' thinking on this matter, we will never know although The Baptizer did lose his head criticizing the adultery of Herod. (see Wikipedia for a JB bio).

See also http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/015_Against_Divorce

An excerpt:

"Luedemann [Jesus, 67] notes that the form of the tradition in Mark 10 reflects Roman divorce law, not local Jewish practice. He also observes that "the radical repudiation of divroce by Jesus is attested in both the Q tradition (Matt. 5.32/Luke 16.18) and by Paul in 1 Cor. 7.10-11. It follows that according to all the earliest material Jesus emphasizes the indissolubility of marriage." On Matt 19:12, Luedemann [Jesus, 209] suggests that the saying about eunuchs is probably an authentic Jesus tradition growing out of his own practice as a single male."

Fundamentalist Christian theology says that the sin is in the thought also, not just the act that follows. We've only scratched the surface of the witch hunts that could be unleashed if the GOP/Christian right had the power to know the private thoughts of their ideological opponents. Since there's no reason to believe that is possible, the status-quo post-scandal trading of accusations of "you're not worthy of the office becuase you're a sinner" vs "you're not worthy of the office becuase you're a hypocrite" will go on indefinitely.

To your Vitter, I raise the stakes by trowing in a Hypocrite Giuliani with three wives and 10 mistresses.
By the by, is he cheating on his current wife (with future wife #4, and #5 waiting in line), or is he waiting until after the election?
P.S. I don't see the Nazi Republicans shooting their nasty mouths with "familiy values".
I wonder why.

Is it a sin? I suppose in the religous context it is. But it's possible in some relationships where one partner has lost interest in sex, that there might be an understanding about it. I don't know if Bill and Hilary had such an understanding, if they didn't then it was certainly dishonest.

Is it a public matter? Probably. Not the details certainly, but that he did it. Put the same situation in a different context: you're about to enter in a business partnership with someone. Do you want to know that there are circumstances where your new partner considers the agreements that he's made to be optional? Or are you happily going to assume that even though he's dishonest in his personal life that he's honest in business dealings with you.

Is it forgivable? That's up to his/her spouse. It's probably not my place to forgive, but I'm certainly not likely to forget.

What is a greater problem than the sex issue is the one of lying under oath. Yes, peccadillos aside, Clinton misled people with a strange interpretation of 'what is sex' and secondly he lied under oath.
I gasped at the enormity of the fact that the President of the U.S. stated under oath something that was plain untrue.
On a parallel with Nixon, Clinton's statements were congruent with Nixon's and had the same value, then again the acts being lied about were totally different and there lies the rub.
Frankly, if he had straight up from the beginning the enormous schism that reflected from the scandal has led to a divided nation you have today. Hence Hillary's chances of election are affected by the scandal.

Athena,

I used the number of Plan B prescriptions as an indicator of sex/libido addiction and careless, sexual relations. I could have easily used the number of prescriptions for antibiotics given to cure STD's if such data were available.

Richard Dawkins is a little off base. Normally, I would agree that private is private, but Bill Clinton was under a legal obligation in the Paula Jones case to tell the truth. Clinton was not disbarred in Arkansas for having an affair; he was disbarred for perjury. If one is accused of sexual misconduct, even under politically motivated circumstances, one should not continue to have affairs. Clinton knew what he was doing and did it anyway.

Richard Dawkins is a little off base. Normally, I would agree that private is private, but Bill Clinton was under a legal obligation in the Paula Jones case to tell the truth. Clinton was not disbarred in Arkansas for having an affair; he was disbarred for perjury.

Clinton lying about sex is fine. Lying about his wanting to fix health care back in 1992-1993 is not fine.

The assumption everyone is making here is that Bill actually committed adultery. How do we know that Hillary and Bill don't have some sort of "arrangement" or understanding where each is permitted to have sex outside the relationship? Farfetched? Maybe. Implausible? Absolutely not. What a married couple agree to is between themselves. Bill's only "crime" is embarassing Hillary. And don't tell me about lying under oath. Most people in Bill's position would have lied under the circumstances. It was sex, people. Between two consenting adults. None of my business, regardless of who those two adults are.

We invaded a sovreign nation under false pretenses in which just the initial invasion killed twice as many innocent civilians as died on 9-11 (yet act puzzled when they call us terrorists). We stained the name and reputation of our nation with torture and extraordinary rendition. We are losing our prominence in science, enmeshing ourselves in a midieval triumph of religious fundamentalism over scientific principle (how dare you say the earth revolves around the sun).

So let's talk about Bill Clinton's organ. Do we have our priorities straight or what!

Hey, CCNL... why are you worried about Plan B, when three of the most prescribed medications out there are Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis? Why do insurance companies pay for ED medications and not for contraceptives? Plan B isn't marketed ad nauseam during sports events, including a NASCAR sponsorship - one would assume the car has a stick shift!

How soon we all forget the actual issue. The problem is not about sex, marriage, or public places...WHO CARES...the problem is lying under oath, I repeat under oath by the person who swore to uphold the law...that is the problem and that will never go away.

three questions:
No, No, Who cares?
I guess #3 might need some explanation. The person who had the extra-marital? extra-relationship? sex didn't care enough to avoid it. The person who was cheated on only poisons themselves by not letting it go. I don't know if letting it go is forgiveness. Seems like it. (Letting it go doesn't mean staying with them. That's a second decision.)
Holding on to the thought of the offense is a decision you can make. If the offender chose want they did, and the offended chose to cling to their anger, then why should anyone else care?
Having said all that, it's fascinating how much time we spend fretting over who played with whose genitals.

Bill Clinton had sex in a most public place.
Had he played with Monica in a motel or his bedroom,
there might be a privacy argument.

But, Bill Clinton had Monica on the job as all
of us paid his salary, as major world issues
that affect all of us swirled everywhere. The Now
organization and the left said nothing of sex
with an employee - actually an intern in the work
place - as it pretended to defend their hero.

Sex on the job gets people fired every day. Why
should privacy be involved in Clinton behavior.
It should and didn't. The Oval Office is America's
office.

No sin is greater or less than another sin. Why do the evangelicals tolerate the viciousness and lies of people like Karl Rove? His is certainly not Christian behavior, although he professes to be devout, and for some reason he's still a hero to the right. Sadly, ethics seem to fall along party lines- if somebody on our side did it, it's okay, we won't criticize it. If somebody in the other party did it, let's blast them.

At least Clinton didn't bill the taxpayers for his rendezvous, a la Rudy. (Or take the U.S. into a war we neither needed nor can afford, but that's another story.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/nyregion/29campaign.html?ref=nyregion

I disagree with lepidopteryx's comment that "if you've promised someone else monogamy, you need to honor that promise." I think the right to have sex with another consenting adult is an inalienable one, like the right to free speech or freedom of religion. A promise, in my opinion, is not binding where this is concerned. What if someone promised their spouse they would never divorce them, and the spouse expected them to keep that promise? Would that mean they could never get divorced? In my opinion, it would not. To be honest, the idea that breaking a promise concerning an issue of fundamental personal freedom is wrong seems rather lame.

Raised Catholic and born gay, I still believe sex outside of marriage is a sin. Marriage is a sacrament and fidelity is a promise you make to the other person and God. Is it challenging to keep? Yes. Do people fail to keep it? Yes. Should they be forgiven? Yes, though both parties need to recognize if this is a pattern and if the relationship can move beyond the violation of the trust. Is it a public matter? Yes, in that our private lives do affect others publicly - our children, our families, etc. It's a reflection on who we are, yet I don't believe this sin should mar a person forever. We are all human, we make mistakes, we need to be accountable, we need to be forgiven, then everyone needs to move on either together or separately.

Is sex outside of marriage a sin?
According to many religions definition it is. Unless you are male and then it is a minor sin. And then it is not a sin, unless you are a female and then they can stone you to death, but that is wrong unless you are muslim, but in some conservative cristian societies a male can kill his woman and they will think the wife deserved it, and, confusing. Another reason I think religion rot your brain.

Is it a public matter? No, but you can't avoid it to become a public matter. It says a lot of the public the way they react.

Is it forgivable? That is a matter of your partner. That is a decisition of your wife, husband, girlfriend/ boyfriend. I can't accept Biblical, koranic or whatever supossed divine tribunal deciding about it, among other reasons, because I don't believe their self appointed representatives on Earth have any business with it.

Sex outside of marriage is a sin.
And yes it should be made public when a public official is involved. This is a character issue. If they can't be trusted in the bedroom how can they be trusted in the boardroom. This is integrity. If I lie once I am a liar regardless of the measure of the lie. God doesn't say oh, you just slept with her once it's ok. Sin is sin is sin is sin.

If a public official lies to his wife about a matter of adultery, then what can he be lying to the public about. It's just nasty and it needs to stop. You little freaky people what is wrong with you. Control yourselves. Stop looking at the naked people on tv and in magazines. Stop being aroused by these floozies. If you married a woman then you need to stick with her. She's a product of your intelligent choice. No one forced you into marriage so deal with it.

Let's get one thing straight, sex outside of marriage is sin. And there's no question about it. The next point is that EVERY LAST HUMAN BEING on earth has SINNED and come short of God's glory. The only human to have never sinned was Jesus, who died for our sins.

Next we need to examine the BIBLE and see who God felt was a man after His own heart. And who was that? DAVID. And guess what his SIN was, ADULTERY (SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE). I truly believe God would say that Bill Clinton is a man after His own heart. Why? Because when God comes back, the statement He makes to those so called CHRISTIANS, was that they did not show LOVE to their fellow neighbor (and this is not sexual love I'm speaking of). God asks them did they feed the HUNGRY, give clothe to the homeless, help the widow. And when we look at the track record, the CLINTON Administration did more in terms of God's priorities, than this so called CHRISTIAN BUSH Administration. Each time Bush and the so called Christians had a chance to help out those in need they purposefully let them suffer. DARFUR and Hurricane Katrina are a few examples for those needing proof.

A TRUE CHRISTIAN has LOVE for their Neighbor. I am a Christian and I believe God forgives sins. And when we look at all mankind we all are sinners. However, in the grand scheme of things, those sinners who have LOVE for their neighbors, are the ones who will see heaven. While those sinners who cry out Christ's name everywhere proclaiming to be CHRISTIANS but show no love will be the ones cast into the fire when Christ returns.

Matthew 7:21-23 "21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"

No CCNL

JazzyLady will bust a gut when the current scandal involving a presidential candidate hits the public.

I honestly wonder if this question wasn't asked to test the waters of public temperament.

Public life is just that, public.
There is no private anything for elected officials.
In Green Bay, the GOP county party chairman, was arrested in DEc 2006 for felony sex crimes against boys, including providing pot and beer.
He lives across the street from a runaway facility for troubled kids. Talk about a pedophiles dream location.
He was finally arraigned in early Sept., yet remained the party chair, speaking to the press as the party chair until this was discovered and brought out, by bloggers.

Why did he stay in office? Was wasn't his arrest reported?
The local media is pro-GOP, so they prefer to avoid embarrasment for their 'sponsors'.

It's events like this, people like this, who should be exposed.
The sex lives of public officials are not 'indiscretions', or something to be restricted to the religious to fix.
Rather, many sex acts are dangerous, criminal and result in violent and destructive actions by the deviants.
It must be kept public..regardless.

As far as a religious aspect of any public official, I must disagree entirely. There is one thing about Americans' that still rings true.
Keep Your God out of My God's Face and we'll get along just fine.

Jazzylady,

I am assuming that you continue the rolling on the floor when the perverted Kennedy family history is reviewed. Hmmm, murder, womanslaugther, adultery, and more adultery!!! Then there is their favorite "Reverend" Jesse J.

What does sin have to do with it? Isn't that putting religion back into the equation? I do believe the Ten Commandments are worth respect and an important set of rules to live by, if you can. What people do behind closed doors is their own business, but if they make it public, by whatever means, then it is their own lookout. Bottom line is that you take an oath when you become married, just like you take an oath for public office. If an individual cheats or lies in a marriage, what do you think they'll do in public office?

I'm not so sure that America is obsessed with sex scandals but I am sure that American media is obsessed with sex scandals.

Why might that be so?

As for consensual sex being a 'sin', that's absurd.

Yonkers, New York
29 November 2007

I stand squarely on the propostion that what a public official does in the privacy of his bedroom, or his home, whether it be the erotic business of a husband doing it with his wife or a paramour, is not, if not never, the business of government.

Do we need to be reminded that we Americans live in a democracy governed by a Constitution, a Bill of Rights and laws which respect human rights, which include the privacy and the right of citizens to be secure in their papers and effects?

A public official, whether he be the President or a clerk in a government office, is still a citizen entitled to this inalienable right to privacy.

Even authoritarian and despotic governments are not that cavalier with intrusion into the privacy of their citizens or "subjects." They have rules governing when it is legal to do so.

MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Muslim "love" as noted by The Jihadist:

"And, as you stated, the sex act must be witnessed by four people. By some jurisprudence school, only when a thread can't go between their bodies will it be regarded as adultery. "

What thickness might be needed for said thread? And who "strings" it? Must be a real hoot in the group love thing!!! Cameras, recorders, strings and wow we have Islamic Porno 101 produced and directed by the head Islamic pwtfft, Gabriel himself!!!!

Sally Quinn, didn't you screw everything not nailed down at one point? Isn't that how you got where you are today? Didn't you screw Ben Bradley on a desk in his office? Was that public or private sex? Oh, and didn't you once tell folks about penis sizes of the Washington establishment at a cock-tail party? Gives a new meaning to cock-tails don't it? Lol. Basically, the point is this; you're all mad because what once appeared to be mud splashed on the dems is now outhouse crap spilled onto the repugs; 99.9% of the sex roil coming out is not only repug, but homosexual in nature! LMFBAO! Oh, and you're pissed that Bill and Hill are still together and don't look half as ugly as say, Wendy/Wendy Vitter! Whooooo lawd, ain't that a damned hoot? Two Wendy's and they look like each other. And now the much vaunted and ballyhooed Trent Lott may be Sir Rent's a Lot! Ya'll too funny! If you are a public person and want your sex life to be kept private, then don't do any sex you know you have no right to do because it damned sure will become public and you know it. But please, don't jump up in my face and expect me not to laugh, which is what the unwashedrag wants me to do. When you were busy stomping Bill Clinton into the ground you had it good. Now, with each and every piece of dirt that comes out about the repugs you can bet you need a crane to haul my butt up cause I am down in the floor laughing and thinking about how God don't like ugly and he's making you pay now. Keep the laughs coming.

Hate to tell ya' but the cows are not only out of the barn, they're nowhere to be found, meaning to say, I hope ya'll enjoyed the circus when Mr. Bill got nailed for his little picadillo. Just think, it made packing the supreme court to make abortion illegal plausibly attainable and the selection of beaurocrats, who otherwise would be responsible for some order and assistance to the daily lives of thousands of Iraqis, based on their position regarding "Roe vs. Wade." Anyway, you show me a man or woman of whatever moral or religious inclination who does not consider it their inviolable right to have the last word regarding sex, inside or outside of marriage, and I would submit that you are dealing with an idiot or a liar. It's kinda' like those most rabid republican anti-abortionists I know who have all had abortions as a matter of their own free choice. Now no one else is supposed to have that right. Wrong. Wrong approach. Where the heck are all those cows?

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

You are preaching the code of the Borg collective!!!

And we counter with "Resistance is not Futile"!!!

Dear Libidopteryx,

Yes,you are right.

Dear Mischka,

Einmal keinemal(german).

If they're proposing legislation involving people's private lives, we should follow them 24/7 with videocams.

I used to be a republican, and left the party when i saw the radical religious right impeach a president over lying about a purely private matter - consensual sex with another adult. In 2000 and 2004, we elected a "virtuous" president who has been a disaster. I will take private vice (assuming consensual sex can be deemed as such in our victorian society) over public incompetence any day of the week.

.Hey, you know what? There is so much heat generated in this thread and similar ones because of the commentators adding in to the subject matter under discussion.

Take this item we are now dealing with. Read the comments submitted and you will find out that the more furious, hair-tearing, and spit-firing words come from those who appended something else on the issue and then bayed and howled about it!

They attrached such provisos as: no state secret revealed, assigned work does not suffer, what's wrong with marrying more than two, monogamy is due to performing the taks of raising children properly, etc., etc. And then they "justify" their anwer to the questions by their take or interpretation of what they have added to the subject!

(But, I guess, I should not be even surprised at all. After all, Quinn and Meacham started it all: Their intro: --that is valid and raises a critical point-- American seems obssessed with sex scandals and instead of asking, Is this so? Why? What are the consequences? Readers would then give their observations and opinions as to how this obssession, assuming it exists (and exists sufficiently intense/wide-spread enough to affect aspects of American life, but, instead, they went on a different tack taking along their readers! Is it a sin? Is it forgiveable? Blah-blah.

(Are those who have sex outside marriage the reason America is obsessed with sex scandals? Or, in reverse Psychology, is Amerfica's obssession with sex scandal instigatory of (more) sex outside marriage? Or--now hear this!-- is it America or the mass media that is obssessed with sex scandals?

(There are so many issues or problems for which faith and religion can shine a light on so they could be given attention and resolved. Instead the talk is about sex scandals/sex outside marriage and this, apropos what? Why, dear, apropos different interpretations of sin! which is like tossing a bloody piece of meat on a river teeming with piranhas! Watch the water "boil"! For what end? Well, some of the fishes "scored" against others and we can take a breather until the question-posters pitch in another morsel.)
.

Those who do not worship a prudish god need not worry too much about "sin" in the abstract.

As for the human aspects of sexual conduct, I'd like to suggest that the emotional side of what is going on is more important than exactly what you are doing physically. This is where my European friends find us Americans very unsophisticated. What was wrong of Bill Clinton was to play with the affections of that naive young lady, not the sex as such. But many men do not always behave well around women. By the standards of rich and powerful men, Clinton was no worse than average. The late King Hussein of Jordon liked to boast that he averaged 10 different women a day. I read that one of his courtiers said, "His Majesty exaggerates. But not by that much."

I strongly agree with Jacoby that the attention attached to this kind of stuff is really harmful. There are a lot more important things for us to be concerned with in the administration of public affairs than the administrators' private affairs.

Those who do not worship a prudish god need not worry too much about "sin" in the abstract.

As for the human aspects of sexual conduct, I'd like to suggest that the emotional side of what is going on is more important than exactly what you are doing physically. This is where my European friends find us Americans very unsophisticated. What was wrong of Bill Clinton was to play with the affections of that naive young lady, not the sex as such. But many men do not always behave well around women. By the standards of rich and powerful men, Clinton was no worse than average. The late King Hussein of Jordon liked to boast that he averaged 10 different women a day. I read that one of his courtiers said, "His Majesty exaggerates. But not by that much."

I strongly agree with Jacoby that the attention attached to this kind of stuff is really harmful. There are a lot more important things for us to be concerned with in the administration of public affairs than the administrators' private affairs.

Somali:

I think you're confusing "lepido" with "libido". Lepidopteryx refers to my totemic relationship with the butterfly (scientific order Lepidoptera). Libido refers to sex drive.

As for the Qu'ran being written by God and all other scriptures being written by man, the Christians say the same thing about the Bible. I say ALL scriptures are written by man. And I'm sorry, but even back in the day when I used to be Christian, I could never accept "Because God said so" as an answer to my question of "Why?" regarding ideas or rules that made no sense to me.
If it's really from God, and he has a good reason for everything, then he can jolly well explain it so that it makes sense to me if he expects me to follow it.

.
Is sex outside marriage a sin? I'll leave the answer to God--betwween God and each of us. In other words, unless done by coercion and the like, it's none of the public's business. Let's stop using "concern" for "sin" as an excuse for prurient vice (Now, that is a sin).

Is sex outside of marriage forgivable? By whom? By priests, preachers, etc.? Why ? What has the priest, preacher, etc., got to do with it so long as it is done voluntarily, without creating public scandal? The sex is between consenting partners (no coercion, that also assumes each is in a position and of age to consent or not). The forgiving is from God to his creation. (For example: How can a neighbor say to another neighbor: You are forgiven for having sex with the wife or husband of our neighbor, without sounding like an a__h____?)

Is it a public matter?

Oh, yes--for all sex, whether in or outside marriage, that is done in public areas such as parks, stadiums, malls, cross-roads, in temples or churches while a religious rite is being observed, etc.

IN private? Come on! John Q Public gets het up when anybody takes a peek at his letters (even if these letters are not between spouses--perhaps, even more so then) and screams "Respect my privacy! Human Rights! Constitutional Provisions!" Sex a public matter? You gotta be kidding, even sex outside marriage is a matter private to the involved, bearing in mind what has been written above.

(What is this proclivity towards meddling with the lives of others? This should be your blog question and the public will benefit more.)
.

For the most part, I don't want to know about the personal follies of public figures as long as it doesn't affect their work. People are fallible. I would rather deal with people who have high standards that they sometimes fail to live up to, than with people with no standards at all. This is a good place for a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Sexual harassment, however, is public business. While sexual harassment lawsuits can be a real distraction from governance, banning such lawsuits against government officials would be even worse as people with power would be free to harass with impunity. Perhaps potentially relevant testimony about sexual behavior (like the Monica Lewinsky testimony) could first be reviewed privately by the judge and the records sealed unless that conduct is found to be so compelling that it must come before the jury. Something like that might have kept the Monica Lewinsky affair from blowing up the way it did. Also, Clinton could have saved everyone a lot of trouble by settling with Paula Jones early. He eventually settled with her later anyway.

There is a clear distinction between what President Clinton did and most other affairs commonly analogized with it. Clinton's actions were directed towards a young subordinate in the oval office of the White House (considered practically sacred ground by some).

The is analogous to common sexual harassment in the workplace, in which people of power take advantage of their positions. Most people caught doing this would be, and should be, fired, whether in a public or private posiition.

This is not analogous to a typical marital affair, which I think probably should remain private, although it is immoral.

Now that the 'holier than thou', 'cast heavy boulders' christian Right have beat Clintons' personal life to hell and back, then to hell again, are faced with the prospect of the unfaithful, womanizing gulliani as a presidential hopeful, it's time to 'look beyond the personal life of the candidate'.

The christian right are neither christian, nor right. What a bunch of duplicitous hypocrites!

S

Now that the 'holier than thou', 'cast heavy boulders' christian Right have beat Clintons' personal life to hell and back, then to hell again, are faced with the prospect of the unfaithful, womanizing gulliani as a presidential hopeful, it's time to 'look beyond the personal life of the candidate'.

The christian right are neither christian, nor right. What a bunch of duplicitous hypocrites!

S

Is sex outside of marriage a sin?

Roughly speaking we can say that sex outside of marriage has been considered a sin because we have been unable to think of any other way of raising children than the nuclear family and it is in the interest of this structure that sex be confined to the structure (to promote harmony).

But as the nuclear family has had more and more taken away from it in the way of responsibilities (children taught in public schools, adults much more mobile as to workplace than in the past), the nuclear family has loosened, and not only has sex wandered away from being confined to the family, we begin to suspect that there might be superior methods of raising children.

My personal belief is that it is something of a myth that the nuclear family is the best way of raising children. A superior method would be to divine each child's gifts and then move that child to the environment which best realizes these gifts. In the future this will in fact occur. Furthermore as children get rapidly placed where they are best realized sex will become completely untethered from family and there will be no stigma against extramarital sex because there will in fact be no family in the traditional sense but rather a collective process of raising children.

And in fact this collective process of raising children will be much more different than traditional child raising because as the biological sciences kick into high gear we will be creating children which are more and more intelligent and capable more and more of teaching and even raising themselves...And in fact our workplace today demands such children as any woman can tell you--unless of course women want to continue being caught in the contradiction of needing to raise children while pursuing a career...

The future will see the birth of very intelligent children capable of teaching themselves and rapidly moving into the workplace, and sex whether homo or hetero or whatever will not be stigmatized. And there will be no real reason to claim sex means loose morals or lack of discipline because people will in fact have the brains to be interested in much else besides sex.

And if anyone thinks this is just science fiction then go ahead and be traditional--and let the next economic powerhouse decide upon a new destiny.

Somalitrade,

Your breeding, birth and brainwashing in Islam continues to exude from your koran thumping neurons. The Five Point Deprogramming of these neurons is available on a 24/7 basis and has been forwarded to you and your fellow Muslims.

lepido (right name for the subject at hand!):

Read my response to Gaby in the post preceding yours. Marriage rules in Islam are put forward by God the almighty, not people as in other religions. It is all in the holy Quran.

Now, having the ability to marry more than one wife is one thing but applying it is another. The vast majority of muslim men have one wife each. MOST of the extra marriages are initiated when a woman is widowed or divorced and is left behind either alone or with orphaned kids. Actually, the verse that allowed marrying more than one wife put forward that situation as one of the most desirable occasion where a man can marry another woman. Then it put forward that the man must treat his wives equally financially and emotionally. A man who cannot do it justly is prohibited of marrying more than one wife. To make the situation harder on men, a man must get an approval of his current wife before he marries another. If the man insists on marrying a second time, his wife has the right to stay in marriage or get divorced.

MYOB is an alien concept in the USA.

It ain't the HEAT, it's the HYPOCRISY.

Somalitrade:

So waht you're saying is that men can have multiple wives as a respectable alternative to having mistresses, since they're going to want to play the field anyway. and this simply makes the home field bigger?

No good. And don't blameit on God - marriage rules are made by people.

If it's acceptable for men to have multiple wives, then it must be equally acceptable for women to have multiple husbands.

Gaby:

I can tell you only God knows why men can marry more than one and not the other way around; and I will be right. But in fact, we do know a partial answer to the question. A woman is much more dedictaed emtionally to a relationship than a man. Statistically, men are 95% more likely to engage into extra marital affairs than women. That is how we are created. The reasons for extra marital affairs are completely different from men and women. A man's problems with his wife always push him away (outside), while a woman's issues mostly within, as in the common phrase "you never spend enough time with me"! Come on Gaby, don't act like you don't know!

I wonder with 2 million more women than men in US and the exploding population of gay men, what chances these 2 million women have in getting married? Will they go for secret affairs with a wondering husbands or will they be willing to share in marriage?

CCNL:

It's time to go to the Susan Jacoby site and apologize to Jihadist.

SOMALITRADE:

"Islam, on the other hand, dealt with this issue head on. You can marry more than one wife if you are able and need to."

So does that apply to women too??? Can they marry more than one husband??? If not, why not??? What good for the goose, is good for the gander!!! (In this case vice versa.)

Gaby:

Polyamory doesn't work for ME, either. I like being committed to one person, and I happen to be attracted to people of the male variety. My husband and I made a promise of monogamy to each other because neither of us wants to be with anyine else.
And like you, if I found out that my husband was involved with other women, I wouldn't just show him the door, he'd be wearing part of it when he left.

But I know people who have open relationships and even plural marriages (not legal, of course), and it works for them. It wouldn't for me, but they haven't asked me to join them, so it's all good.

And in an open relationship, I would think that condoms and testing would be a must.

According to the general christian public and most evanglists who practice sex outside marriage (being with opposite sex, same sex, or church kids), yes it is ok! That's regardless of what Jesus or any other prophet said, let alone ignoring God's orders. Islam, on the other hand, dealt with this issue head on. You can marry more than one wife if you are able and need to. A woman who is not happy with her current husband can request separation and a court will make it happen. Over 90% of the converts from the coptic church (which applies the bible "literally") to Islam have social and marital issues that they decide to switch religions for a piece of mind.

Divorce is prohibited in christianity, according to Jesus words. Yet, no one cares about applying that one either. Why should they if they have a backdoor abundance of entertainment outside marriage. Women in the west are completely blindsided and they do live in darkeness regarding their husband's affairs. Yet they call them "free women"! How so?

I think it is embarassing to ask these questions in a forum driven mostly by evanglists. What is left of christianity if everything Jesus said is completely ignored? But then again, there was no chirsitianity in the first place and Jesus came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Perhaps that fact explains why his words only applies to his time and not to these times. Another proof, yet again, that Jesus is neither divine nor asking you to follow him. Afterall, he was a devout jew who worshipped the almighty God in heaven like anyone else. Why embarass yourself again putting forward a question whose answer can only makes a muslim feels more proud of his beliefs than ever before. Peace!

Hey, Lepi, this time I have to disagree with you.

Considering the STD's out there I find plenty wrong with polyamorous. In addition, where does love come in? I could not imagine being intimate with anyone other than my husband, and I would show him the door if I ever found out that he is.

HUSBAND: 'Why do you never scream my name when you have an orgasm ?' WIFE: 'Because you are never there.'

Mikhail:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with polyamory as long as it's mutually agreed on.
One of problems with my first marriage was that my ex made an executive decision that HE would be polyamorous.

Hmmm, as noted above, it is all about the sex drive aka libido.

I believe 1.6 million Plan B prescriptions were given last year in the USA alone. To say the least, sexual drive/activity/libido is out of control.

There are pills to increase libido, prevent
pregancies and to kill babies. Since this is all about biology, there should be no reason that an anti-libido pill could not be developed. What should the pill be called: "Save Us from Bill "Out of Control" Clintons" ????

And "Save Us from Bill Clinton" pills should be quite useful for Muslim women/men in eliminating the need for those other three wives.

Since the pharmaceutical companies are not about to do this, the major religions should join forces and do it. I apologize for being blunt, but considering the number of over-sexed, "celibate" clergy we have, these pills would also solve another problem.

Not interested in taking a pill? Then follow the many masterbation techniques readily available via Google- Safe, inexpensive and definitely efficient in eliminating "partner required" libido- Published statistics show "55 vs 38 percent of men vs women (aged 18-59) masturbated on a regular basis" , http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=26798.

The Catholic/Christian churches simply need to upgrade wet dreams to approved sexual drive control. And again another method to assist hard to control "celibate" clergy.

Bottom line: Eliminate the desire and drive, Eliminate the problems!!!

In my film A Book Of Truth, A Book Of Lies an atheist polyamorous couple among other things tries to bring their lovers to embrace their open family relationships - in vain.

Moreover, there is a scene where a male character openly browses through "companionship" ads on the computer in search for a girl that he wants to find "for tonight" - in front of his wife, daughter and his sister-in-law.
A religious and shocked wife's sister who just learned about their lifestyle asks at some point: "Wait a second. What about sanctity of marriage?!"
"Sanctity?" - replies her atheist sister ironically - "You mean it's divine origin?"

So there you have it. My protagonists would be astonished if somebody called their behavior adulterous. The word is simply nonsensical to them.
Furthermore they consider their sex attitudes normal and healthy while definition of marriage as heterosexual monogamy false and morally wrong.

We all know what this nation's habitual moral identity boils down to, don't we? Religion. The question in front of all of us is: Is it true? The heroes of my film have long made up their minds. In one of the scenes my heroine demands her lover to throw the Bible out of the window...

I'll see your Clinton and raise you a Vitter, Craig, and Gingrich. Bill Clinton may have "disrespected" his wife, but he never publicly called for the impeachment or resignation of someone because of their indiscretions while doing the same thing. It's not the marital infidelity that's the problem, it's the hypocrisy. Glass house. Stone. Toss.

If you are a Muslim - sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Adultery is a sin as well...what Clinton did was wrong because not only was he supposed to be the nation's leader (his job is not have as much fun as he can in office) but he also disrespected the institution of marriage and his wife and child.

Is it a public matter? I think if you choose to be a public figure...you risk that. You know that your entire life is supposed to be on display and the people have a right to know everything about this person representing them and their views. A cheating husband/wife would not sit too well with many of us.

As for forgiveness...if you are a religious person...I suppose you would ask for forgiveness from whoever you worship and the people you hurt. If you are an atheist...then only the people you hurt.

Plain and simple.

If you abuse your sexuallity you will become tainted and not enjoy it. You should save it for someone you love.

As far as I'm concerned, the only time sex is wrong is if is not among consenting adults and/or betrays a trust.
That means rape is wrong - no consent. Statutory rape/child molestation is wrong - children cannot consent. Sexual activity with animals is wrong - the animal cannot consent. Adultery is wrong - whether you have a marriage license or not, if you've promised someone else monogamy, you need to honor that promise. Even if Bill Clinton hadn't been married, his behavior with an intern would have still been wring, because sexual activity with a subordinate is an abuse of power even if the subordinate consents.

My issues with Swaggart, Haggard, Craig, Clinton, etc. are not that they had sex that was not intended for procreation, or that they had homosexual sex, or that they paid someone for sex, or that they had sex with people they weren't married to. It's that they lied and abused their power/authority. Their dishonesty and hypocrisy is the issue, not their sex lives.

Is sex outside of marriage a sin? If you believe it is a sin and you engage in it, then I suppose it is (for you). If your religion defines it as such, then it is (in the eyes of your church). But there is no over-arching rule that says it is a sin.

Is it a public matter? If you are a public person, especially an elected politician, then it might be since it reflects on your trustworthiness. For most people, it is a private matter.

Is it forgivable? Depends on who is doing (or expected to do) the forgiving. If you don't belong to a church and don't view it as sinful to start with, whose forgiveness are you soliciting? If it involves betrayal of a spouse, then you know who needs to be asked for forgiveness, and it's up to that person.

These questions are getting rather lame.