go nana go said:
Therumancer said:
My thought is that there is no real problem with having sex simply for fun, as long as you practice it safely.
I believe it's okay for teens to have sex with other teens, but not adults, and of course again the practice of, and education in, safe sex. I am one of those who figures we won't stop teens from having sex, and it's part of growing up, and learning about life. We aren't going to stop it, so I am one of those who encourages mandatory education (ie can't be opted out of by parents), and the distribution of free condoms and birth control in high schools.
I think people take the subject way too seriously at times.
On a metaphysical level, I am a Christian, but not a deeply spiritual one. I neither believe the Pope is Infallible, nor that the bible is 100% accurate, mystically preserved record of god's will. Maybe I'll suffer for this, but I desperatly want to believe god is a benevolent being overall. I do not think god punishes people for sex outside of marriage or whatever, but I do believe that people probably changed the bible to say so, and that it was a good idea at the time in days when reliable birth control was uncommon to say the least, childbirth was risky, and fighting over women in a very lethal sense was not uncommon. A fear of god doubtlessly helped hold societies together, and keep things fairly orderly.
They changed the bible?
what are you basing this on?
what is this I don't-
I find it very likely, yes, but nobody knows for sure hence the word "probably".
As for what I base it on, it largely comes down to massive contridictions within the bible itself, leading me to believe that before any attempts at standardization people were changing, and adding to, the bible for whatever purpose they wanted to see served at the time.
I understand there are bible scholors who can "explain" things, or have theories about how things are intended to be interpeted, but at the same time I would expect the word of god to be clear, especially if it was mystically preserved, and not rely on what are some pretty involuted explanations.
For example in The Bible, there is plenty of stuff about how anyone can be saved. But at the same time in Exodus (which stuck in my mind for some reason) it's said that god will punish people's descendants for their transgressions to the third or fourth generation. Meaning that if your grandfather sins, you could be lobbed into the pits of hell even if somehow you did everything perfectly.
Then you've got stuff about "turning the other cheek" and how vengerance will be God's in the after life, but then we've also got "Suffer Not A Witch To Live" and other statements that have been the justification for numerous holy wars where the bible clearly spells out followers being expected to kill people. Forcible conversions, religious genocide, torture, witch hunts, etc... can all be justified by the The Bible, which at the same time can also be seen to spell out this being wrong.
So of course this leads me to believe that parts of it were edited, changed, or added in over a period of time to serve the desires of the church, and various religious leaders, and what they wanted at any given time.
The Bible being literal (which to my way of thinking is impossible given the contridictions inherant in a lot of it... I'm not a fair person to ask because I admit I'm not a massive expert and don't have the greatest memory) to me is sort of like the Pope being infallible and pretty much the right hand/mouthpiece of god in a literal sense. Yet when you look at some of the excesses of the office, as well as the existance of "Anti-Popes" it raises a lot of questions well beyond what caused Protestants to break off. I mean how could one have an Anti-Pope like Bonafice if there is supposed to be a literal, divine aspect to the role? What's more how could some of the things guys like the Borgias (I think I have it right) fly who had the office legitimatly if god was supposed to be holding Popes to infallible religious standards? What's more why do Cardinals appoint them rather than god choosing who his right hand on earth is supposed to be?
Do I know for certain? Of course not. However I think I am correct, and I have solid reasons for thinking what I do.