FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Non Abrahamic Religions & Philosophies
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-25-2003, 10:41 PM   #111
Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada. Finally.
Posts: 10,155
Default

Originally posted by Magus55
Nah, that's Hell.

That's the whole point, Magus. Your concept of heaven is hell. And you have said nothing that would convince me otherwise. Heck, you couldn't even answer the question of why married couples have to split up the moment they pass the pearly gates.
Queen of Swords is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 10:46 PM   #112
Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada. Finally.
Posts: 10,155
Default

Originally posted by Magus55
Satan and the angels never experience the consequences of sin.

I thought your god created hell for Satan.

Isn't it unfair, to have a creature who tempts millions or billions of people into hell, and yet never make him experience the consequences of his sin?

They were created solely for the purpose of servitude.

Is there a bible verse to back this up?

BTW, I don't recall you addressing the point of how Satan sinned if no one had sinned before and if, as you said, one can't do what one doesn't know about.
Queen of Swords is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 10:49 PM   #113
Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada. Finally.
Posts: 10,155
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions about heav

Originally posted by Magus55
Anal and oral orifices are not designed for sex, they are for eating and waste removal.

Are you saying that God gets angry if a man performs oral sex on his wife?

I'm starting to see how God plans to break couples up when they enter heaven - make their relationship not so good in the first place.
Queen of Swords is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 10:56 PM   #114
Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada. Finally.
Posts: 10,155
Default

Originally posted by Magus55
Would you want your kids to be walking robots who only loved you because there is no other option? Sounds pretty horrible to me.

It's going to be horrible for all embryos, fetuses, babies and very small children whom god takes to heaven too. They're going to be walking robots who only love god because they won't have any other option.
Queen of Swords is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 11:06 PM   #115
Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 10,056
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions about heav

Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
Male and female anatomy are perfectly designed to go together. Anal and oral orifices are not designed for sex, they are for eating and waste removal.
There are several different logical problems with your assertions here, but I'll try to explain them in a way you might have a chance of understanding.

1) Anal orifices are designed primarily for waste removal from the human digestive system, but the male penis and the female vagina routinely perform similar waste removal functions several times a day. In fact, over the course of a lifetime, the male penis and the female vagina are used perhaps five to six times more often for waste removal than for sexual reproduction attempts, even including masturbation.

2) Oral orifices are designed for eating, but also have the functions of air intake for the respiratory system as well as articulation in human communication. Again, the ranking of "eating" as a function of the human mouth ranks a distant third in frequency behind breathing and talking.

3) If the function of oral orifices are, in fact, actually "designed," it is a very poor design indeed. Combining the intake of liquids and solids for the digestive system through the same input vehicle which is used to intake oxygen to the respiratory system is quite dubious, especially if any other option is available to an allegedly omnipotent creator: food goes in here, drink goes in somewhere else, and air intake is not anywhere close to the first two. Seems like there'd be much less choking and asphyxiation that way.

4) Part of the sexual reproduction instinct involves the oral orifice, acting on a congenital sucking instinct to parts of the female anatomy which, at birth, provided essential nourishment to everyone. By a happy coincidence, the same instinctual behavior seems to stimulate and facilitate the normal heterosexual intercourse experience. So, to exclude the mouth and tongue from any participation in the sexual experience on the basis that they're supposed to be for ingesting nourishment only, would be just plain silly.

5) The study of human physiology has identified certain specialized nerve functions around the anus which tend to heighten the pleasure and enjoyment of heterosexual as well as homosexual, intercourse, although I cannot speak from experience for the homosexual aspect. (From the heterosexual aspect, though, the difference between standard sex, and sex with a small ice cube up your butt, is remarkable!) With that kind of physiological "encouragement", it is counter-intuitive to claim that the anus should never have any involvement in the sexual experience, regardless of heterosexual or homosexual, simply on the arbitrary basis of the additional function of being used for human waste removal.

6) Anal sex (whether heterosexual or homosexual), while fraught with problems involving transmission of seriously potent sexually transmittable diseases, has a distinct advantage of nearly 100% effective birth control (I won't say with certainty that it is actually 100%, because you never know!) in heterosexuals, and exactly 100% effective birth control in homosexuals. So, it's not a case of this sexual practice being condemned because it has no chance (or very nearly no chance) of working, since faithful, married, monogamous Christian couples (husbands and wives) often rely on less effective methods of birth control to bring about the same thwarting of conception which is part and parcel of heterosexual intercourse. It seems to me to be counter-productive to condemn anal sex based on the inability to achieve reproduction, when those who are engaging in more acceptable sexual intercourse use or depend on artificial methods of birth control.

7) It seems I could keep going on with several more difficulties with your assertion and reasons you are wrong, but I will stop at this point with the disclaimers that I am not a human biological or physiological scientist, nor am I necessarily advocating anal, oral, homosexual, or irresponsible sexual behavior. I'm just pointing out the (many) flaws in your reasoning.

WMD - straight, but not narrow
Wayne Delia is offline  
Old 09-26-2003, 06:53 AM   #116
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions about heaven

Originally posted by Magus55
What if God let you control the Cosmos? Or maybe God will create more universes and life, and let you rule over them.

An odd idea - it sounds like you think God might let you play god, maybe even hope he will! This says more about your psyche than about God's supposed heaven.

Maybe its like Sim-city only on a universal scale?

Great - we get to play computer games. I've already grown bored with them and quit playing them a couple of years ago.

Time also has no meaning in Heaven, and therefore eternity is a lost concept. You will be enjoying yourself too much to worry about how much time has past.

What has no meaning are the above two sentences.

Typically, but not always, you manage to at least put one or two sentences between your contradictory statements!

The fun and enjoyment will just keep rolling in.

Yeah, and after you rule every conceivable cosmos for its billions of years, you'll still have an eternity left. After you do every fun thing and experience every enjoyment, and repeat them a billion times, you'll still have an eternity left.
Mageth is offline  
Old 09-26-2003, 06:55 AM   #117
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
I'm trying to sincerely answer you all, and explain things the best I can, but all you can do is make jokes and ridicule? Is that entirely necessary or do atheists never progress mentally past the age of 8? Is a civil, friendly, uninsulting, and unmocking discussion not possible on these boards?
Ahem. You insult atheists and then immediately follow the insult with a complaint about insults?
Mageth is offline  
Old 09-26-2003, 06:58 AM   #118
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions about heaven

Quote:
Originally posted by Wayne Delia
May I ask a sincere question? This might be at risk of being dismissed as ridicule or of not being serious, but I assure you, it is very serious based on your assertion here.

Apparently, "Jesus fulfilled the OT laws," which means that there is no longer a prohibition against Christians doing things like eating meat with milk or milk products (i.e. a cheeseburger) or dressing in clothes made of mixed fabrics, laws which don't apply under the New Covenant, according to your assertion.

Other Old Testament laws include a prohibition against bestiality, which is having sexual relations with animals. If "Jesus fulfilled the OT laws," would this law also be nullified? And if a Christian was to engage in sex with, say, a sheep, wouldn't that be nothing more than a violation of an OT law no longer in effect?

So could one conclude that if the standard practices outlawed in the Old Testament (eating shellfish, dressing in clothes of mixed fabrics, etc) are now OK because of the "New Covenant," then a practice of bestiality by a Christian would not be considered a sin based on the same line of reasoning?

An answer would be appreciated, because this has always seemed like a blatant Christian double-standard. The normal, mundane, everyday activities which used to be condemned as abominations in the Old Testament are now OK, but the abnormal, perverted abominations outlawed in the Old Testament seem to remain as sins, even though Jesus fulfilled the O.T. laws and made a New Covenant. If that doesn't apply to bestiality, then it also doesn't apply to the standard stuff, either.

WMD
The Gospels of the New Testament reiterate the divine laws that still apply ( Ten commandment type laws, Love God, love your neighbor, no murder, no adultery, no lying etc). Divine laws ( natural law) still apply, as told in the Gospels. The laws that applied to the Israelites ( meat prohibition, clothing, etc.) no longer apply under the New Covenant.
Magus55 is offline  
Old 09-26-2003, 07:01 AM   #119
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Originally posted by Magus55
Nah, that's Hell.

That's the whole point, Magus. Your concept of heaven is hell. And you have said nothing that would convince me otherwise. Heck, you couldn't even answer the question of why married couples have to split up the moment they pass the pearly gates.
Why would they need to be married? Humans were told to be fruitful and multiply. There is no more procreation in Heaven - there is no need for it. So why do you need marriage? And what about those who go to Heaven and aren't married? There is a specific amount of people that will make it to heaven, and not everyone will have a life long partner. How is it fair for one person to be without a companion, and another with one? Instead of having that problem, everyone is just brothers and sisters in Christ. We become a big family.
Magus55 is offline  
Old 09-26-2003, 07:06 AM   #120
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

Originally posted by Magus55
Jesus only died once, and it was final. God hasn't and won't be sending Jesus to die ever again.

We've gone over this before, but Jesus-God didn't die, some man's body that he was possessing died. God wasn't man enough to die for our sins.

Jesus is scarred with the wounds of His sacrifice for all eternity to remind us of what He did.

Well, here on earth, neither you nor I can see Jesus, so the scars are useless to remind us here.

And why would anyone need reminding in the Heaven you describe? I can see it now:

"Darn, Jesus, I'm getting bored with this place. Can't I sin just once, just a little sin?"

"Well, Joe, let me show you these SCARS again - remember, a trillion trillion trillion trillion eons ago, I spent a few hours getting killed for you. Now go play with your galaxies and be a good boy."

"Dang it, you'll NEVER let us live that one down, will you?"
Mageth is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:06 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.