It Is Good For A Man Not To Have Sexual Relations With A Woman.”

[Earthling]

That's funny, because that hasn't happened.
They're not nonsense.
Whether you want to believe actual science or the nonsense found in the Bible is up to you.

I think I already know which one you'll choose.
R'amen!

You are asking me which I would trust over the other, imperfect man's constantly changing speculation about the universe we live in or the confirmed history of the super intelligent being that created that universe, you are correct. I would choose the latter.

However, that confirmed historical collection doesn't address many of the things that science addresses so do I completely dismiss science? No. I reject the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution.

You want to see a science debate? Not with me you don't. I'm not interested nor informed to make that debate. But I know a sidewalk armchair scientist when I see their hordes.

Anytime, though, any one of you want to have a debate on the Bible? Bring it on. I may be old and tired but I don't consider y'all a challenge in that capacity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said. Evidence is meaningless. If I decide that trees are evidence of creation then I have more evidence for that than I do for evolution. Saying you have evidence for something is meaningless. You used a trial of law as an example of how science works. That was pretty stupid. If you have a trial of law the prosecution as well as the defense have evidence. One of them will loose based upon either what a judge or jury decides.

For you to say that there is no scientific evidence for my myths is also pretty stupid. I have a copy on a shelf and hundreds of copies available online. There's one linked to on this very forum. There's tons of archaeological evidence supporting it.

What you have is a relatively small group of people who are biased but informed on the subject dictating to you conjecture, speculation, imagination, and it being widely accepted because people are foolish enough to think that it is the intellectually superior explanation of, not how life began, but what happened to life once it began.

That's why when each of your poorly constructed arguments are swept aside for the nonsense they really are you resort to claiming your opposition is ignorant, uneducated and dishonest. Like a broken record. Ignorant, uneducated and dishonest. Ignorant, uneducated and dishonest. Ignorant, uneducated and dishonest.

Like a political television advertisement.

So. Not only are you woefully incompetent to criticize the Bible you are really an amateurish debater.

a sad excuse. Evidence is meaningless only to the ignorant and dishonest.

By the way it I am an amateur at debating you must rank far far lower. You see debates, like the sciences, are evidence based. I can help you with both. You have the false belief that you yourself are a source. When in reality you are only delusional.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are asking me which I would trust over the other, imperfect man's constantly changing speculation about the universe we live in or the confirmed history of the super intelligent being that created that universe, you are correct. I would choose the latter.

However, that confirmed historical collection doesn't address many of the things that science addresses so do I completely dismiss science? No. I reject the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution.

You want to see a science debate? Not with me you don't. I'm not interested nor informed to make that debate. But I know a sidewalk armchair scientist when I see their hordes.

Anytime, though, any one of you want to have a debate on the Bible? Bring it on. I may be old and tired but I don't consider y'all a challenge in that capacity.

A real Christian would not make false claims about others. Just because it is impossible for you to understand does not make the work of others "speculation" . That appears to be your sin. Do you even understand what the word means?

 

[Woberts]

confirmed history of the super intelligent being that created that universe

The existence of a super intelligent being hasn't been confirmed.
And it likely never will be.
Human history can be more or less confirmed, but nothing involving god(s).

 

[Earthling]

a sad excuse. Evidence is meaningless only to the ignorant and dishonest.

By the way it I am an amateur at debating you must rank far far lower. You see debates, like the sciences, are evidence based. I can help you with both. You have the false belief that you yourself are a source. When in reality you are only delusional.

The art of debate depends upon the ability of the artist. I've lost debates where I was right and won debates where I was wrong. Like I said. You are not much of a debater. I, on the other hand, am the master.

And yes . . . I'm aware of the vulgar cliche I alluded to. For fun. You see? I'm playing with you like a mouse in a laboratory. Selecting this bit of cheese seemingly at random, running down this corridor or suddenly falling over dead from asphyxiation.

And yes, I'm aware of the vague parody of Douglas Adams.

 

[Earthling]

A real Christian would not make false claims about others.

They wouldn't? Hmmm. Well there goes your theory that Creationists are dishonest. Wouldn't make false claims, huh? What about Ahab and Jezebel? They weren't Christians, of course, but what about Ananias and Sapphira. I think they would have made false claims about others.

Just because it is impossible for you to understand does not make the work of others "speculation" . That appears to be your sin. Do you even understand what the word means?

It most certainly does not make their work "speculation," what makes their work speculation is that they speculate. Then change their minds later by "speculating" something new. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The art of debate depends upon the ability of the artist. I've lost debates where I was right and won debates where I was wrong. Like I said. You are not much of a debater. I, on the other hand, am the master.

And yes . . . I'm aware of the vulgar cliche I alluded to. For fun. You see? I'm playing with you like a mouse in a laboratory. Selecting this bit of cheese seemingly at random, running down this corridor or suddenly falling over dead from asphyxiation.

And yes, I'm aware of the vague parody of Douglas Adams.

That only applies if a debater is dishonest. Now being a creationist you may value dishonesty since there are no facts that support you. But real debate is evidence based. If you "lost debates" where you were right, an event that I would pay money to see or if you won debates where you were right, then you in front of some very amateurish judges at the very least.

Now you may be a master bater, but a debate you suck, to put it crudely. Again, actual debates are evidence based. You lack evidence for all of the claims of yours that I have seen you post. That is why you can't win.

 

[Earthling]

The existence of a super intelligent being hasn't been confirmed.
And it likely never will be.
Human history can be more or less confirmed, but nothing involving god(s).

Oh! No history involving gods. I see. I'm trying to think of a history that doesn't involve gods . . . help me out with that, I'm not much for book learnin'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They wouldn't? Hmmm. Well there goes your theory that Creationists are dishonest. Wouldn't make false claims, huh? What about Ahab and Jezebel? They weren't Christians, of course, but what about Ananias and Sapphira. I think they would have made false claims about others.

I see that logic is a skill that you lack as well. You made false claims about others. A clear breaking of the Ninth Commandment. I know that you use a weak excuse for that based upon your ignorance of the Bible. And let's try to limit the discussion to real people, not fictional characters.

It most certainly does not make their work "speculation," what makes their work speculation is that they speculate. Then change their minds later by "speculating" something new. Rinse. Repeat.

No, it doesn't. Let me help you. Why don't you explain what "speculation" means to you in your own words. Speculation may be part of the process, but by the time they publish their work no longer is speculation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh! Nothing involving gods. I see. I'm trying to think of a history that doesn't involve gods . . . help me out with that, I'm not much for book learnin'.

We know that. You do not seem to understand the fact that myths are quite prevalent does not make them in any way real. In fact since they tend to contradict one another they can't be real. You really should take a logic course. The fact that two contradictory statements cannot be true is a very early lesson. A saying that you should remember "Only one can be right, but they all can be wrong".

 

[iam1me]

..

1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.​

Anyone care to explain god's (speaking through Paul) rather odd declaration here?

.

Not sure what you find perplexing about his statement - read in context it's pretty clear. Paul is advocating for people to remain unmarried so that they can more fully devote themselves to God's work. While there is nothing wrong with marriage, there can be no doubt that it takes a lot of time and energy to maintain a good marriage - especially if, like most women, your wife wants children, a house, etc. If you are able to accept it, it is better to remain a single so that your time and resources go to God instead.

 

[Kenny]

Evidence is meaningless only to the ignorant and dishonest.

.

yes, we have proof of that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, we have proof of that.

Please, you are in the category of evidence deniers. Let's at least try to be honest here.

 

[Kenny]

Please, you are in the category of evidence deniers. Let's at least try to be honest here.

I was hoping for that. Hope that is now dashed.

 

[robocop (actually)]

True....but sometimes an obsession is not obvious to someone until you point it out. I wasn't mocking him...just stating the obvious I thought.

Skwim is the one on this forum I'm least afraid to reply to. There, now I mocked him.

 

[Skwim]

Not sure what you find perplexing about his statement - read in context it's pretty clear. Paul is advocating for people to remain unmarried so that they can more fully devote themselves to God's work. While there is nothing wrong with marriage, there can be no doubt that it takes a lot of time and energy to maintain a good marriage - especially if, like most women, your wife wants children, a house, etc. If you are able to accept it, it is better to remain a single so that your time and resources go to God instead.

Well, it's a bit perplexing because god gave man a predisposition toward sexual intercourse, yet he says it's not good to indulge it. And he doesn't qualify this admonition as pertaining to just the married or to just the unmarried. Everyone is included.

That god then goes on to recommend sexual intercourse to satisfy the sexual needs of one's wife

1 Cor 7:3
The husband should meet his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should do the same for her husband.
​

Is all the more curious in light of his distaste for sexual intercourse. God's right hand doesn't seem to know what the left hand is doing.


Now if god had told them, "It's not good for an unmarried man to engage in sexual intercourse, therefore to accommodate this urge get married and go at it," would be one thing, but he doesn't. God made the unequivocal statement that It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was hoping for that. Hope that is now dashed.

Let's try to keep it on topic if you are going to fail at least fail only biblically.

 

[Kenny]

Let's try to keep it on topic if you are going to fail at least fail only biblically.

You are OK, Subduction. I know you aren't a believer but that is OK. God still believes in you and God has a great plan for your life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are OK, Subduction. I know you aren't a believer but that is OK. God still believes in you and God has a great plan for your life.

your version of God has been proven not to exist. So your statements about him.are pure fantasy on your part.

 

[Kenny]

your version of God has been proven not to exist. So your statements about him.are pure fantasy on your part.

Well...then just leave me in my blessed ignorance! I think it is a great story of how God loves each and every one of us and we were created to produce life impact.