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

[Subduction Zone]

How do I know? The Bible, of course, do you think I make this stuff up in my head?

God's request to Adam to fill and subdue the earth isn't fulfilled. It won't be until we enter the seventh day, the day of God's rest and then fulfill it. However, it was fulfilled to the point where it was no longer a requirement listed as a Christian obligation. By the time Paul came around.

When one based one's debate on a mythical part of the Bible one has lost from the beginning.

 

[Earthling]

When one based one's debate on a mythical part of the Bible one has lost from the beginning.

Interesting. Well, not in and of itself, but interestingly uninformed commentary. Tell me. Which parts of the Bible where the subject is broached are mythical and what would one base this upon, assuming that they knew what they were talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting. Well, not in and of itself, but interestingly uninformed commentary. Tell me. Which parts of the Bible where the subject is broached are mythical and what would one base this upon, assuming that they knew what they were talking about?

Clearly Genesis. No assumptions needed, just an education above the fifth grade level.

 

[74x12]

But god doesn't present any qualification such as, it's alright to be boppin' babes "if someone can handle it." Nope, he just says it aint good to be messin' around with women. Period. However, he does go on to say how to avoid fornication. In essence; in order to avoid having sex without being married, get married. Kind of a no-brainer if one thinks about it, but that's god for ya.

.

Paul isn't taking away from other scriptures that clearly show that it's good to be married. Such as Proverbs 18:22, Psalm 128:3, Genesis 2:18.

In conclusion it's good to be married and also good not to be married. Which is better? According to scriptures probably not to be married is better(you're devoting more of yourself/time to God) but both are considered good. It just depends on what God is calling the individual to do.

 

[Earthling]

Clearly Genesis. No assumptions needed, just an education above the fifth grade level.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I possess that qualification and I disagree with you. So . . . that was a relatively quick and painless debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I possess that qualification and I disagree with you. So . . . that was a relatively quick and painless debate.

Perhaps I should have used the term "comprehension" . At that you do fail. But then you make the error of constantly treating yourself as a valid source. In a debate one must be able to support one's claims with valid outside sources.

 

[BilliardsBall]

..

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?

.

Sigh. It's also rendered "it's okay not to have relations," as Paul is saying celibacy is for some, by careful choice, in the passage, not mandatory for leaders (Rome).

For the last time, get your mind out of the gutter, stop obsessing on the sex lives of Christians. Take a break from the Bible. It's messing with your mind!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sigh. It's also rendered "it's okay not to have relations," as Paul is saying celibacy is for some, by careful choice, in the passage, not mandatory for leaders (Rome).

For the last time, get your mind out of the gutter, stop obsessing on the sex lives of Christians. Take a break from the Bible. It's messing with your mind!

Yes, if one takes that book seriously it does do that.

 

[Earthling]

Perhaps I should have used the term "comprehension" . At that you do fail. But then you make the error of constantly treating yourself as a valid source. In a debate one must be able to support one's claims with valid outside sources.

I see. And what would be considered a valid source in such a debate? Who would decide? What difference would it make?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How do I know? The Bible, of course, do you think I make this stuff up in my head?.

Well... now that you bring it up? Absolutely.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

..

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?

.

It's one of several verses that illustrate Paul was what we modern people would call a misogynist.

It's quite clear Paul despised women of any sort, and revered the Manly Form.

Which also hints at other things Paul was not telling us about himself.

 

[Earthling]

Well... now that you bring it up? Absolutely.

[sarcasm]Boy, I didn't see that coming.[/sarcasm]

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

[sarcasm]Boy, I didn't see that coming.[/sarcasm]

What did you expect? You demonstrate that you make stuff up all the time-- you certainly don't take it from what is actually written in your bible!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see. And what would be considered a valid source in such a debate? Who would decide? What difference would it make?

For a science debate at the very least one needs to base their claims on ideas that have gone through the peer reviewed process. Peer review does not guarantee that an idea is correct. It only guarantees that it is not hopelessly wrong. The myths that you believe in have never made it through that process.

 

[Earthling]

What did you expect? You demonstrate that you make stuff up all the time-- you certainly don't take it from what is actually written in your bible!

Example?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

For a science debate at the very least one needs to base their claims on ideas that have gone through the peer reviewed process. Peer review does not guarantee that an idea is correct. It only guarantees that it is not hopelessly wrong. The myths that you believe in have never made it through that process.

Indeed. In all the history of Science?

Not one time, has the Peer Review process had to go back and say, "well. This was unexpected! The <holy text> had it correct after all, and we were wrong!"

That never happened. In fact, it's rare that the Peer Review will look at an established theory, and conclude: "Well. That's it for Newton, then! Toss out all the Newtonian Textbooks-- they are now garbage. Clean Slate from now on, Only Einstein!"

Instead? Scientists have discovered where Newton's Model no longer works very well.

That does not mean it never works at all! It simply means if you push the limits, and try to apply Newton's Model, your predictions will be off.

So, in a way, Relativity could be seen as a kind of refinement of Newton: If you have very high relative speeds, or very-very large masses, or very deep gravity wells, or very lengthy time frames? Newton does not work very well.

 

[Earthling]

For a science debate at the very least one needs to base their claims on ideas that have gone through the peer reviewed process. Peer review does not guarantee that an idea is correct. It only guarantees that it is not hopelessly wrong. The myths that you believe in have never made it through that process.

First of all, this isn't a science debate, and secondly, peer review is not a process of any debate as such, science or otherwise. Thirdly, peer review may be a sort of safeguard but the only thing it really establishes is agreement and therefore is extremely vulnerable to bias and corruption.

You also didn't answer any of my questions. As usual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, this isn't a science debate, and secondly, peer review is not a process of any debate as such, science or otherwise. Thirdly, peer review may me a sort of safeguard but the only thing it really establishes is agreement and therefore is extremely vulnerable to bias and corruption.

You also didn't answer any of my questions. As usual.

I know it is not a science debate, but when you use claims that have been shown to be wrong, regardless of the source of those refutations, you essentially are conceding the fight before you even begin.

And you asked what standard one would have to go by. I gave a reasonable and rather easily accomplished standard. People that have new ideas, again not guaranteed to be right, go through the process of peer review which eliminates obviously wrong ideas. In the world of science those that avoid peer review do so because they are terribly afraid that they are wrong. Do you remember the "cold fusion" nonsense that got 60 Minutes coverage? Those scientists were well outside their area of expertise and were shown to be wrong. It was a concept that physicists laughed at because of multiple reasons. Peer review would have saved them that embarrassment.

And of course I answered your question. You asked what sort of sources could be used and I gave a minimum standard. All you came up with was a weak excuse. You did not seem to understand the answer. I did not say that our ideas had to go through peer review. I said that our sources for claims would have had to go through peer review, and that is a standard that many debates rely on.

 

[Earthling]

Indeed. In all the history of Science?

Not one time, has the Peer Review process had to go back and say, "well. This was unexpected! The <holy text> had it correct after all, and we were wrong!"

That never happened. In fact, it's rare that the Peer Review will look at an established theory, and conclude: "Well. That's it for Newton, then! Toss out all the Newtonian Textbooks-- they are now garbage. Clean Slate from now on, Only Einstein!"

Instead? Scientists have discovered where Newton's Model no longer works very well.

That does not mean it never works at all! It simply means if you push the limits, and try to apply Newton's Model, your predictions will be off.

So, in a way, Relativity could be seen as a kind of refinement of Newton: If you have very high relative speeds, or very-very large masses, or very deep gravity wells, or very lengthy time frames? Newton does not work very well.

How does one accurately state that the theory of evolution, then, is both "fact and theory?"

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I sort of have issue with Paul as a representative of God. Some at the time felt that a person who is totally committed to God will find a wife and children and providing for them too great a distraction. So, marriage appears to be sort of a compromise between man and God. I'm not expert on the subject but it is all through the NT in what Paul and Jesus both say. I think it is the reason for Matt 5:29 and Matt 19:12. Becoming a Eunuch is sort of common in the Bible, but for a long time here in America at least self castration would get you a lengthy stay in a sanitarium. For those who think that total commitment to God is too much, they should go their way in peace.

I "think" that the early Catholic church Priests were often Eunuchs ???

Let the brawl begin.

not so a priest had to be a "Complete" man
That is why Vivaldi a priest and a castrato kept his "tackle" in a leather pouch round his neck.