[Kazan]

like my parents denomination (ELCA Lutheran)

Must be just an ELCA thing then. I'm LCMS Lutheran and I don't believe many people in my congregation were circumsized even just for tradition.

my parents didn't do it for religious reasons - my point was it's NOT an ELCA thing, but they did it anyway (hoodwinked by trash science) - and I hear people from demoniations that don't practice it say they're doing it "for religious reasons"

[Nuclear1]

like my parents denomination (ELCA Lutheran)

Must be just an ELCA thing then. I'm LCMS Lutheran and I don't believe many people in my congregation were circumsized even just for tradition.

my parents didn't do it for religious reasons - my point was it's NOT an ELCA thing, but they did it anyway (hoodwinked by trash science) - and I hear people from demoniations that don't practice it say they're doing it "for religious reasons"

Ah, I misread then. My apologies.

[aldo_14]

And non-marital sex?

(note; sex and bonding are also intrinsically linked, too, as strongly as sex and reproduction are)

Propably stronger, because there has to be some reason why human females have hidden ovulation and why getting human females pregnant can be quite difficult. Unless it's a 17-year old Catholic chick, then you just have to cum in her general direction and voila

Yeah, and there's also pretty strong evidence IIRC supporting the use of sex as a mate (i.e. reproductive partner) selection process for women, too.

[Herra Tohtori]

my parents didn't do it for religious reasons - my point was it's NOT an ELCA thing, but they did it anyway (hoodwinked by trash science) - and I hear people from demoniations that don't practice it say they're doing it "for religious reasons"

Is that bolded word deliberate word play or a typo? 

In this context it could be both...

[Goober5000]

And non-marital sex?

(note; sex and bonding are also intrinsically linked, too, as strongly as sex and reproduction are)

Indeed, to support your second point here, the Bible seems to treat sex as defining marriage.  In other words, if you have sex with someone, you automatically marry them, in the most basic sense -- the "two become one flesh" principle.  This is why if two unmarried people had sex, the man had to take the woman as his wife and support her, whereas if two married people have sex, they had to be stoned.

[karajorma]

Yes but as you are so fond of telling us, the laws of the old testement no longer apply to you. So I have to ask where in the new testement does it say that?

[aldo_14]

And non-marital sex?

(note; sex and bonding are also intrinsically linked, too, as strongly as sex and reproduction are)

Indeed, to support your second point here, the Bible seems to treat sex as defining marriage.  In other words, if you have sex with someone, you automatically marry them, in the most basic sense -- the "two become one flesh" principle.  This is why if two unmarried people had sex, the man had to take the woman as his wife and support her, whereas if two married people have sex, they had to be stoned.

What about when 1 or both people are married but in the process of a lengthy divorce or seperation procedure?

[Goober5000]

Yes but as you are so fond of telling us, the laws of the old testement no longer apply to you. So I have to ask where in the new testement does it say that?

I'm guessing that first "you" is plural, since I don't recall saying that specifically.  We are no longer "trapped" by legalistic adherence to the law, but we still have to obey God.  The principle behind all those lists of stipulations is simply that God intended marriage to be special, and it should be treated as such, not dragged through the dirt.  If we obey the underlying principle, the rest of it will naturally follow.  Marriage should be treated holistically, taking the good with the bad, and not entered into lightly.  Sex can't be isolated from everything else because it's an integral part of the whole marriage covenant.

What about when 1 or both people are married but in the process of a lengthy divorce or seperation procedure?

The Biblical prescription for divorce is for the husband to give the wife a certificate of divorce and then send her away, so there's a specific defining moment for when it happens.  Nevertheless, God expresses quite clearly that although he permits divorce, he hates it.

[aldo_14]

Yes but as you are so fond of telling us, the laws of the old testement no longer apply to you. So I have to ask where in the new testement does it say that?

I'm guessing that first "you" is plural, since I don't recall saying that specifically.  We are no longer "trapped" by legalistic adherence to the law, but we still have to obey God.  The principle behind all those lists of stipulations is simply that God intended marriage to be special, and it should be treated as such, not dragged through the dirt.  If we obey the underlying principle, the rest of it will naturally follow.  Marriage should be treated holistically, taking the good with the bad, and not entered into lightly.  Sex can't be isolated from everything else because it's an integral part of the whole marriage covenant.

What about when 1 or both people are married but in the process of a lengthy divorce or seperation procedure?

The Biblical prescription for divorce is for the husband to give the wife a certificate of divorce and then send her away, so there's a specific defining moment for when it happens.  Nevertheless, God expresses quite clearly that although he permits divorce, he hates it.

Why does God hate divorce?  Particularly from, say, a loveless marriage that was formed on the basis of a single first shag and then regretted afterwards (because the whole sex-as-selection psychology doesn't exactly mesh well with marry-straight-after-first-sex)?

[Goober5000]

Why does God hate divorce?  Particularly from, say, a loveless marriage that was formed on the basis of a single first shag and then regretted afterwards (because the whole sex-as-selection psychology doesn't exactly mesh well with marry-straight-after-first-sex)?

"Regret" isn't a valid reason for divorce -- IIRC the only Biblical justification for it is adultery or unfaithfulness.  Marriage is marriage for better or for worse.  That "single first shag" is a mistake that they just have to live with.

From that perspective, sex-as-selection isn't a valid way to select a mate.

There is another, Biblically permitted, way to select a mate on the basis of physical compatibility without having sex -- it's called dancing.

[BlackDove]

whereas if two married people have sex, they had to be stoned.

I'm sorry, but the exenuatingly intelligent conclusions people arrive at through use of logic for control is just amazing to me. I can't believe people actually believe things should be like that, and even conform to it.

Sorry, I'll stay away, that one was too funny not to comment on.

[Goober5000]

Whoops, that wasn't entirely clear.

I meant if two people who were married, but not married to each other, have sex, they had to be stoned.

[Kazan]

my parents didn't do it for religious reasons - my point was it's NOT an ELCA thing, but they did it anyway (hoodwinked by trash science) - and I hear people from demoniations that don't practice it say they're doing it "for religious reasons"

Is that bolded word deliberate word play or a typo? 

In this context it could be both...

compulsive word replacement.. every time i type that word that happens, normally i catch myself and fix it... i'm not kidding

[Herra Tohtori]

...but we still have to obey God.

Why?

What if I think some of the rules God has been claimed to put upon us feel like crap to me?

Further more - how do I know what is God's word to obey? As soon as you show me something that is undoubtedly a divine command (and if it makes some sense to me), I'll do it. Until that, all I see is a book full of rules of which some made some sense in pre-historic times amongst nomadic tribes. Most of the rules aren't sensible even in that context in my opinion. They are just nuisance most of the time. The core of christianity can (should) be summed into all that "treat others as you'd like to be treated" -thing, and that stuff should be just common sense after all.

Anyway, why should I obey a command that makes no sense to me, is wrong in my opinion and of which I have no way of knowing where the rule originally came from? Because *someone* says it's God's word? Well surprize, there are other sources as well claimed to be the word of God. Or gods.

[aldo_14]

Why does God hate divorce?  Particularly from, say, a loveless marriage that was formed on the basis of a single first shag and then regretted afterwards (because the whole sex-as-selection psychology doesn't exactly mesh well with marry-straight-after-first-sex)?

"Regret" isn't a valid reason for divorce -- IIRC the only Biblical justification for it is adultery or unfaithfulness.  Marriage is marriage for better or for worse.  That "single first shag" is a mistake that they just have to live with.

From that perspective, sex-as-selection isn't a valid way to select a mate.

There is another, Biblically permitted, way to select a mate on the basis of physical compatibility without having sex -- it's called dancing.

So the bible goes against human nature formed by hundreds of thousands of years of psychological, physical and cultural evolution?  That's interesting.

Ok, so is marriage thus a punishment for having sex rather than a voluntary commitment?  What about if a partner is abusive and violent?  What if the woman was raped or in some mental or physical state (not necessarily of her own doing; for example, someone slipping something into a drink, or even down to illness or a hallucination) where she could not give informed consent but implied it?

...but we still have to obey God.

Why?

What if I think some of the rules God has been claimed to put upon us feel like crap to me?

I'm presuming he means christians of his particular denomination?

[BlackDove]

Whoops, that wasn't entirely clear.

I meant if two people who were married, but not married to each other, have sex, they had to be stoned.

Oh yeah I got it, don't worry. My comment still stands though

[TrashMan]

...but we still have to obey God.

Why?

What if I think some of the rules God has been claimed to put upon us feel like crap to me?

Further more - how do I know what is God's word to obey? As soon as you show me something that is undoubtedly a divine command (and if it makes some sense to me), I'll do it. Until that, all I see is a book full of rules of which some made some sense in pre-historic times amongst nomadic tribes. Most of the rules aren't sensible even in that context in my opinion. They are just nuisance most of the time. The core of christianity can (should) be summed into all that "treat others as you'd like to be treated" -thing, and that stuff should be just common sense after all.

Anyway, why should I obey a command that makes no sense to me, is wrong in my opinion and of which I have no way of knowing where the rule originally came from? Because *someone* says it's God's word? Well surprize, there are other sources as well claimed to be the word of God. Or gods.

Take care who you listen to.
The Old Testament is cited and showed everywhere way too often. It was written by men (alltough inspired men) and a lot of cultural nad historical and political aspects of that time and sorroundings can be felt inside.
While it is not obsolete per say, it doesn't hold a candle to the new testament.

I have a uncle who is a priest. He's highly intellignet and highly educated and is one of the best people I ever known. I am lucky to have him to explain the teachings ofthe Church  to me, as the media and society are swarming with incorrect information.

[Kazan]

do you have one SHRED of evidence to support the bible being anything more than a work of fiction that makes vague legenderized references to some events that once actually happened (such as the flooding of the black sea)

[Ford Prefect]

My roflcopter goes soi soi soi soi soi soi soi soi.

[Flipside]

I suppose society needs weight on both ends of the scales. I'm no more in favour of a society that condones fundamentalist or Biblical law any more than I am in favour of a society that condones Eugenics or Unrestricted DNA experimentation.

In many ways Religion, in it's strictest form is a neccesary 'dead weight' that stops science getting too carried away. when Einstein suggested Nuclear power, he did not really dream it would be adapted to create a weapon, many scientists are like that, blissfully unaware of the possible other uses of what they research, or firmly in the belief that no-one would be stupid enough to. Theres always someone stupid enough to.

That's why the whole 'religion and morals' thing will never really be sorted out, Each one provides a Dynamo that powers the other in some way.  Take a look at how much energy has been put into solidifying our concepts of Evolution, thanks to ID.