If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
there is no command or even mention in the bible of masturbation. so it shouldn't be an issue.
the bible actualy tells you to take great delight in your mate ...to treat each other in a fine manner ...a man should treat his bitch like a piece of fine pottery. it says to enjoy your wifes breasts. so obviously sex is there to be enjoyed ...and the fucking sperm idea is daft ...when the one sperm that got through to make me ...a bazzilion died. so how can they all be sacred.
trouble with the churches ...they take and add as they see fit for control of your lives.
sack 'em ...sack 'em now.
Genesis 38:8-10
"8. Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.' 9. And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother. 10. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also."
These verses are the basis of Catholic doctrine on contraception- since the sight of a man having sexual intercourse with a woman and deliberately preventing her getting pregnant was "displeasing" to the Lord.
It is Old Testament. However, as far as I am aware Christian Doctrine accepts that all parts of the bible are true- even the old testament- unless they are contradicted by Christ (principally from the Sermon on the Mount) or the Ten Commandments. Hence stuff about killing people for not having a moustache (sic) is not Christian doctrine because the Ten commandments state "thou shalt not kill."
As for those saying that religion should not be involved in government- this is not- the Pope is simply saying that if you approve of abortion than you are guilty of sin, which is true under Catholic doctrine.
Similarly, it is entirely consistent with humanitarian concern; the Catholic church also forbids sex outside of marraige (hence promicuity). Therefore any African (or anyone else) having sex outside of marriage is not following this doctrine; and presumably wouldn't follow an order or allowance by the Pope to wear a condom.
So how is the Catholic Church wrong on this issue?
Anyone who sleeps around, against Catholic doctrine, cannot then blame Catholic doctrine for not using contraception. Unless you accept it all it does not excuse nor justify any course of action.
Instead of blaming the non-use of contraception, maybe promiscuity and rape should be discouraged. But, hey, that wouldn't allow one to stick the knife into the Catholic Church.
Well apart from the fact that it would be incredibly terrible if millions dies from starvation it certainly would not be the strongest who survived, it would be the richest and most pwerful and that is not the same thing at all......
I do see what you mean but there are weaknesses i.e. what about widow(er)s, isn't this approach encouraging dangerous sex?
What of those who were bad before now reformed?
Panorama did a programme about the HIV/AIDS crisis in parts of the world where the catholic church has great influence.
I cant remember who exactley it was but a direct representative of the Catholic church sat in front of that camera and said 'Condoms are in effective because they are pourous and let the virus through' (just so there is no ambiguity here, he doesnt mean they might split, he means that the virus can actually pass thru the wall of the condom:eek2: )
Now they can believe whatever they want BUT putting out this sort of misinformation in areas in which they know they are influential is wrong.:mad:
Yeah but if you believed in reincarnation that would be different, they believe that if the human population increases, it may be because of a decrease of another certain species.
Basically everyone believes different things, it does not make us any worse or any better. To us it may sound absurd how catholics disagree with contraception, but to CofE it seems responsible (of course if married) however to an atheist sex before marriage is fine.
It always depends who you talk to, it will always cause an arguement, looks at the wars over religion. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree!
the two just don't go together.
evolution ...no inteligent design or direct ion ...meaning that chemicals etc just happened by chance over millions of years to come up with LIFE! .thats ok. but then to go on and believe that this great multitude of improbable accidents then went on to accidently build a system where you don't finaly break down like everything else in our experience and knowledge ...you restart all over again ...possibly in a completely different environment ...heaven ...hell ...or some how come back to where you just fell apart ...come on ...give common sense and knowledge a chance instead of this airy fairy bullshit the human mind can imagine ...usualy to manipulate another human.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/28/fruit.flies.enn/
bacterial resistance to anti-biotics is another example
Your views get more and more preposterous every day!
But there are examples absolutely everywhere around us. Watch the Discovery Channel any time and you will see on every nature programme. From the lemurs that made it into Madagascar from mainland Africa and have evolved into 35 subspecies to the jellyfish in some Pacific island lake that got sealed off from the sea and that have since lost their tentacles as they're no longer needed... there are examples absolutely everywhere of evolution.
But then what chance there is of convincing you (if you are indeed a Creationist)? I mean, if you really believe the world is only about 6,000 years old, mankind descends from one couple that was created by a superior being and a chap built an ark and put a pair of any animal species inside to save them from the Flood and ensure the continuation of all species (yeah right) ... there is absolutely no chance of convincing you of anything. No doubt you would regard all the scientific evidence as "wrong" or "heretic".
That, as I said if you are Creationist... Pardon me if you aren't.
Are you a creationist?
Yes. Its crap.
Read this
But you'll only deny any evidence placed before you.
Fundies scare me. :eek:
I mean, do you seriously believe that?
what about dating of bones that are human/advanced primate that come out to be 50000 years old etc etc
More cop outs? Come on idiot boy, you can do better than that!
*Dinosaur*
And if the answer is (as i have heard) God put those there to test our faith, doesnt that worry you? Some deity running around playing tricks on his creations
-Sticks fossil in ground-*Pat*Pat*....We will see who believes in me now
Reading that he was a creationist, I was just about to say this. I hope this doesn't mean it is a clichéd argument, because it is well founded and backed up with stone cold fact.
how do you mean?
I can't even begin to describe how completely impossible and utterly absurd that notion is. If at least it suggested god had performed a miracle and kept all animals floating above the water while the Flood took care of men... well at least you could blame it on him. But to believe that a man managed to build an ark and get a pair of every land species there is and keep them in his boat until the water receded is beyond ridiculous. I could suggest looking at the size of such ark, the provisions needed, how the good chap managed to find, capture and bring back animals from all around the world (I guess Noah should be credited with discovering America and Australia shouldn't he?)... but what would be the point eh? Not very different from trying to convince an Islamic extremist that those 70 virgins waiting up in heaven as a reward for killing infidels ain't really there.
Dear oh dear...
I am saying that if you went to the far east hinduism, you would find that people believe that when you die your soul exists as another body, (reincarnation). But i am also saying that others believe that we were placed here by fate, that we will live and die and go to heaven.
These are conficting stories, if you went by the reincarnation belief the population would never grow, one species would just increase more than another. Yes to us it may sound a little silly, a little weird, we think we know because of the word science but how do we know?
A question for you, how do you know you exist? how do yu know that what you see on this site is real? and that you are not dreaming? how do you know? yes your senses may be telling you BUT you have never known any different, you may not believe in reincarnation (i dont) but how do you know you were not a frog, tiger or lion before now?
many questions that cannot be answered, i always thought they could until last week in an RE lesson at college, it taught me that not everything you see, hear taste, touch or smell is real as we have nothing to compare it to. very deep thoughts, we had to go through, but it is a belief of another religion. Surely we should be tolerant of that?
Have you read it?
Because Dawkins describes (in some detail) how evolution and creationism can be reconciled into one theory- something along the lines of God gave the primeval slime the first spark of life (created a cell nucleus with RNA able to replicate) knowing that all of his creatures and plants would evolve from that. So the plants and animals evolved once that first step was put on earth by God, until at the "missing link" stage, and then God took man's closest animal relative and added a short length of DNA (this length actually exists, and denotes man from ape) and so created man (Adam), then replicates him (clones him into female form) by taking DNA from his rib.
Did all of evolution take place on the fifth day? Well, since humans did not exist and had no concpet of time its irrelevant. How long is a day to an all knowing, all seeing God? Who says on the fifth day he didn't put the spark of life into that slime, sit back and press "fast-forward" with the laws of physics so that it actually did happen in 24 hours?
But mixinshite is denying the existence of evolution totally.