SINS....
-
Not quite right.Originally posted by stupidissmart:An atheist can be a freethinker since they too reject the authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. A freethinker can in fact denies the existence of gods and is a atheist. So wat is your point ?
Once a freethinker denies the existence of gods, he becomes an atheist and is no longer a freethinker. Seriously, I don't think you can show very very convincingly that "rational inquiry and speculation" will throw God out of the picture. It is about presupposition.
Heard of Cornelius Van Til?
The mark of a freethinker with regards to God is, "I dunno". In short, freethinker and atheist are incompatible. Atheist and theist, if you agree, are at totally opposite end of the spectrum. Freethinker is like the centre. I don't understand why you have to shift this centre closer to the atheist side. You cheating lah.
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:Not quite right.
Once a freethinker denies the existence of gods, he becomes an atheist and is no longer a freethinker. Seriously, I don't think you can show very very convincingly that "rational inquiry and speculation" will throw God out of the picture. It is about presupposition.
Heard of Cornelius Van Til?
The mark of a freethinker with regards to God is, "I dunno". In short, freethinker and atheist are incompatible. Atheist and theist, if you agree, are at totally opposite end of the spectrum. Freethinker is like the centre. I don't understand why you have to shift this centre closer to the atheist side. You cheating lah.
-
Once a freethinker denies the existence of gods, he becomes an atheist and is no longer a freethinker. Seriously, I don't think you can show very very convincingly that "rational inquiry and speculation" will throw God out of the picture. It is about presupposition.
freethinker = One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation
Let me ask u, if someone reject the authority and dogma of religious thinking, such as christianity, isn't tat denying the existence of god ? Can u elaborate why does rejecting a religion such as christainity not meant they have rejected the god described in christianity ? The whole religion on christiaity is about your relationship with god isn't it ? -
Our argument was about theist, atheist and freethinker. Why you play cheat and introduce christianity in now?
A philosopher may believe in god, it doesn't follow he must be a christian right? About authority and dogma, reformers like Luther rejected them too .. so was he an atheist? -
I like this part.Originally posted by FrustMom:Difference between an atheist and an agnostic
Atheists boast themselves to be freethinkers. Is this a reality? Agnostics differ from atheists. Some agnostics classify themselves as atheist but in reality they are not. An agnostic considers himself a freethinker who has logic reasons for not believing in God. The if the reasons he holds are shattered by the facts, an agnostic will look at the explanation and in many cases can have a change of view. An atheist on the other hand wars against the God he says does not exist. Atheist will not acknowledge any facts that oppose their ‘freethinking’ view. It is extremely rare for an atheist to be persuaded by logic or reason because he or she prides himself or herself on not believing and any opposition becomes a personal fight to preserve their identity.
I didn't know the difference between Agnostic and Atheist until I read thisan agnostic will look at the explanation
-
Our argument was about theist, atheist and freethinker. Why you play cheat and introduce christianity in now
The definition of freethinker and atheist is on all religion, such as christainity. Wat is wrong with using it as an example ?A philosopher may believe in god, it doesn't follow he must be a christian right?
No, but it also meant he was neither a free thinker or an atheist.About authority and dogma, reformers like Luther rejected them too .. so was he an atheist?
No, because he choose another religion authority and dogma which is protestants. If going by your logic, then Luther is a freethinker since he do not believe in the authority and dogma of buddhism. Note, freethinker implies ALL religion authority and dogma, not any one u like. Luther believes in one (christainity), thus he is not an atheist nor a freethinker. -
It's interesting to see your very own definition. It certainly sounds good.Originally posted by stupidissmart:freethinker = One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.
atheist = One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
An atheist can be a freethinker since they too reject the authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. A freethinker can in fact denies the existence of gods and is a atheist. So wat is your point ?
My point is :
Agnostics use their ears to listen and their mind to think, despite their disbelief in any religions, while the atheists don't.
Atheists are too proud to open to explanation.
So be agnostic. Nobody is forcing you to be a Christian today. But listen with an open heart. -
It's interesting to see your very own definition. It certainly sounds good.
Don't give the credit to me, I got it from the dictionary. I assume the definition of dictionary.com should be the universally accepted version
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freethinker
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheistAgnostics use their ears to listen and their mind to think, despite their disbelief in any religions, while the atheists don't.
The point is, atheist do not believe in god doesn't means they do not change their stand or stubbornly fixed to their own views. Atheist is almost the same as a freethinker. There is nothing in the word tat says they will not change their stand regardless of anything nor states tat they r stubborn and unwilling to change their stand. The points tat u say they r stubborn, close minded etc r wrong and it is not my understanding of the word "atheist" and probably not the meaning from dictionary as well.
It is like saying singapore banned chewing gums means singaporean must hate chewing gums. Your understanding to a simple word atheist is wrong -
Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,”
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
Nice attempt of defending. -
Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,”
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
Nice attempt of defending. -
How about a philosopher who believes in god? Is he under any authority or dogma? Is philosophy itself an authority or dogma? Or do you mean philosophy is *not* an example of rational inquiry and critical thinking?Originally posted by stupidissmart:No, but it also meant he was neither a free thinker or an atheist.
Note, freethinker implies ALL religion authority and dogma, not any one u like. -
How about a philosopher who believes in god? Is he under any authority or dogma? Is philosophy itself an authority or dogma? Or do you mean philosophy is *not* an example of rational inquiry and critical thinking?
believing in a god is already a religion of its own. -
Here is my knockdown example.Originally posted by stupidissmart:believing in a god is already a religion of its own.
Romans 1:19-20 - For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse ..
These people believe in God without the authority and dogma.
-
The fact tat many people do it means it is "normal", and not a disordered act. U can say jaywalking is against the law yet even police jaywalk themselves. It has become such tat it is normal for people to jaywalk when there is no traffic lights nearby
“Normal”? Why do you say it with the “”? Change it to:
The fact tat many people do it means it is normal, and not a disordered act.
I dare you.
ItÂ’s common? So what? The statutes still say it is wrong. People can still get fined for it.Wrong. Withdrawal and other form of birth control has NOTHING to do with masturbation. Masturbation DOES not involve another partner and just themselves. Saying masturbation is the same as withdrawal is the same as taking drug is the same as taking chewing gums. Was Onan interested in pleasing himself only ? He seems to be punshed just because he do not want his offspring to be his dead brother ones and thus disobeying god thus was punished.
You donÂ’t believe in the book. What use is it if I quote verses to you?
But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.
Playing video games are not morally incorrect unless you are addicted to them, or you play games with far too much violence and sex (Especially H-games. Some anime fans should know what I am talking about).
And wat harm does it done ? Can u say when u play video games, u r selfish and do it for your own pleasure and therefore a sin ? Why deprive yourself from pleasure when it does no harm ? Is animal natural ? Animals do masturbate themselves as well. If it is sinful, than god will never have build them as such so they can masturbate.
Animals too masturbate by forelimbs or by rubbing their penis against the trees or such objects.
And we are people, not animals. Animals do not reason. It is also natural for animals to kill each other. So does that justify humans killing each other? No way.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, "acts of a Human" are instinctual, not free, no better than an irrational animal. But we are masters of our actions! We have an intellect, and a deliberate will. So Human actions have to be known by the intellect (Know what you are doing), and they have to be willed deliberately (chosen freely)...This is what St. Thomas Aquinas says about the choice of irrational animals:
Since choice is the taking of one thing in preference to another it must of necessity be in respect of several things that can be chosen. Consequently in those things which are altogether determinate to one there is no place for choice. Now the difference between the sensitive appetite and the will is that, as stated above (1, 2, ad 3), the sensitive appetite is determinate to one particular thing, according to the order of nature; whereas the will, although determinate to one thing in general, viz. the good, according to the order of nature, is nevertheless indeterminate in respect of particular goods. Consequently choice belongs properly to the will, and not to the sensitive appetite which is all that irrational animals have. Wherefore irrational animals are not competent to choose!
So one can not justify masturbation on the basis of an irrational animal instinct! -
“Normal”? Why do you say it with the “”? Change it to:
When most people do a certain act, then it is normal to expect an individual to perform tis act. And when it comes to disordered, on wat grounds can u say tat it is disordered ? Animals do it, the "book" doesn't mentioned it. most people do it, experts recommend it, no laws banning it, why is it a disorder act ?
The fact tat many people do it means it is normal, and not a disordered act.
I dare you.
ItÂ’s common? So what? The statutes still say it is wrong. People can still get fined for it.You donÂ’t believe in the book. What use is it if I quote verses to you?
but u do. I want u to quote it out so I can understand why do u think masturbation is a sinPlaying video games are not morally incorrect unless you are addicted to them, or you play games with far too much violence and sex (Especially H-games. Some anime fans should know what I am talking about).
Then masturbation is okie and not morally incorrect unless u r addicted to it. Wat is the difference between the two ? Both r "selfish" and give "pleasure" to oneselfAnd we are people, not animals. Animals do not reason. It is also natural for animals to kill each other. So does that justify humans killing each other? No way.
God create animals and he enables them to masturbate. If it is such a sin, then he certainly would have designed it in such a way tat they will not perform such an act isn't it ? Animals kill each other, but then again god have asked men to fight wars against each other as well. So it is not against the will of god either.According to St. Thomas Aquinas, "acts of a Human" are instinctual, not free, no better than an irrational animal. But we are masters of our actions! We have an intellect, and a deliberate will. So Human actions have to be known by the intellect (Know what you are doing), and they have to be willed deliberately (chosen freely)...This is what St. Thomas Aquinas says about the choice of irrational animals:
In short, they do not eat the fruit of wisdom and they r very much the same form as wat god want them to be, much like wat he expect adam used to be before eating the fruit of wisdom. They r perfect in the eyes of the lord. Tat is why I say animals r "natural". They have weak intellectual, do not have motives, they literally do not sin. However they r designed to be able to masturbate. God in one way or another made them as such and therefore we can see he has little problem with tis. If u talk about science and human have intellectual etc, then men invent religion to prohibit action tat meant nothing and cause no harm, such as masturbation. They thought they r smarter than "god" himself and impose rules which is never mentioned. -
When most people do a certain act, then it is normal to expect an individual to perform tis act. And when it comes to disordered, on wat grounds can u say tat it is disordered ? Animals do it, the "book" doesn't mentioned it. most people do it, experts recommend it, no laws banning it, why is it a disorder act ?
DonÂ’t run away! The fact remains that jaywalking is still wrong and you can still be punished for it! As to why masturbation is so disordered, you may find your answers below.but u do. I want u to quote it out so I can understand why do u think masturbation is a sin
Genesis 38:6-10
6 And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.
ItÂ’s obvious to that "what he did" is referring to "he spilled the semen on the ground." The "and" beginning in verse 10 connects the two together. It is wrong because Onan has used his sexual faculty wrongly.Then masturbation is okie and not morally incorrect unless u r addicted to it. Wat is the difference between the two ? Both r "selfish" and give "pleasure" to oneself
How can you compare computer games with sex? You donÂ’t use computer games to procreate do you? Their purpose is totally different. Playing computer games is all right because it does not involve the sexual faculty. Masturbation is wrong because the use of sexual faculty is only restricted to a husband and his wife. Anything outside is wrong! Yes, sex is for pleasure, to promote love, to distress, and most importantly to procreate. Only validly married couples may gain the gift of sex. Sex is not your right, it is a gift.God create animals and he enables them to masturbate. If it is such a sin, then he certainly would have designed it in such a way tat they will not perform such an act isn't it ? Animals kill each other, but then again god have asked men to fight wars against each other as well. So it is not against the will of god either.
Sexual intercourse is obviously designed towards procreation. Onan explicitly went against God's plan for sex and marriage by spilling his seed on the ground. Christopher West says, love is free, total, faithful and fruitful. When all these things are present it correctly images God and we love according to God's design. However, when someone masturbates, it goes against the way God that loves. Love is a total gift of self. In masturbation there is no gift of self, only selfishness. It is not an act of gift to another person and demands no faithfulness or commitment to another person. It cannot be fruitful because it is wasted. There has to be the openness to fruitfulness and life for the love to image God.
In birth control, there is no total love because one is holding something of him/herself back from the other person. It cannot be fruitful either. It intentionally sterilises the act. And because of this, it cannot image the love of God. It is wrong to hold back what God wants!
So you are saying that animals kill each other, and God has asked men to fight wars against each other and therefore, it is ok for us to kill each other.
No! This logic is completely incorrect! When it comes to morality, there is really no comparison between animals and humans. Nothing an animal does can be considered "right" or "wrong." since only our actions can be categorised. Comparing the morality of animal actions to the morality of human actions is comparing apples with oranges!
Wars? Those were wars in self-defense, and they can be tolerated.In short, they do not eat the fruit of wisdom and they r very much the same form as wat god want them to be, much like wat he expect adam used to be before eating the fruit of wisdom. They r perfect in the eyes of the lord. Tat is why I say animals r "natural". They have weak intellectual, do not have motives, they literally do not sin. However they r designed to be able to masturbate. God in one way or another made them as such and therefore we can see he has little problem with tis. If u talk about science and human have intellectual etc, then men invent religion to prohibit action tat meant nothing and cause no harm, such as masturbation. They thought they r smarter than "god" himself and impose rules which is never mentioned.
No, animals can't sin! They don't have free will or the ability to reason. They can masturbate all day long if they want. However, we do have these abilities, and we know that God has created a higher purpose for our sexual faculties. As such, we should not defy this purpose through masturbation. Whether animals do it or not is irrelevant.
Since you are not convinced by Divine Law, I will show you some sense with Natural Law. Things are disordered when they goes against the second definition of ‘natural’. There are two senses of the word "natural". The first is "that which occurs in nature". The more narrow definition is "that which is as it should be." When we say that certain behaviour is "only natural" we usually mean the second. Cancer is natural under the first condition, but not the second. All disease is natural under the first condition but not the second. Would you say that since malaria is natural, we shouldn't try to prevent it? Human beings are in some ways above nature because we have choice, we can, to a certain extent, go against nature. Is it natural for objects to go up? No, but we still fly planes and fire rockets. Coca Cola is not natural but mercury is (under the first definition). But drinking Coke is natural and drinking mercury is not (under the second definition). It is important not to mix up the two definitions! -
DonÂ’t run away! The fact remains that jaywalking is still wrong and you can still be punished for it! As to why masturbation is so disordered, you may find your answers below.
However jaywalking is a crime where even when policemen saw it, they will not catch them unless they r specifically asked to do it. Why is tat so ? Furthermore, how can u conclude it is a disorder act ? U still haven't answer tis question
Animals do it, the "book" doesn't mentioned it. most people do it, experts recommend it, no laws banning it, bible agree with it, why is it a disorder act ?
If it is not a disordered act, then your comparison with jaywalking is wrong.Genesis 38:6-10
Isn't it already said many time tat it is on disobedience to god ? I told u my opinion many times and u just refuse to read them nor answer to it. The only thing u do is just keep cuttign and paste the same old thing. There r many people who do it, why only kill onan for the same sin ? Furthermore, from the earlier discussion,
6 And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.
ItÂ’s obvious to that "what he did" is referring to "he spilled the semen on the ground." The "and" beginning in verse 10 connects the two together. It is wrong because Onan has used his sexual faculty wrongly.
Leviticus 15: 'When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening
If u read, then u will find out tat people who have sex, including with your wife, u r unclean as well. If u have your period, u r unclean as well. In fact, if u touch a woman having her period or sit on the seat she sat like MRT seat or bus seat, then u r unclean as well. If u say masturbation is a sin then all these acts r sins as well. SO is having sex with your wife a sin ? Is a woman having period a sin ? IS touching a woman who has period unknowingly a sin ? If they r sin, then I can say tat god is an unreasonable bigot who design woman to have period but blame them for it. If they aren't sin, why do u consider only masturbation a sin ? And they never say it is a sin, they just say it is unclean. They can erase these uncleaniness easily while u can not erase sin. Can u erase sin by killing a cow or something ?How can you compare computer games with sex? You donÂ’t use computer games to procreate do you? Their purpose is totally different. Playing computer games is all right because it does not involve the sexual faculty. Masturbation is wrong because the use of sexual faculty is only restricted to a husband and his wife. Anything outside is wrong! Yes, sex is for pleasure, to promote love, to distress, and most importantly to procreate. Only validly married couples may gain the gift of sex. Sex is not your right, it is a gift.
U got to see the earlier statement u made. U claim tat masturbation is wrong because it is selfish and can only give u pleasure. Then I ask u why is it wrong ? Playing games is also selfish and ly give u pleasure too isn't it ? And why do u restrict masturbation to be between men and wife ? R u god ? How can u make tat statement as though u r the one giving us sex ? Why make it into something so holy when it wasn't meant to be ? Sex is a gift, then why don't u use it ? DOes god give u a gift and if u don't use it, then aren't u disrespectful to him ? -
Sexual intercourse is obviously designed towards procreation. Onan explicitly went against God's plan for sex and marriage by spilling his seed on the ground. Christopher West says, love is free, total, faithful and fruitful. When all these things are present it correctly images God and we love according to God's design. However, when someone masturbates, it goes against the way God that loves. Love is a total gift of self. In masturbation there is no gift of self, only selfishness. It is not an act of gift to another person and demands no faithfulness or commitment to another person. It cannot be fruitful because it is wasted. There has to be the openness to fruitfulness and life for the love to image God.
Onan is disobeying god, tat is why he was killed. Can't u see there the build a story on how he was going to marry his sister in law, how god want him to make love with her and then he obey only to "spill it off on the ground" later ? It is not about masturbation ! HE was not even masturbating !! Is here anything in the scripture tat says mastrubation is a sin ? NOTHING ! DO they say masturbation makes u wste away god gift ? NO ! DO they say tat it is selfish to masturbate ? NEVER ! DO they say tat when u have sex then suddenly u pooped god image into your mind ? AREN"T U INSULTING GOD SINCE THE THING TAT POPPED INTO THEIR MIND R SEXUAL IMAGES ?? U r just saying soemthign which U THINK. There is nothign tat shows u r right ! I have found evidence tat shows bible do not label masturbation as a sin. R u going to ignore the bible ?No! This logic is completely incorrect! When it comes to morality, there is really no comparison between animals and humans. Nothing an animal does can be considered "right" or "wrong." since only our actions can be categorised. Comparing the morality of animal actions to the morality of human actions is comparing apples with oranges!
U stil haven't answer why does god create animals such tat they can masturbate ? Does he mind if they do tat ? No ! God create the animals dircet and they do not go about eating the fruit of wisdom. They r unchanged and tis is the behavior tat god want them to be ! He want them to masturbate as they r designed to be so ! Or r u gong to say it is a design flaw ?Wars? Those were wars in self-defense, and they can be tolerated
Tat is why I say tat christian actually make people go for wars which they think it right. So the crusaders r right according to the bible since it is "self-defense". Killing all the men after the war is right too since tat is wat happened in the bible. Makign the women slaves and taking away their property is coorect too since tat is been done then. So r we different from animals ? Yup, we r worse than themNo, animals can't sin! They don't have free will or the ability to reason. They can masturbate all day long if they want. However, we do have these abilities, and we know that God has created a higher purpose for our sexual faculties. As such, we should not defy this purpose through masturbation. Whether animals do it or not is irrelevant.
Do god want us to have free will initially ? If he want, then adam will nto be blamed for eating the fruit of wisdom. Those without free can masturbate all day long if they want. Then doesn't tat already show it is natural for men to masturbate ? Is it just because we have free will then we go against nature and stop masturbating !Since you are not convinced by Divine Law, I will show you some sense with Natural Law. Things are disordered when they goes against the second definition of ‘natural’. There are two senses of the word "natural". The first is "that which occurs in nature". The more narrow definition is "that which is as it should be." When we say that certain behaviour is "only natural" we usually mean the second. Cancer is natural under the first condition, but not the second. All disease is natural under the first condition but not the second. Would you say that since malaria is natural, we shouldn't try to prevent it? Human beings are in some ways above nature because we have choice, we can, to a certain extent, go against nature. Is it natural for objects to go up? No, but we still fly planes and fire rockets. Coca Cola is not natural but mercury is (under the first definition). But drinking Coke is natural and drinking mercury is not (under the second definition). It is important not to mix up the two definitions!
The animals is used to illustrate the first definition isn't it ? And does the second definition meant anything to masturbation ? It is still the same isn't it ? I repeat tis line
Animals do it, the "book" doesn't mentioned it. most people do it, experts recommend it, no laws banning it, bible agree with it, why is it a disorder act ? Why do u say it is not natural ? According to wat ? Mother Natural supports it, statistic support it, science support it and religion support masturbation to be natural. Why says it is not ? -
Sexual intercourse is obviously designed towards procreation. Onan explicitly went against God's plan for sex and marriage by spilling his seed on the ground. Christopher West says, love is free, total, faithful and fruitful. When all these things are present it correctly images God and we love according to God's design. However, when someone masturbates, it goes against the way God that loves. Love is a total gift of self. In masturbation there is no gift of self, only selfishness. It is not an act of gift to another person and demands no faithfulness or commitment to another person. It cannot be fruitful because it is wasted. There has to be the openness to fruitfulness and life for the love to image God.
Onan is disobeying god, tat is why he was killed. Can't u see there the build a story on how he was going to marry his sister in law, how god want him to make love with her and then he obey only to "spill it off on the ground" later ? It is not about masturbation ! HE was not even masturbating !! Is here anything in the scripture tat says mastrubation is a sin ? NOTHING ! DO they say masturbation makes u wste away god gift ? NO ! DO they say tat it is selfish to masturbate ? NEVER ! DO they say tat when u have sex then suddenly u pooped god image into your mind ? AREN"T U INSULTING GOD SINCE THE THING TAT POPPED INTO THEIR MIND R SEXUAL IMAGES ?? U r just saying soemthign which U THINK. There is nothign tat shows u r right ! I have found evidence tat shows bible do not label masturbation as a sin. R u going to ignore the bible ?No! This logic is completely incorrect! When it comes to morality, there is really no comparison between animals and humans. Nothing an animal does can be considered "right" or "wrong." since only our actions can be categorised. Comparing the morality of animal actions to the morality of human actions is comparing apples with oranges!
U stil haven't answer why does god create animals such tat they can masturbate ? Does he mind if they do tat ? No ! God create the animals dircet and they do not go about eating the fruit of wisdom. They r unchanged and tis is the behavior tat god want them to be ! He want them to masturbate as they r designed to be so ! Or r u gong to say it is a design flaw ?Wars? Those were wars in self-defense, and they can be tolerated
Tat is why I say tat christian actually make people go for wars which they think it right. So the crusaders r right according to the bible since it is "self-defense". Killing all the men after the war is right too since tat is wat happened in the bible. Makign the women slaves and taking away their property is coorect too since tat is been done then. So r we different from animals ? Yup, we r worse than themNo, animals can't sin! They don't have free will or the ability to reason. They can masturbate all day long if they want. However, we do have these abilities, and we know that God has created a higher purpose for our sexual faculties. As such, we should not defy this purpose through masturbation. Whether animals do it or not is irrelevant.
Do god want us to have free will initially ? If he want, then adam will nto be blamed for eating the fruit of wisdom. Those without free can masturbate all day long if they want. Then doesn't tat already show it is natural for men to masturbate ? Is it just because we have free will then we go against nature and stop masturbating !Since you are not convinced by Divine Law, I will show you some sense with Natural Law. Things are disordered when they goes against the second definition of ‘natural’. There are two senses of the word "natural". The first is "that which occurs in nature". The more narrow definition is "that which is as it should be." When we say that certain behaviour is "only natural" we usually mean the second. Cancer is natural under the first condition, but not the second. All disease is natural under the first condition but not the second. Would you say that since malaria is natural, we shouldn't try to prevent it? Human beings are in some ways above nature because we have choice, we can, to a certain extent, go against nature. Is it natural for objects to go up? No, but we still fly planes and fire rockets. Coca Cola is not natural but mercury is (under the first definition). But drinking Coke is natural and drinking mercury is not (under the second definition). It is important not to mix up the two definitions!
The animals is used to illustrate the first definition isn't it ? And does the second definition meant anything to masturbation ? It is still the same isn't it ? I repeat tis line
Animals do it, the "book" doesn't mentioned it. most people do it, experts recommend it, no laws banning it, bible agree with it, why is it a disorder act ? Why do u say it is not natural ? According to wat ? Mother Natural supports it, statistic support it, science support it, the law support and religion support masturbation to be natural. Why says it is not ? -
I apologise for my absence. Have been away from forum for quite awhile.
SIS, I think by now all should know you are for masturbation. I've got nothing against what you do. You can masturbate for all you want. But as for most of us, we choose not to.
Can I direct this question to Devil1976? Since you started this thread, would you like to provide some direction to it? What was your original intention/query for this thread? -
But as for most of us, we choose not to.
just a simple question
why not ? because some human tell u not to ? -
Our choices are based on personal experiences and are unique. I can't answer for all. Thank you.Originally posted by stupidissmart:just a simple question
why not ? because some human tell u not to ? -
if it is your own personal experience, then how come u r answering for most of the people here ?
-
Why should I wank just because someone says it is good? I don't want leh, what you want to do?
-
Why should I wank just because someone says it is good? I don't want leh, what you want to do?
why should u stop people from wanking just because some old fogeys tat started the crusader and inquisition says so.