mrpopdrinker
New Member
We dont have a theocracy. There are some things that I could say on this. However out of respect I will not as I have no reason to nor have I been asked.
CCGR
Member
you play with fire you can get burned. that's my philosophy. the Bible is against sex outside of marriage, that includes pre-marital fooling around. The safest sex is marriage. You have a partner if pregnancy occurs and sex should be mutual. and it it's not, you don't cut your partner's thingie off.
mrpopdrinker
New Member
Yes but the reason the Bible is against it is because when you fool around either when or before married that violates a covenent, which if I remember correctly although I could be wrong but I dont think so,it is proven by science.[b said:
1-I was being somewhat sarcastic with the crack about the "theocracy." IMNSHO, we are a secular christian nation. I do see the christian part increasing, but I have no desire to argue that point here. If anyone wants to argue it, go for it in another thread.
2-I have no idea what Med's brother did. He said (and I quote) that they "got caught acting 'innapropriately.'" It takes all of you perverts to just assume that they were fornicating.
(For the record, I have no idea what they were doing. I do *not* assume that they were having sex.)
3-Even if they were having sex, I would like everyone here to come out and say directly if they really feel that it is right to claim what she is claiming.
Seriously. You feel that destroying a person just for having sex outside marriage is justifiable.
AND remember...WE are under the new covenant.
So don't try to pull all that OT junk ([bleep] it's nice to say that one to you guys for a change, LOL).
Final thought. The founder of your religion (you know, the one that you replace with Paul) said (granted, in Aramaic, so I am using a loose translation), "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
So who among you shall cast the first stone?
2-I have no idea what Med's brother did. He said (and I quote) that they "got caught acting 'innapropriately.'" It takes all of you perverts to just assume that they were fornicating.
(For the record, I have no idea what they were doing. I do *not* assume that they were having sex.)
3-Even if they were having sex, I would like everyone here to come out and say directly if they really feel that it is right to claim what she is claiming.
Seriously. You feel that destroying a person just for having sex outside marriage is justifiable.
AND remember...WE are under the new covenant.
So don't try to pull all that OT junk ([bleep] it's nice to say that one to you guys for a change, LOL).
Final thought. The founder of your religion (you know, the one that you replace with Paul) said (granted, in Aramaic, so I am using a loose translation), "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
So who among you shall cast the first stone?
mrpopdrinker
New Member
I never wished to imply or offend anyone and I dont think I did if so then I apologize. However to defend everyone Medjai did make it obvious they where fornicating.[b said:
Now unless kissing is illeagle in the state of California they were doing somthing along the lines of fornication. I am not saying any of this to be judgemental however I think the statment BigJ made was a bit uncalled for. Granted some people did make some uncalled for statments themselves.[b said:
Kidan
Moderator
Med-- I just got back from a trip, and read this post, I'm sorry to hear about what's happening to your family. I truly pray that God blesses you and your family, and I also pray that this will lead you to a relationship with Him.
lion--Now, whether or not Med's brother was fornicating or not is quite irrelevant. Does his actions have consequences, sure, but WE are not the ones to judge what those consequences are to be.
pop - an ideal marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God, with both the man and the woman virgins, and the covenant sealed in blood. There is a reason why we call it a Marriage Covenant, and it goes into the differences between a covenant and a contract, which would be a topic for a whole other thread.
lion--Now, whether or not Med's brother was fornicating or not is quite irrelevant. Does his actions have consequences, sure, but WE are not the ones to judge what those consequences are to be.
pop - an ideal marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God, with both the man and the woman virgins, and the covenant sealed in blood. There is a reason why we call it a Marriage Covenant, and it goes into the differences between a covenant and a contract, which would be a topic for a whole other thread.
Got caught acting inappropriately can mean many things.[b said:
Example: If I french kissed my wife during a church service, would that not be inappropriate?
To put it another way, perhaps they were at second base...or even third. That is inapproprite behavior.
Had they actually been caught fornicating...I doubt that the rape charges would have been dismissed.
Med never said who caught them, and he never said where they were caught.
Bottom line, however, is even if they were screwing, that is no reason for him to be punished alone. Heck, no reason for him to be punished at all. I'm telling you...the Muslims are right with making women were Hajibs...keep them from tempting us.
Finally, I apologize for the pervert crack. Some of you were being...not nice.
mrpopdrinker
New Member
By innapropriate behavior I figured he ment he was caught by the cops? Or doesent California have those kind of laws? (serious question) I could take this further but out of respect I wont.