RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture?

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

BDsbabygirl -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/12/2007 5:23:32 AM)
As for answers to other questions you ask me -- quote: How can a book be split? What do you mean by "split"? Do you mean NT and OT or are you referring to the fact that the Bible has 40 authors (I think it's 40), like the first five books were written by Moses, Proverbs was written by Solomon, Luke was written by Luke and so on? In either case, if that should nulify the validity of a book, I need to stop typing and get to my children's schools to tell their teachers I don't want them taught history because history books are sectioned out and were written by various people, not to mention the fact that they were written hundreds of years after the alleged facts. quote: Have you even considered why some bibles have more books contained within them than others? Of course! Waaaaaaaay back when I became saved over a decade ago and was trying to decide which Bible to use for myself. I did my research (thru various books, my Pastor, and prayer) and chose the one I felt would give me an unbiased and unfilled-with-errors look at the Word of God. I actually still refer to 3 different versions (the NKJV, the NIV, and the Today's English Version) but I don't use a Catholic Bible since I'm not Catholic, nor do I use the Torah since I am not Jewish...and so on... I believe I already answered your other questions, though not with my own words, could never have been so thorough and concise. But, the.dark, didn't you say that you're Christian and spiritual but not religious? I am curious as to what it is you do believe and on what you base it? I am not trying to be argumentative, but some of my favorite classes at YSU were my Religious Studies classes (one place I learned of how different Bibles were put together) and if filled me with a curiosity about other people and their faith. So please, enlighten me, what is your source? Also, what do you mean by 'Christian and spiritual but not religious'? I also dislike "religion" but consider myself Christian and spiritual.

BDsbabygirl -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/12/2007 5:34:45 AM)
I do apologize for the hijacking of this thread. I'll try to stay focused on the actual subject at hand now while also reading the.dark's answers.

thetammyjo -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/12/2007 5:57:53 AM)
You know, anyone can say that God inspires them. Some murderers and rapists do that. Some brutal dictators and political fascists do that. Heck some mentally insane believe do that. Then there are other folks who are great at caring for others, lovingly look after the less fortunate, and selfishly place others first who make no claims to even having a religious faith let along a particular faith. So when a religious group makes claims about its own religious text how much value do you really think that objectively offers? All religions will make these same claims so what exactly makes any one of them the truth? Only faith makes that judgment and faith is not objective. If you faith is what guides you why the need to find nature or nurture or text or experts to back what you believe? Should not your faith be enough for you? Why not simply be and pray inside your closet instead of flaunting your beliefs as the hypocrites do? (this is how I interpret Matthew 6:5-7 myself and always will) History and religious belief are not the same. The history of religions demonstrates that what we call the Bible today has undergone changes over the centuries and that different groups have used it in a variety of ways. Have faith in what you will but please do not confuse your faith with historical evidence or inquiry. quote: ORIGINAL: BDsbabygirl Again, sorry to hijack the thread, but... re: the Bible's genesis (no pun intended) quote: The term "canon" is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible...Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the Biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible...Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers, and accepted their writings as inspired of God...by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church...The first "canon" was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God convincing His followers of what He had already decided upon. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired... Taken from gotquestions.org, a nondenominational Christian website, but confirmed many times over as to how the Bible came about. I added the bold and italics as a way of answering/debating points brought up here...Next I will go over the apocrypha...

RCdc -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/12/2007 1:31:24 PM)
If the Dead Sea Scrolls support the bible then that must conclude that the bible then supports the Scrolls. When I said split, I spoke specifically about the psalms, some of which are excluded. I also ment that books were in the bible and then excluded and split away. The bible you hold in your hands today is not the bible of the 17th Cent, nor the 16th.... nor the 15th.... etc. Books within come and go. Why is that? Because they do not fit the teaching at the time. Not because of God, but because of Man. God is beautiful and consistant. Man is flawed and inconsistant. As for not having or studying a catholic bible. Yes you do. Its the very one you have right there. What is my source? God. Religion is man made. Religion is many. Spirituality is God given. I am a Christian because I am a follower of Christ. Not man. I believe that personal faith can be objective but that organised religion is not. I dont see how this discussion does divert from the thread. Lilith was not monogamous and if she was the first, that only supports the discussion of whether it is nature or nurture, that it is nature. Peace the.dark.

luckyslaveboync -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/12/2007 7:34:31 PM)
lucky agrees with the generalizations made by Mistress Hathor and others about women's greater propensity toward monogamy. However, the original question seemed to contrast monogamy with promiscuity. It seems to lucky that mature polyamory is another alternative, and one some Dommes such as lucky's owner prefer. lucky originally was a little skeptical of the stability of polyamory, but now sees it as quite natural.

fairfaxswitch -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/16/2007 9:12:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy quote: ORIGINAL: fairfaxswitch quote: ORIGINAL: LaMistressa What about the nature of women who do not wish to have children, or who are gay or bisexual? Your entire argument is based upon childbearing. We generally consider the opinions of a majority to determine what constitutes 'natural', dont we? look outside. Look at the biomass. Look within a species. Diversity is the rule. Huge sweeping diversity. Diversity may be the rule but the number of women who fall under the category of 1) gay 2) bisexual 3) do not wish to have children constitute a minority and ultimately in such a topic, where we are talking of women, we are more inclined to consider the opinion of the majority, especially when the majority would be atleast 85 percent (which would be straight women who want to have kids). We cant use the nature of the minority and extrapolate that as natural behaviour for the majority, can we?

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/16/2007 11:23:28 PM)
I guess it is all a mind set.. how much you value you and how you present yourself. monogomy is gold to a lot and nothing to others. i value monogomy cause it is a deep focus of two being one

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.21875