KunleOshob:

I sense deepsight is about to take noetic to the cleaners again!

I laugh in hebrews

two hypocrites who never answer questions and ALWAYS run with their tails behind their legs.

@Deepsight
I doubt if noetic would be able to give an honest answer to your question.

what question? what honesty? . . . . .abeg go siddon

@ Depsight. . . . .u need to answer my questions . . . . .else this is meaningless.

noetic16:

ok.

That readily paints a picture of where your heart lies. . . . .and where did u deduce this principle from?

The dude personally feels guilty. . . . why? cos he has a conscience that says his inactions are wrong.

why fight imaginary enemies? . . . , who has condemned him?

1. Your conclusion that his sexual life is healthy is influenced by your own debauched life style. There are millions of cultures outside of religion that FORBIDS intimacy outside marriage.

2. how do u explain these cultures mentioned above? and what is anti-s.ex dogma?

3. If u are a xtian. . . . live like one. . . that means do not sin. . . . .lust or fornication. . . . .

The same lie u keep repeating endlessly. .  .what is the culture of nature? what is nature's identity?

noetic16:

Your assertions are very misplaced and wrong.

1. The dude considers his fornication a PROBLEM and seeks solution to it. . . that simply infers that he feels guilty. The source of his guilt cannot be traced to religion but to beliefs which are influenced by the conscience.

2. The conscience remains an independent part of the human existence. That explains why billions of people from millions of different cultures have the same abominations. It is not a coincidence, it is a testament to the universality of the human conscience.

why are religious notions with regards to fornication MISCONCEPTIONS? how do they constitute misconceptions?
The scope of morality transcends the scope of religion. . . , , your fraudulent notion called "nature" is also a misguided religious dogma.

ok.

If u ignore my questions. . . .dont expect me to jump at urs.

I ignore nothing and will address all things in the fullness of time.

Speak not evil of the anointed Prophet of the Oneness of Infinity.

You are yet to address what i earlier stated -

1. Conscience cannot militate against natural instincts given for survival
2. Conscience thus cannot militate against eating food, for example
3. Conscience cannot militate against response to stimuli – as this is natural
4. Se.xu.al intercourse is a function of response to stimuli as well as a natural instinct which ensures the propagation of the species
5. Conscience can therefore not militate against seksual intercourse

The foregoing is iron-cast and I challenge you to dispute it.

Secondly I hold that the principle of duality inherent in existence is pivotal to se.xu.ality, and renders it inescapable – an absolutely ineluctable and involuntary aspect of our nature which we cannot repudiate.

As you address these, i am working on your answers and will post them shortly.

It is one of the toughest thing to stop . . . . But it is possible, ask for his grace and He will help you.

Deep Sight:

Noetic –

I am not sure you are reading me carefully.

I stated that  - “it is incongruous to imagine conscience acting in direct opposition to natural urges springing forth from the core of the human nature and indeed the metaphysical principle of duality which is the spiritual anchor for the necessity of sexual relations in existence.” –

Thus implying –

yes I saw that.

1. Conscience cannot militate against natural instincts given for survival

This is both false and ridiculous. In the context of the thread. . . .how is S.EX necessary for survival? and is S.EX on its own a taboo?
Se.x is not an ingridient necessary for human survival. . .se.x is also not a taboo but sex.ual relations that violate the conscience code, which includes fornication et all.

2. Conscience thus cannot militate against eating food, for example

is food the same as sex?  

3. Conscience cannot militate against response to stimuli – as this is natural

are u confused?   u mentioned earlier that humans as higher animals have the ability to control their urges. . .how then doesse.x constitute a stimuli?

4. Se.xu.al intercourse is a function of response to stimuli as well as a natural instinct which ensures the propagation of the species

what species are we talking about?. . .humans or animals?

5. Conscience can therefore not militate against seksual intercourse

Stop celebrating ignorance.
Start by defining conscience . . . . .u have listed imaginary xterics of conscience without neccesarily defining or understanding the term. when I said that the human conscience was independent of the human system. . . . .I was attempting to construct a definition for u.
So start by defining the conscience.

The foregoing is iron-cast and I challenge you to dispute it.

Sorry, but that was very LAME.

Secondly I hold that the principle of duality inherent in existence is pivotal to se.xu.ality, and renders it inescapable – an absolutely ineluctable and involuntary aspect of our nature which we cannot repudiate.

Don’t you think the reverse is the case - namely conscience which is influenced by beliefs?

Have you not noticed that there is the same universal tendency to criminalize all things which are intensely pleasurable?

Anyway, lets not be distracted – define fornication and then we proceed.

This is meaningless in light of the debate.

1. The conscience is influenced by beliefs. The islamic beliefs makes a muslim not feel guilty or remorse for indulging in a terrorist act.

2. Beliefs are influenced by the Conscience: The fact that millions of people in different but anti-deluvian societies find themselves upholding the same taboos in enough reason to sustain this position.

Your questions -

You asked -

"why are religious notions with regards to fornication MISCONCEPTIONS? how do they constitute misconceptions?"

I respond -

They are misconceptions because they run counter to the specific natural program of the human body as clearly ordained by the creator.

You asked -


"That explains why billions of people from millions of different cultures have the same abominations. It is not a coincidence, it is a testament to the universality of the human conscience.

How do you explain the cultures above?"

I respond -

Have you not noticed that there is the same universal tendency to criminalize all things which are intensely pleasurable?

This is a universal psycological knee-jerk reaction to intense pleasure - It is a mechanism by which man resiles from that which he knows he could easily become a slave to, or that which given its intensity must per-force be controlled. This is only natural again. There are many psycological dimensions to it, and I will try to provide you with some scholastic papers in this respect.


You asked -

"what is the culture of nature? what is nature's identity?"

I respond -

The culture of nature is that which is in consonance with the natural instincts which the creator has placed within us - and the human bodily make-up affirms the fact that nature intended se.x for humans to be a fairly routine and regular action.

Any more questions? Satisfied? Now deal with my posers.

noetic16:


unfortunately, I am not a hebrew or greek linguist and would not trust google for translation and opinion  

Just as i thought you would evade the question! given previous interactions with you on NL i am sure you are aware that there are other relibale sources apart from google such as Bible concordances were you can get a good translation from the the original hebrew/ greek texts. I am quite certain you are aware of this and you have verified the true definition [which doesn't favour your argument] hence the hubris you wrote up there in trying to avoid the honest answer to the question. The list of se.xual sins in leviticus 18 you mentioned is also quite instructive as to what the bible actually considers as fornication.  

Deep Sight:

Your questions -

You asked -

"why are religious notions with regards to fornication MISCONCEPTIONS? how do they constitute misconceptions?"

I respond -

They are misconceptions because the run counter to the specific natural program of the human body as clearly ordained by the creator.

You asked -

The creator programmed humans to use se.x to REPRODUCE and He also placed limitations of on the use of se.x. . .implying that only married persons should indulge in such.

The human body has se.xual components designed for use only during marriage. the human hands are not designed to pick up a knife to hijack a plane for terorrist reasons. This implies that the human body was designed for survival,  . . .the abuse of these human components has NO trace to the will and purpose of the creator.

Submisively. . . . .your assertions above are both wrong and ridiculous.

"That explains why billions of people from millions of different cultures have the same abominations. It is not a coincidence, it is a testament to the universality of the human conscience.

How do you explain the cultures above?"

I respond -

Have you not noticed that there is the same universal tendency to criminalize all things which are intensely pleasurable?

This is a universal psycological knee-jerk reaction to intense pleasure - It is a mechanism by which man resiles from that which he knows he could easily become a slave to, or that which given its intensity must per-force be controlled. This is only natural again. There are many psycological dimensions to it, and I will try to provide you with some scholastic papers in this respect.

your response is both evasive and irrelevant.

There are humans of ancient cultures scattered all over the planet, that share the same beliefs. They are not religious and have no religion. . .but they despise lies, stealing, non-marital intimacy, cheating and other vices. . . . .these ancient cultures also have no means of communicating, hence we would have said that they were probably coordinated by a universal control mechanism.

These cultures held the same taboos. . . . .this singular fact attests to the universality of the human conscience. it shows that regardless of human location, beliefs or ideology, the conscience remains universally intact.

You asked -

"what is the culture of nature? what is nature's identity?"

I respond -

The culture of nature is that which is in consonance with the natural instincts which the creator has placed within us - and the human bodily make-up affirms the fact that nature intended se.x for humans to be a fairly routine and regular action.

Any more questions? Satisfied? Now deal with my posers.

Absolute rubbish.

How do u place the same laws the creator gave (to guide sexual lives) in the context of your submission above?

i ve something 4 u that can make u stop, do u need it?

^^^ Lol

KunleOshob:

Just as i thought you would evade the question! given previous interactions with you on NL i am sure you are aware that there are other relibale sources apart from google such as Bible concordances were you can get a good translation from the the original hebrew/ greek texts. I am quite certain you are aware of this and you have verified the true definition [which doesn't favour your argument] hence the hubris you wrote up there in trying to avoid the honest answer to the question. The list of se.xual sins in leviticus 18 you mentioned is also quite instructive as to what the bible actually considers as fornication.  

1. did u not see this in the same post . . ,  . . .
I understand the greek word is porneia and it appears 26 times in the NT. however, the greek definition of the word encompasses my above definition of fornication.

So what are u driving at?. The greek word used was porneia and its definition in greek are cognisant with my primordial definition. .  . .so what question did I evade?

2. I have constructed NO argument so far. . . . I have only answered questions. [s]Are u programmed to disagree with me or what?[/s]  

3. [s]please dont tell me u are an ardent fornicator?[/s]. . . . .or rather do u subscribe to non-marital se.x? . .  . .why do u think that this act is not sinful?

So DeepSight ran away , , . .thats bad.

noetic16:

1. did u not see this in the same post . . , . . .
I understand the greek word is porneia and it appears 26 times in the NT. however, the greek definition of the word encompasses my above definition of fornication.

So what are u driving at?. The greek word used was porneia and its definition in greek are cognisant with my primordial definition. .  . .so what question did I evade?

2. I have constructed NO argument so far. . . . I have only answered questions. Are u programmed to disagree with me or what?  

3. please dont tell me u are an ardent fornicator?. . . . .or rather do u subscribe to non-marital se.x? . .  . .why do u think that this act is not sinful?

The greek word porneia used is definitely not consistent with with your above definition as your definition as been strecthed to include some things not in the greek definition. I have not stated my opinion on this subject matter, i just want you show us clear biblical basis for your stand as i am quite aware that quite a lot of issues in christianity are not properly understood yet we make doctrines out of it even when they are inconsistent with certain facts in the bible. i.e would you say Abraham was a fornicator? Was moses an adulterer? Was Jacob an Adulterer? Why were there laws instructing how to treat wives equally in the old testamen if a man had more than one wife. Why did God allow his prophet Jacob to have two wives and three concubines. As christians we love love explaining complicated issues away that goes against our perceived doctrines, i would like to have some answers to this posers before i ask some more questions?

PS: I am not an advocate for polygamy, adultery or fornication but i suspect that church teachings on this topic are not bibically sound nor incontrovertible hence i rasie the posers, maybe our brethen here on this forum would be able to throw more light to the issue.

@Noetic
I am still expecting a proper bible concordance definition of fornication and not an english dictionary one which you posted earleir.

noetic16:

So DeepSight ran away , , . .thats bad.

Nah, am reviewing a bulky and complex agreement @ work now. . .

I will revert.

I am not happy with your reversions. You are not being honest.

KunleOshob:

The greek word porneia used is definitely not consistent with with your above definition as your definition as been strecthed to include some things not in the greek definition. I have not stated my opinion on this subject matter, i just want you show us clear biblical basis for your stand as i am quite aware that quite a lot of issues in christianity are not properly understood yet we make doctrines out of it even when they are inconsistent with certain facts in the bible. i.e would you say Abraham was a fornicator? Was moses an adulterer? Was Jacob an Adulterer? Why were there laws instructing how to treat wives equally in the old testamen if a man had more than one wife. Why did God allow his prophet Jacob to have two wives and three concubines. As christians we love love explaining complicated issues away that goes against our perceived doctrines, i would like to have some answers to this posers before i ask some more questions?

1. what are the things not in the greek definition of the word that I have included? unless u want to make a case for homosexuality
And before u proceed why not state ur position/opinion on the matter . . . . .that would be healthy and one would understand ur point of view.

2. The church is NOT wrong on its interpretation of fornication. fornication is simply as the church puts it.

3. Abraham and Jacob did NOT live under the laws of moses or the era of the NT. They are not adulterers. Abraham is a father of faith simply because he obeyed every instruction God gave him . . . . .If God had told him not to fornicate, would he have? Dont forget that when Abraham had intercourse with Haggai . . . .Abraham thought he was doing so in fulfilment of God's prophecy to him that he would have a son.

4. please do ask more questions but before u do so . . . . . .state ur opinion.

PS: I am not an advocate for polygamy, adultery or fornication but i suspect that church teachings on this topic are not bibically sound nor incontrovertible hence i rasie the posers, maybe our brethen here on this forum would be able to throw more light to the issue.

The teachings on this subject are sound in every aspect . . . .the question should be, do we necessarily understand these teachings?

@Noetic
I am still expecting a proper bible concordance definition of fornication and not an english dictionary one which you posted earleir.

Thats my biblically deduced definition of fornication . . . . .I have nothing to add.

You could as well state a different definition when presenting ur oipnion.

Deep Sight:

Nah, am reviewing a bulky and complex agreement @ work now. . .

I will revert.

I am not happy with your reversions. You are not being honest.

please dont cast an aspersion on my person. That I disagree with u, does not make me dishonest.
And why would I state an opinion dishonestly. . .when such an opinion is intended to inform others?

Deep sight is back, wow what ever happened to final words?
Chei nairaland is like crack! more like crystal meth!

noetic16:

In the context of the thread. . . .how is S.EX necessary for survival?
Se.x is not an ingridient necessary for human survival

Now Noetic this is what I meant by my statement that you are not being honest.

Can you honestly assert as you do that “Se.x is not an ingredient necessary for human survival.”

This statement is capitally FALSE in all its ramifications.

Indeed i hardly need to elucidate. The human race is sustained, and has been sustained till date by reproduction based on sexual activities.

I hope you do not need me to explain the relationship between group survival and individual instincts? When there are processes that ensure the survival of a group or species, then the instincts that drive such processes are hardwired into the individuals that make up the group.

Thus the sexual process which guarantees the survival of the species is hardwired as an instinct into each individual. That is the elementary connection, Noetic.

is food the same as intimacy? 

I cannot see the difference, in context of this discussion.

The table should look simply something like this –

Food                            Se.x                               Scratching my body

^                                   ^                                           ^
Hunger                       Sexual Desire                     An itch

^                                    ^                                          ^
Survival                          Survival                          Survival

All of these are different elements necessary for our survival and the body is programmed to develop an instinctive need for the element required though a stimulus such as hunger, for example.


It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that the human body would have a particular and regular instinct which nature intended to be suppresed for years. That is a Fascist, Oppresive and bizzare proposition in the extreme.

I challenge you to show me just one instinct that you may say ANY creature has, which may be said to be intended to be supprssed at length.

Especially when the condition for release is obtaining a piece of paper called a marriage certificate.

Tell me, do either nature or spirituality recognise such sheets of paper? ? ?

are u confused?  u mentioned earlier that humans as higher animals have the ability to control their urges. . .how then doesse.x constitute a stimuli?

I am mildly surprised if you do not know what a stimulus is.

Maybe you never heard the term s.ex.ua.l stimulation?

What arouses sexual interest, Noetic? Something stimulates it, no?

Now have a look at the way you have delivered a terrible and shocking contradiction here -

The conscience is influenced by beliefs. The islamic beliefs makes a muslim not feel guilty or remorse for indulging in a terrorist act.

If you accept that conscience is influenced by beliefs, then you have made good ground for my earlier assertion that the OP is affected by his religious beliefs. Thus his feelings of guilt arise from those mistaken beliefs and nothing else.

The creator programmed humans to use se.x to REPRODUCE and He also placed limitations of on the use of se.x. . .implying that only married persons should indulge in such.

If this is the case kindly explain to me why the onset of puberty (sexual maturity) occurs at a time that boys and girls are MANIFESTLY unprepared for an adult matter such as marriage?

Let's not play the ostrich: the truth is plain to see - if se.xuality was intended to be tied to marriage, this would not be the case.

My view is that it is the laws of God that determines whether or not sexual relationship is a sin or indeed a blessing. Humankind have tried to solve this problem by invoking the institution of marriage. But who is married and who is unmarried? It is God that decides who is married or not married, or to put it more correctly, it is the laws of God that decides who is married or not. How often do we class some people as unmarried and yet they are married in the site of God because they fufilled the fundamental conditions for genuine marriage; that is, genuine love. And yet we also class some people as married because they performed one religious or cultural ceremony and yet there is no love between them. Where there is no genuine and selfless love, then true marriage does not exist even if the couples were married by the pope. Thus for spiritually free human beings, sexual intercourse  is simply an after effect of genuine love and spiritual harmony which  occationally sets the physical body aglow and subsequent physical consumation. For normal human beings that are living in the sense of the laws of God, their is no need or requirement for a life of absitinence or celibacy. Abstinence will only become necessary in human beings who in former incarnations or in this incarnation became a slave to the sexual instinct, and thus they are abnormal. The threads of fate are now notted such that abstinence is required to restore them to normality. There is no basis for absistence for a normal human being who uses the sexual instinct as God ordained. But just like a radical surgery is required to remove a cancerous tumor in cancer patients but not in healthy individuals, so abstinence may be necessary to restore normality to human beings who are slave to the sexual instinct.  Most people would if they are honest to themselves see whether they are a slave to the sexual instinct or a master to the sexual instinct. You can be recognised on earth as married and yet all sexual intercorse with your wife is immoral because it emanates from lust and not love. It is not uncommon to see some  married couples who are always at each others throat and yet they engage in intimacy. Spiritually speaking there is no difference between a man who visits a prostitute and a man who does not love his wife as God ordained and yet have sex with her. Thus we have to be careful of judging by appearances only. In this connection, two couples may not be married according to earthly or religious laws and yet there marriage is concecrated by God and hence sexual relationship between them is not only moral but a blessing. Forceful abstinence is dangerous for it accumulates and dispates an invincible energy required for the health of the physical body as well as disturbs the chain of radiations connecting the physical body to the bodies of the soul.

Deep Sight:

Now Noetic this is what I meant by my statement that you are not being honest.

Can you honestly assert as you do that “Se.x is not an ingredient necessary for human survival.”

This statement is capitally FALSE in all its ramifications.

Indeed i hardly need to elucidate. The human race is sustained, and has been sustained till date by reproduction based on sexual activities.

I hope you do not need me to explain the relationship between group survival and individual instincts? When there are processes that ensure the survival of a group or species, then the instincts that drive such processes are hardwired into the individuals that make up the group.

Thus the sexual process which guarantees the survival of the species is hardwired as an instinct into each individual. That is the elementary connection, Noetic.

1. SE.X is not in any ramification a need for human survival. there are eunuchs who have willingly castrated themselves and lost every means and need for sexual pleasure. These persons do survive and have NO need for se.xual pleasure . . . . .check www.eunuchinfo.com for further details.

2. The existence of self-castrated persons annuls every innuendo u are attempting to establish as a fact. NO SIR, SE.X IS NOT AN INGREDIENT NECESSARY FOR HUMAN SURVIVAL.

3. If however u argue that intimacy is necessary for reproduction as ordained by the creator. . . . then u must be willing to conform to the restrictions and boundaries he set for se.x which includes fornication.

I cannot see the difference, in context of this discussion.

The table should look simply something like this –

Food                            Se.x                               Scratching my body

^                                   ^                                           ^
Hunger                       Sexual Desire                     An itch

^                                    ^                                          ^
Survival                          Survival                          Survival

All of these are different elements necessary for our survival and the body is programmed to develop an instinctive need for the element required though a stimulus such as hunger, for example.

The table above is a FRAUD.

1. If a man does not eat . . he dies . . . .so food is neccesary for human survival.

2. If a man does not have se.x or gets castrated. . ,  .he lives and does well too. . . . se.x is therefore NOT necessary for human survival.

3. If a man without hands (an amputee) gets an itchy feeling . . . what does he do. . .Nothing. . . .yet he does not die. scratching is definitely NOT essential to human survival.

It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that the human body would have a particular and regular instinct which nature intended to be suppresed for years. That is a Fascist, Oppresive and bizzare proposition in the extreme.

1. how then do u explain castration? . . .your attempt to defend your promiscuous life is ridiculous. . . . .it cannot be hidden under the thread of nature. Jesus and Apostle Paul did NOT condemn eunuchs. . . . implying that the creator has also given humans the ability to supress and control such desire.

2. You are now speaking from both sides of your mouth . . . . .first u acknowledge that man as higher animal has the ability to control his instincts unlike lower animals . . .  .but now u submit that a regular instinct is beyond the control of man . . . .sounds like u are confused IMO 

I challenge you to show me just one instinct that you may say ANY creature has, which may be said to be intended to be supprssed at length.

There are several.

A. human instincts to revenge in any form and challenge any form of minor oppression is suppressed as soon as u give your life to Christ
Especially when the condition for release is obtaining a piece of paper called a marriage certificate.

B. The instinct to LIE in the face of superior adversity,  . . .

C. The instinct to cry in the face of adversity . . . .and many more.

why have u outgrown your childish instincts. . . . . .why dont u still play with sand and toys?
your submissions are rather LAME.

Tell me, do either nature or spirituality recognise such sheets of paper? ? ?

I am disappointed. 

Does marriage necessarily have to be established by paper . . . .how do u then explain ancient cultures that had marriages when there was no paper in existence?

I am mildly surprised if you do not know what a stimulus is.

Maybe you never heard the term s.ex.ua.l stimulation?

What arouses sexual interest, Noetic? Something stimulates it, no?

I believe that your argument is irrelevant in lieu of those who are castrated and as such have no sexual feelings.

Now have a look at the way you have delivered a terrible and shocking contradiction here -
If you accept that conscience is influenced by beliefs, then you have made good ground for my earlier assertion that the OP is affected by his religious beliefs. Thus his feelings of guilt arise from those mistaken beliefs and nothing else.

Have u established that his beliefs are mistaken? how are they mistaken?

fact of the matter:

you dont have to be religious to abstain from casual sex.

Some people simply dont feel like it, or arent wired that way.

End of story @ deepsight. This issue has been done to death here.

@Poster, point of correction, YOU DON'T LOVE GOD. If you love me, you will keep my commandments(John 14:15) saith the Lord. Sex b4 marriage is a sin, especially when you go on and on;sin of commission. You need to rededicate your life to Christ, accept him totally. You also need to go for deliverance to get delivered of the spirit of fornication. Fornication is a spirit that is in you;it doesn't leave until it destroys the person's life.Only through violent prayer, deliverance, fasting, studying the word of God, etc can the spirit let go of you.  Good luck to you

There are so many bold and established children of the devil on this forum. Well, there remains NO agreement/concord between a believer and an infidel. Reason all you will, if you miss Heaven, you're done for. Servants of the devil and the body, you need Jesus. Ignore the message at your peril. Be angry at the message at your damnation. The good news is that you can be free from your load of sins and pride. Repent and believe the gospel. Jesus can save you from your madness, he can save you from yourself. He says COME

[size=13pt]Yeah~~ I am one of them , and so are you. . . . . so, let us praise Satan. [/size]

Image123:

There are so many bold and established children of the devil on this forum.

What is the point of this post? It appears that the poster is satisfied that fornication is a mortal sin. If so, is this about bragging rights?
Control yourself and stop trying to show off.

did kunleOshob run away with his tails?

@ Deepsight, I have one question for you and please do be honest.

At what age would you want your daughter to engage sexually? and would it be in several relationships with a woman, a man or with both.

@poster, If u love God as u said, u will overcome the flesh which leads u to fornication! for the power is in you, ur body is the temple of the holyghost, you know what 2 do pls don't decieve urself, for the scar of sin lingers. A word is enough.

noetic16:

did kunleOshob run away with his tails?

I didn't run any where and i don't live on NL in case you haven't realized. Whilst i was not trying to pick an argument with you i was just trying to point you to some loop holes in your submissions. I would rather note discuss this topic on a public forum less i give some peeps the wrong impression or lea some baby christians astray. However i still maintain that you wee not very honest in your submissions and i am dead certain that you know you weren't.

What is the point of this post? It appears that the poster is satisfied that fornication is a mortal sin. If so, is this about bragging rights?
Control yourself and stop trying to show off.

gbam.

If you use the words "Christian" and "I'm fornicating" in the same sentence, then which advice are you looking for again?

people should get you a chastity belt or what?