Why does god say "No Sex" during prayer?

[Anomalocaris]

You're kidding, right, Drich? This coming from someone who spells "sacrifice" "sacerfice"? "Possibly" "possiably"?

That would be an example of 'No Spellie d englishie, Not no Reedie d Englishie.

That would be an example of an "idiot" who is "almost illiterate".

The fact that you are an "idiot" you can blame on "a/s/k" and the "bible"

The fact that you are "almost illiterate" you can only blame your own "sorry ass".

[rexbeccarox]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, it's very possible that Drich's grasp of the English language is decent enough, but he simply types so fast and neglects to spell-check afterwards. This, of course, is all speculation on my part.

However.

I have noticed that when theists, such as Drich or GC, present their arguments with spelling errors, the grammar and spelling Nazis tend to step out of the shadows, distracting from the real issues with their claims. On the other hand, I know that there have been many occasions where I'll either misspell something or omit a word here or there, but none of my fellow atheists see fit to correct me in that moment.

Just sayin'.

Do you know what a fainting goat is?

It is a goat, that shepards mix in with the heard so that when a predator attacks, they go after this goat who falls over with fear, rather than the more valuable heard.

If remove these errors, then 'those people' would be forced to addressed actual content. Which in all honestly most can't. So then it escaliates anger builds and people get their feeling hurt and are quickly provked to wrath. Which makes a mess of this forum.

My spelling is what it is because I did not learn how to properly read till I was into my twenties, and I am teaching my self how to write. I was diagnosed with all sorts of learning disabilities, and even was kicked out of my first school. (it was like that scene from Forrest Gump where there was an IQ Line graph, and it showed "normal, gifted, and Slow.") So I was sent of to really bad public schools, and forgotten about.

Anyway, after learning to read comic books (they had pictures/I think in Pictures) I learned to use words to visualize what was being said and finally grasp basic reading comprehension. Fast forward almost 20 years an I am very successful at what I do, and it was like I never skipped a beat. the only problem is I spell phonetically, and if someone writes something in such a way as I can not build a picture of what is being discussed, then I will not understand what is being written about.

That said most of these 'spelling Nazi's" know my story, and if they want to make fun of a tard, so as not to have to have an on point discussion, and be make to look like a tard, by the tard who can not even spell 'possiably' or get confused about which 'their' to use.. then that is there business.

However Every now and then one of these guys will set me off, and I will intentionally paint them into a corner theologicaly, or philosophically and then get my wife or secretary to proof my work, to ensight them to a point of wrath. (I'll take away the fainting goat, and let them stand toe to toe with me on what they believe.) Not once has that resulted in anything good. The conversation degrades very quickly into name calling, and cursing, I generally make an enemy for life.

So, again. Just as I am. that is what you all get. I will go the extra mile to research, and formulate my own opinions, but the vast majority of what I write is from me, flaws and all. If you can't find fault in the theology, then there's always my personal short commings you all can go after. (There are many)

Don't try to be a martyr. You brought up the OP's reading comprehension; your spelling is fair game... especially since you consistently spell wrong words that make up the tenets of your religion. It makes you a hypocrite, which makes you and everything you say untrustworthy.

[Ryantology]

Which all arguments with you eventually default to 'proof.' No matter what is being discussed when you run out of steam, you default to 'no proof in God.' Then I point out if you want proof then you have to a/s/k for it, and the circle begins anew.

I could simply default to that at the start and win every fight with he first punch, but that's no fun. What happens is that you make assertions of God's existence, or which are only valid if he does exist, as if they are objectively true statements instead of (very generously speaking) hypotheses which are designed specifically to resist any attempt to test their factual content. So, naturally, I am forced to ask for objective evidence when faced with people making assertions which are indistinguishable from fiction. And what do I get when I ask for objective evidence that the creator of all things exists? I am told to seek subjective evidence from a book which I can't trust because there is no external proof verifying a single relevant claim it makes.

You accuse me of defaulting to a request for legitimate proof of your claim (as if that behavior is not the very basis of any intellectual exercise), while in the literal next breath defaulting to a book which is an example of precisely the opposite of the thing I asked for. Accepting anything in the bible as factual involves first accepting its incredible premesis entirely on faith, and when I am at the point where the foundation of what I think of as truth has no moorings to objective reality, I may as well give up any pretensions of truthseeking, because I am now willing to accept something as true either because I simply wish it was or because not accepting it would mean that I lack integrity if I didn't apply the same skepticism to the core premise (a glaring fault virtually every theist possesses: any argument in favor of one supernatural god works perfectly well favoring any supernatural god).

In short, the one criteria which is necessary to establish your claim as not being obvious horseshit is the one criteria you can never possibly satisfy. It's obvious why: whenever a natural system is finally examined objectively, there's no evidence of a god at work. Never. Not once. Without any trace of the magic theists insist must have been at work, a few realize that there is no magic and never was. The recalcitrant majority simply redefine the magic, taking special care to create an ambiguity that no scientifically valid examination can ever resolve. This is an effective gambit as long as people don't seriously question the validity of an intentionally unfalsifiable assertion. You've decided that not winning any argument is an acceptable cost to insure that you'll never lose one. It'll work nicely as a short-term strategy but is doomed to fail in the long run. Faith itself is important to religion only because advocating a truly objective and unbiased approach to any religion can only harm it as methods of empirical examination of reality grow more effective. Before we knew what made bad weather and plagues, when religion was dominant in all social, economic and political human affairs, threats and violence were more efficient. Faith exists as an option only because more than one option is allowed. You think a Muslim theocracy cares about faith? They'll give you faith at gunpoint if you're having trouble finding it yourself. They have no need for apologetics.

[Justtristo]

Actually I heard from Robert Price that 1 Corinthians 7:5 actually concerned sexless marriages which were common in the early church. Price argued this verse was likely a later insertion in order to have Paul condemn this practice. Earliest Christianity if you can call it that, was quite different to "Orthodox" Christianity which became dominant later on. The later Gnostics in a lot of ways were closer to the earliest Christianity than what became "Orthodoxy".

One of the beliefs which both earliest Christianity and the Gnostics shared in common, was the view that sex was a thing of the corrupted material "flesh" and celibacy was a thing of the pure "spirit".

[orogenicman]

I've always thought it pretty unfair that it is considered good form to shout, 'OhGodOhGodOhGod' during sex, but bad form to shout 'OhSexOhSexOhSex' during church services.

Boru

That's a classic Boru! Five stars.