Should prostitution be legal?

[pattygreen 5]

"Patty, that whole line of thinking is invalid if you don’t believe in religion (and therefore sin). I think a person’s body is a tool and they should be able to use it if they can.

Our bodies are the temple of the Lord. His dwelling place. It's not a tool to be used for sinful acts. Sex is for the married couple only (1 man and 1 woman)

Baseball players are blessed with athletic ability and are able to use their bodies to make millions.

playing a ball game is not sinful, so have fun and use your body away doing it.

I have no problem with somebody using their own body to make a living, even if the only talent they have is their own sexuality.

God has given each person their own special talents. Some are better at certain things than others. He does want us to use the talents that he gave us, but not in the acts of sin.(like prostitution)

I do have a problem with the scum that force people into prostitution against their will though.

agreed.

If a person is able to use their natural talents, then I say more power to them – as long as they are making the decision themselves.

Just because a person makes a decision themselves about something, doesn't mean it's okay.

I do agree with BJean, that since it is a crime right now, the Johns and Pimps should be getting busted too – not just the prostitutes.

In CT it is illegal both ways.

If it were legal and if we were less prudish about sex in general, maybe some of the seediness would be taken out of the equation and it could be handled in a more civil manner.

Putting restrictions on the sexual act, like keeping it between married couples only, is not being 'prudish'. It's being wise. When you say "taking the seediness out of the equation", I tend to think of mankind trying to make sin more acceptable. Making what is wrong right. Isn't this what most people try to do with God's laws? What's wrong with righteousness?

....................................................

[KartMan 58]

While I would agree that there is nothing morally wrong with masturbation, I think given the alternative, that it is a pretty unsatisfying experience for the poor guy to go the rest of his life without sexual contact with another human being. Sexual urges are biological reactions, we are corporeal beings, satisfying those urges should be no more wrong than satisfying thirst or hunger as long is it is done between consenting adults. I am in no way advocating satisfying sexual urges with minors, animals, or unwilling partners – I am merely talking about consensual sex between adults.

It seems to me that if it was intended that we only have sex in a one man one woman (married) relationship the way that you insist that God had intended, he would not have made the urge to have sex so strong. I think it is just another example of science (in this case biology) dispelling the ludicrousness of the bible.

[KartMan 58]

Why is it fascinating to you that the bible has captivated so many people for so long? If the words in the bible were not inspired by God, I don't believe they could do anything. The book would have been forgotten or lost many centuries ago. But the fact that the bible is still in circulation and is the #1 best seller of books anywhere has to show for something. God will not allow his words to us to be hidden or lost or removed from our presence, because if he did, then he could not hold us accountable for not seeking to know him. The bible in its entirety is the only way for us to get to know our creator. They are his only words to us. He would never allow them to be destroyed.

Why do you feel that the scripture is not very believable?

I find it fascinating that people are comforted by what they read and believe. I find it interesting that there can be so many inconsistencies contained within the text (I’m not going to go thru them all again here, we’ve beaten that topic into the ground) and people are able to dance around them or fall back on the line of “well, you just have to have faith”. I think it’s great that people have faith. Life is hard and we often don’t have answers to things, if faith gets you thru the day then I say more power to you. For me, it doesn’t – but I get by with faith in myself and those around me. I also have faith in the scientific method, prove to me why something is and I will likely believe you. Tell me that something is because God says so or that I just have to take it on faith, then I will likely argue the point to my grave.

I think the Bible is still in circulation and is popular because people choose to believe in it. Just because it is popular and that it has been around for a long time in no way proves the validity of its writings. It is comfort food for the minds of those that choose to believe in it, I don’t have any problem at with that at all. But just because a group believes it to be true still does not make it true, at least it doesn’t for me anyway. At one time most of the world “believed” the Earth was the center of the universe – all of that faith didn’t make that theory a reality did it?

Don’t misinterpret my interest here. I’m not implying that I am on the verge of being saved by showing interest. I am fascinated by the “concept” of religion and the impact on the human psyche, not so much on the teachings of the religions themselves. Oh and BTW, I’m just as fascinated by the impact of Islam, Buddhism, and other religions as I am by the impact of Christianity.

[Kat817 19]

The Bible is a collection of writings, and the earliest ones were set down nearly 3500 years ago.

Many devout Jews and Christians believe that the full text of the Bible was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. Though the Bible's earliest origin may always be a matter of faith, it remains a fact that after the Bible was recorded, many different versions existed. It wasn't until the first century B.C.E. (Before the Common Era, aka B.C.) that Jews settled on the canon of their scripture, and it was around 400 C.E. (Common Era, aka A.D.) that Christians agreed on all the books of their New Testament. Today, countless translations and interpretations of the Bible exist in English and many other languages. But what is written in them has not changed at all throughout the years. This has been proven by the world's oldest known copy of the complete bible (in bound book form), dating from 300-350 AD, called the Codex Sinaiticus. It is a translation from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into an all Greek bible. It is believed that it may be one of 50 original bibles that the Emperor Constantine commissioned after converting the Eastern Roman Empire to Christianity. It was discovered at the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai, Egypt, which was built on what is traditionally believed to be the site of Moses' burning bush.

Although most of the Old Testament text has been destroyed, the New Testament text has survived and is in general agreement with the text used to establish the KJV of the bible.

Even if you felt that God is not real, his plan for mankind as written in the bible surely would bring a peacefulness to the world. Btw, even if you don't believe it, the end times will bring that exact peacefulness to the world when Jesus returns one day.

I'd love to discuss that with anyone interested in end time events as told by scripture.(new thread of course)

Can you tell me where you got this information? I am not trying to dispute it, but to discuss it, I would just like to know if it comes from a reputable source.

The reason I ask, and up front let me say I do not remember exactly which nightline type program it was or how long ago it was on, I just remember them showing where translations of the bible have gone awry, and showing where statements would have been impossible for the times. I wish in hindsight, and not because of this thread, but for my own curiosity, I would have paid more attention at the time.

[KartMan 58]

Putting restrictions on the sexual act, like keeping it between married couples only, is not being 'prudish'. It's being wise. When you say "taking the seediness out of the equation", I tend to think of mankind trying to make sin more acceptable. Making what is wrong right. Isn't this what most people try to do with God's laws? What's wrong with righteousness?

Because it is all subject to ones own religious interpretation. You firmly believe what you believe and I absolutely respect that. I however believe something very different than you. We can’t both be right. Therefore, in the interest of a civil society, we should (and mostly do) make laws based on the consensus of what the people want and not on the teachings of one or another religion.

[BJean 16]

To say that the Bible has not changed throughout the ages - thousands of years - is rather an odd claim, I think. It is wishful thinking and based on "faith". Why else would we have the "King James VERSION"? You can read that particular translation and another version and come up with some interesting differences. Theologians would say that they are essentially the same and interpretet them to mean essentially the same thing. And that is interesting because these versions were written within the scope of modern times.

When you dig deep back into the times when the Bible was first written, it gets even more interesting.

What do you make of all the time that people were living on earth when there was no religion at all? You think God just decided that we were finally sinful enough that he had to make himself known to us? And in so doing, he then had Moses bring down the commandments who throw them down in a rage to wake us up to our transgressions?

Too many inconsistencies, too many things have to be simply taken on faith. We are not quite as irgnorant as people were in the early days. If it happened today, we'd sure be asking more questions and insisting on some serious explanations before we developed a strong, indisputable faith.

I always think about early Christianity in the context of my ancestors, the Indians. My people thought they knew for a fact that nature ruled the earth. That's why they prayed to the rain god and sun god and moon god. To them, there were events and situations that proved that they understood who and what ruled the earth. Those things gave them "faith". They shared what we now call "folk lore" and I wonder if some day in the very distant future, some of our religious beliefs today will be considered "folk lore" because we will have expanded our brains and our knowledge of the truth. Just like we did once we learned that the earth wasn't flat.

[KartMan 58]

Thanks BJean, I wanted to say that but it just seems like that argument falls on deaf ears with some around here :bored:

To suggest that the Bible has not changed since it was first written is just complete and utter nonsense. For a person to even suggest that, it calls into question everything else that they say.

[pattygreen 5]

Can you tell me where you got this information? I am not trying to dispute it, but to discuss it, I would just like to know if it comes from a reputable source.

The reason I ask, and up front let me say I do not remember exactly which nightline type program it was or how long ago it was on, I just remember them showing where translations of the bible have gone awry, and showing where statements would have been impossible for the times. I wish in hindsight, and not because of this thread, but for my own curiosity, I would have paid more attention at the time.

Codex Sinaiticus - History

[pattygreen 5]

To say that the Bible has not changed throughout the ages - thousands of years - is rather an odd claim, I think. It is wishful thinking and based on "faith". Why else would we have the "King James VERSION"?

Take these 2 sentences. "How are you?" and "How ya doing?" They both have the same meaning. Just a different version of saying it. "Thou shalt not steal." and "Do not take what doesn't belong to you." Means the same thing. The king James version is written in the language used at that time and the New International Version is written in the language used today. If you are concerned that the meaning of verses has changed over the years, you can purchase and read an original greek bible with the translation written in it. You will see that there are no contradictions.

You can read that particular translation and another version and come up with some interesting differences.

I disagree with that statement. There are no differences in the intent of what God has to say in any of the versions that I have ever read. (and I've read most of them)Maybe this is why the bible teaches that a person should "study to show thyself approved" or "seek and ye shall find" For if you don't get interested in God your Father and creator enough to search out his truths, you may never know them.

Theologians would say that they are essentially the same and interpretet them to mean essentially the same thing. And that is interesting because these versions were written within the scope of modern times.

When you dig deep back into the times when the Bible was first written, it gets even more interesting.

What do you make of all the time that people were living on earth when there was no religion at all?

When was that? I will give you that "religion" (a man made organized set of doctrines and rules to follow concerning a belief in God) were not always around, but "faith" (a belief that God exists)in God has been.

You think God just decided that we were finally sinful enough that he had to make himself known to us?

God made himself known to us right from the beginning with Adam and Eve. Before they sinned, God had walked with them in the Garden of Eden and communicated with them directly. After they sinned he removed his presence from them and began to use others (angels, prophets) to reveal what he had to say to mankind, for he can not dwell36+9 in the presence of sin.

And in so doing, he then had Moses bring down the commandments who throw them down in a rage to wake us up to our transgressions?

Moses did that of his own accord. He was angry, not God. God did give Moses the 10 commandments for us. I can see where he would get angry at the sinfulness of man, though. He had just spent quite some time in the presence of a Holy God who gave him these instructions for society and upon his return he finds them worshipping another god that they made up. It's frustrating. He knows for certain that there is a God, and he's trying to tell others this truth so that they will not be lost eternally, and they reject what he has to say. It's like talking to a stone wall. This is yet another lesson that God uses in the bible to teach Christians that he is in control and that there is nothing that we can say to others that will get them to 'see' the truth about Him. Some are just blind to it. Only God can enable someone to be saved. He uses christians to plant and Water 'seeds'(which is his words in the bible) and then to pray for them and HE makes them grow.

Too many inconsistencies, too many things have to be simply taken on faith. We are not quite as irgnorant as people were in the early days. If it happened today, we'd sure be asking more questions and insisting on some serious explanations before we developed a strong, indisputable faith.

I always think about early Christianity in the context of my ancestors, the Indians. My people thought they knew for a fact that nature ruled the earth. That's why they prayed to the rain god and sun god and moon god. To them, there were events and situations that proved that they understood who and what ruled the earth. Those things gave them "faith".

I believe that they knew, through nature, that there HAD to be a creator of all this, and since they had no bible to read and noone had come here to this land as of yet to tell them about Jesus, they had only their own faith to rest in that there was a God. When you say they worshipped the sun and the moon, they were probably worshipping the sun and moons creator. Even if they felt that the sun or the moon created all of this, they still had faith that this earth and all that was in it was created by a being greater than themselves and wanted to have a relationship with Him. When the christians came here with the bible and shared the truth of the gospel with the indians, they were now able to put a name on this God who created them. Most all who heard of Jesus in that day accepted Him as their Savior and were glad to know the good news. ("For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened") Romans 1:18-21.

They shared what we now call "folk lore" and I wonder if some day in the very distant future, some of our religious beliefs today will be considered "folk lore" because we will have expanded our brains and our knowledge of the truth. Just like we did once we learned that the earth wasn't flat.

I don't think so. If Columbus and the people of his time had just read the bible, they would have known that "God sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth..."(Isaiah 40:22)

...............................................................

[KartMan 58]

Codex Sinaiticus - History

I don’t see why you think this is significant to your argument Patty. They are actually making the point that BJEan and I have been saying all along – that is that the Bible has changed and that whole portions have been added and left out over the years.

Here are a few references from the site (their words, not mine):

- A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.

- By the middle of the fourth century there was wide but not complete agreement on which books should be considered authoritative for Christian communities.

- The Greek Septuagint in the Codex includes books not found in the Hebrew Bible and regarded in the Protestant tradition as apocryphal, such as 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach. Appended to the New Testament are the Epistle of Barnabas and 'The Shepherd' of Hermas.

[KartMan 58]

Moses did that of his own accord. He was angry, not God. God did give Moses the 10 commandments for us. I can see where he would get angry at the sinfulness of man, though. He had just spent quite some time in the presence of a Holy God who gave him these instructions for society and upon his return he finds them worshipping another god that they made up. It's frustrating. He knows for certain that there is a God, and he's trying to tell others this truth so that they will not be lost eternally, and they reject what he has to say. It's like talking to a stone wall. This is yet another lesson that God uses in the bible to teach Christians that he is in control and that there is nothing that we can say to others that will get them to 'see' the truth about Him. Some are just blind to it. Only God can enable someone to be saved. He uses christians to plant and Water 'seeds'(which is his words in the bible) and then to pray for them and HE makes them grow.

You don’t see the humor and duplicity of this. I guess not because you are a believer, for me I just irony. Moses was mad because they were worshiping another God, one that they just made up as opposed to the one that he made up. Don’t you see that to an unbeliever, the God of Moses is no more relevant than the golden calf they were worshiping.

[KartMan 58]

I don't think so. If Columbus and the people of his time had just read the bible, they would have known that "God sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth..."(Isaiah 40:22)

If Isaiah wanted to avoid confusion and be more accurate, he would have written “God sits enthroned above the sphere of the Earth”. Mathematically speaking, a circle is two-dimensional or flat whereas a sphere is 3 dimensional.

[KartMan 58]

I believe that they knew, through nature, that there HAD to be a creator of all this, and since they had no bible to read and noone had come here to this land as of yet to tell them about Jesus, they had only their own faith to rest in that there was a God. When you say they worshipped the sun and the moon, they were probably worshipping the sun and moons creator. Even if they felt that the sun or the moon created all of this, they still had faith that this earth and all that was in it was created by a being greater than themselves and wanted to have a relationship with Him. When the christians came here with the bible and shared the truth of the gospel with the indians, they were now able to put a name on this God who created them.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find this whole passage and the history behind it to be a tad elitist. Did the “true” religion that we brought the Indians make their lives any better? It doesn’t seem so. Most of them were killed off or evicted from their ancestral homes. I’m still trying to wrap my head around why on the one hand God blessed us (by us, I mean the Anglo European pilgrims and their descendants) with this wonderful country and in the same stroke cursed the Indians.

[pattygreen 5]

- The Greek Septuagint in the Codex includes books not found in the Hebrew Bible and regarded in the Protestant tradition as apocryphal, such as 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach. Appended to the New Testament are the Epistle of Barnabas and 'The Shepherd' of Hermas.

These books were put into the 'catholic' bible only. In the bibles that everyone else read they are not there. This would only bring question to the Catholic denomination as to why they 'added' these books to the holy scriptures.

Kat wanted to know where I got the info, and that's why I posted that link. I think you may need to reread the link, for even though it says that whole parts were left out, it wasn't because someone deliberately took parts out of it, but because they were not intact or found. They were ruined over time.

I own an original greek version of the bible that is translated into english. I can open any other version of scripture and read them side by side and their meaning is the same. There are never any contradictions.

Edited July 22, 2009 by pattygreen

[KartMan 58]

These books were put into the 'catholic' bible only. In the bibles that everyone else read they are not there. This would only bring question to the Catholic denomination as to why they 'added' these books to the holy scriptures.

Uh huh, and that just makes the argument even more compelling. You Christians can’t even agree amongst yourselves what is and isn’t supposed to be in the Bible:rolleyes: