I'm attracted to women.

I believe its genetic, in the d.n.a.
But the difference betweens mens butts and womens and in some cases 'breasts' is sometimes a little too close for my comfort.

Originally posted by JS357
The context that matters is the context of the times. Most likely the man who would be disrespected by lustful gazing at, or sex with, an unmarried female would be her father, under the rules of those times. Actual sex would also pretty much ruin her marriage prospects (at least to a higher class male) and drive her into prostitution (which was frowned upon but not forbidden.)

You did the same thing there. You put 'gazing' and 'sex' in the same boat. Even back then, what was the harm in gazing if dad or the husband wasn't around?

How would the poor dad ever marry her off if guys aren't allowed to even gaze at her?

Originally posted by Trev33
Every religion has their stories of people/prophets doing great things... just admit that not all of them are right and you might be wrong.

I'm not trying to change your mid, that is impossible but think about how many people there is in the world (about 8 BILLION) and how many different beliefs there is but not everyone can be right.

I know what you ...[text shortened]... least admit that what you believe might be wrong. That's all I ask from everyone on the planet.

So all you could ask of everyone on the planet is to weaken their faith?

"I'm not asking you to renounce your faith, just weaken it a little bit." That's what Satan said. Yeah, fat chance, ye worker of iniquity.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I believe its genetic, in the d.n.a.
But the difference betweens mens butts and womens and in some cases 'breasts' is sometimes a little too close for my comfort.

Ummmmm, what?

The Spirituality Forum is now the steamiest one at RED HOT Pawn. Hubba hubba.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Ummmmm, what?

Ha, ha. That does sound weird. I was thinking more about a Dolly Parton shaped women. I don't know what kind of men and women he is looking at.

YouTube

Originally posted by Suzianne
Ummmmm, what?

There is a theory that women developed breasts in an evolutionary response to Man beginning to walk upright. Men are conditioned to be
aroused by two globes (buttocks when on all fours) so when Man began
walking upright the same arousal response was kicked off by fleshy breasts
hence women developed breasts.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You did the same thing there. You put 'gazing' and 'sex' in the same boat. Even back then, what was the harm in gazing if dad or the husband wasn't around?

How would the poor dad ever marry her off if guys aren't allowed to even gaze at her?

I am not trying to be an apologist for ancient Palestinian standards. So I will stop.

Edit: besides, I want to see where the buttocks/boobies discussion will go, in terms of Spirituality.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Ummmmm, what?

I'm just sayin I reckon it's more genetic to be attracted to the opposite sex than choice...

I haven't given it any great thought, though

Originally posted by Suzianne
So all you could ask of everyone on the planet is to weaken their faith?

"I'm not asking you to renounce your faith, just weaken it a little bit." That's what Satan said. Yeah, fat chance, ye worker of iniquity.

Where have I tried to weaken anyone's faith?

Lets take a step back from religion for one second. Questioning what you are told and believe and being open to change is never a bad thing. When you were a kid you believed in Santa, as you got older you started to think 'this sounds a little bit silly, doesn't it?' Then you found out that he isn't real.

Now, no one will find out if their faith is wrong until after they die but I think if everyone was more open to the possibility that they could be wrong the world would be a much more tolerant and therefore better place.

Everyone is free to believe what they wish, that I don't really care about but when people starting fighting over their beliefs it gets way out of hand.

When you have lived in a country that is in war because of religion you'll know what I mean.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
There is a theory that women developed breasts in an evolutionary response to Man beginning to walk upright. Men are conditioned to be
aroused by two globes (buttocks when on all fours) so when Man began
walking upright the same arousal response was kicked off by fleshy breasts
hence women developed breasts.

Not a bad theory, actually.

Originally posted by Trev33
Where have I tried to weaken anyone's faith?

Lets take a step back from religion for one second. Questioning what you are told and believe and being open to change is never a bad thing. When you were a kid you believed in Santa, as you got older you started to think 'this sounds a little bit silly, doesn't it?' Then you found out that he isn't real.

No ...[text shortened]...

When you have lived in a country that is in war because of religion you'll know what I mean.

When I live in a country torn by religious war, I might put the cart before the horse and blame religion instead of blaming a bunch of evil men, but then that's what they want, isn't it? Way to 'cave in'. Are you human, or just another 'sheep'?

"Where have I tried to weaken anyone's faith?" Asking a person to consider that their faith may be wrong isn't asking them to weaken their faith? Right. I suppose you'd be way happier if people would simply abandon their faith rather than merely weakening it, but you have to take what you can get, no?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You did the same thing there. You put 'gazing' and 'sex' in the same boat. Even back then, what was the harm in gazing if dad or the husband wasn't around?

How would the poor dad ever marry her off if guys aren't allowed to even gaze at her?

The father would be the one to accept, or not, a man's attraction to the daughter.

I'm not saying what should have been the case, I'm saying what I think is the sociological basis for the evolution of this rule into a Biblical commandment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Whether you are aroused or otherwise is irrelevant because you can certainly choose to act or not to act on your impulse. May I suggest you try to meet a real women rather than fantasise about imaginary ones or one where the liklihood of you ever acting upon your impulse is greater than 1x10^50

I'm married, so I won't need to be meeting any new women. And I like how you try to downgrade a base, instinctual feeling, as merely an "impulse". You know, like getting icecream when you should be on a diet.

As to my being aroused being "irrelevant", what about when Paul says that a man should get married, rather than "burn with passion?" If that man is gay, what should he then do? Because obviously, even the lifelong bachelor Paul saw the need to quench physical desire, an important thing that Christianity hinders gays from doing.

Originally posted by JS357
The father would be the one to accept, or not, a man's attraction to the daughter.

I'm not saying what should have been the case, I'm saying what I think is the sociological basis for the evolution of this rule into a Biblical commandment.

Yes, I gathered you weren't endorsing the commandment. I tend to agree that some of the Bible commandments are merely man-made products of the culture of the time. I wouldn't even pay them much heed if there weren't so many people who insist we must follow all of them still, even the archaic ones.

Edit: in response to the first sentence, the man can't become attracted to the woman if he's not allowed to gaze a bit.