Re: Sex is not a sin, so whats the problem.
lol


amusing troll is amusing

Re: Sex is not a sin, so whats the problem.
what troll.............not me... I'm a saved sinner.......
and u "M" are just a minor letter in the great alphabet..... at least I have a little more than Z.........the Omega? hahahahah.
Besides.......is sex a sin to you?

Re: Sex is not a sin, so whats the problem.
What kind of idiotic stupid question is that? ha? Sexual abuse that we have experienced in the cult is "the problem", you know. The problem is that the cult is still hiding the criminals and refusing to truly repent - that's the fucking problem. The problem is the people like you - trolling away where you shouldn't be, defending child abusers and pedo-alcoholics, like Berg - that's the problem!

Re: Sex is not a sin, so whats the problem.
I shouldn't laugh but I cant help it? Pedo- addicts. I suppose you would condemn a Guy having sex with a 14 year old virgin to bring His son into this world to SAVE IT?
Yep! You would send Him to hell thats for sure. But He did send a messenger to ask her if it was OK first... BUT
NO..send Him to jail an destroy Him you would say.
Hahahahah. I give up u win.........u and the system can have this fucked up fleshy world.

Re: Sex is not a sin, so whats the problem.

You know, you are real sick, man... What on earth are you raving about? What 14 y. olds are you talking about? Virgin Mary? You know, I consider your "beliefs" pretty dangerous, and guess what - most of the sane ppl do too! Your archaic ideas and tales from the ancient jewish bible are irrelevant to my life, so why don't you keep those to yourself? You obviously can't, feeling huge inferiority complex (like a lot of so called "christians") and feel compelled "to share" them with "the gentiles"... That's so sick!
So, you're advocating pedophilia? I thought so!) Hey, you've been with the "COG" in the 70's (correct me if I'm wrong) so I'm wondering that maybe you were one of those sick bastards who were raping kids and prostituting your wifes (how many did you have, anyway?) thinking this was oh so revolutionary, ha? Maybe you are one of those guilty ones, gone from bad to worse, still walking about freely, raving atrocities in the name of "god" and Berg? You better watch your back, because your "god" may play a bad joke on you one day... You say I "can have my system and fucked up fleshy world"? Thatx a lot, I don't want "the system"!))) Hey, you obviously believe that having sex with minors is a real "spiritual" experience, don't you? How "fucked up" is that, ha? (Ouch, you shouldn't be using those bad words, since you're a such a good christian and a great revolutionary prophet!)
And yes, I would send anyone to prison, if I knew that his (or her) followers turned out to be like you or like your sick pedo-Berg, and I would personally make sure they never hurt anyone, like Berg and Maria did.
Man, you should seriously consider getting help from a psychiatrist...

Re: Sex is not a sin, so whats the problem.
The main problem with this argument is it's like saying "punching is not a sin, therefore what's wrong with beating an innocent man to death?" I'm no bible expert but I think it does distinguish which kinds of sex are acceptable and which are not. Some examples of no-nos would be male homosexual acts, non-human sexual acts, and probably infidelity. Unfortunately, the Old Testament at least almost seems tolerant of rape where the offender only has to pay a dowry to the father and apparently not even apologize to the victim. I can't help but wonder if something got lost in translation from the Hebrew?

Is this some kind of reference to Mary's impregnation? I don't know how much this matters, but I don't believe it specifies that God had sex with her to achieve this. I always figured he just teleported the appropriate genes into a fertile egg. Sex is a pretty inefficient way of achieving a pregnancy when you're an omnipotent omniscient being, isn't it?

That'd actually mean "child alcoholic", it's not good to drop the suffix of a technical term. People who've read Berg's writings and the allegations against him can come to their own conclusions. I think attacks like that make his critics seem like bullies which could draw sympathy from his followers rather than the scrutiny I believe you wish to inspire in them. I think sticking to neutral technical terminology is the best way to do that.

I didn't get the impression he was advocating this, I think it's best to present people's arguments in their own words to avoid the potential for mistakes in paraphrasing.

I don't see the point in conveying such hypotheses, it is better to take the higher road and not sink into name-calling or ad hominem. Not only would this "feed the trolls" were he one as you initially postulated, but it gives an air of presumptuousness which damages trust in your conclusions.

Psychiatry's a boon many can make use of, it almost seems to be used as a pejorative in this instance, am I misinterpreting?