(06-21-2013, 12:57 PM)1llusion Wrote: From the Pastafarian point of view, it is completely fine. Pastafarian heaven even features a stripper factory and beer volcano!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

(06-21-2013, 09:49 PM)Linuxephus™ Wrote:

(06-21-2013, 12:57 PM)1llusion Wrote: From the Pastafarian point of view, it is completely fine. Pastafarian heaven even features a stripper factory and beer volcano!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Fap.
Fap.
Fap.
Fap.
Fap.
Fap.
Fap...:lol:

(06-22-2013, 06:17 AM)LiveFaster Wrote: I'll rip the veils that sanctify your shades.

(06-16-2013, 04:33 AM)Linuxephus™ Wrote:

(06-16-2013, 02:06 AM)LiveFaster Wrote: The problem is that lust is, to put it simply, natural. It’s actually an evolutionary phenomenon. "Mating" leads to children. Those individuals with more impulse to mate are more likely to have children, and therefore more likely to pass their genes on. Those with less impulse to mate are less likely to procreate and pass their genes on. After hundreds of thousands of years and more, the impulse to mate is naturally very strong. After all, the impulse to mate ensures that genes are passed on, and among those genes is the impulse to mate. This makes sense. . Unfortunately, people have been taught to interpret this natural impulse as a sin.

To mate for passing one's genes on of course is only natural.
No disagreement there.
However, mating with anything and everything with zero self control is what lust is in 1 of it's many forms, which is not so much natural as it is merely a choice to be "out of control".
A significant difference that hopefully brings said difference into a better understanding.:thumbs:

(06-22-2013, 06:52 AM)LiveFaster Wrote: I agreed one must have self control, but i put to you that almost nobody in the planet would have ever gotten married if they have not look at their present life partners lusty.