• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Sex Shop Beside Church Under Fire For 'Clergy Discount' Sign

A

Anonymous

Guest
Sex shop beside church under fire for 'clergy discount' sign

A sex shop in Minnesota which is beside a church is being criticised for putting up a sign offering a "clergy discount".

The double-sided sign stands outside Pure Pleasure in Stewartville so people going to and from the neighbouring Midwest Baptist Church can see it.

To people driving towards the church, the sign reads: "And God said go out into the world and have great sex. God's gift to women. Amen and amen."

People leaving the church see: "No need to mail order. Gay videos in stock. Clergy discount. Have good sex. Hallelujah!"

The Rev Joseph Grimaldi, who heads the church said: "This sign shows me that he's not only thumbing his nose at the laws of the township, he's thumbing his nose at the laws of God. I just hope I'm not too close when the lightning strikes.''

Malcolm Prinzing, who owns the land where the sign was placed and the building that houses Pure Pleasure, wasn't available for comment.

Last week District Court Judge Debra Jacobson ordered the store to remove all sexual content for zoning reasons, however it's not clear if the owners have complied.
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_740036.html?menu=news.quirkies
Click to expand...

A good way of drumming up business! :)

Story filed: 15:00 Wednesday 15th January 2003

:rofl:
 
That's what I like, a sound bit of Xtian-baiting.
Things haven't been the same since they got rid of the lions.........
 
What prudes!! So if you're a good christian you can't have good sex (or a sense of humour).
 
Blueswidow said:
What prudes!! So if you're a good christian you can't have good sex
Click to expand...
Which suggests there's such a thing as "bad sex". :laughing:
 
Which suggests there's such a thing as "bad sex". :laughing:
Click to expand...

It does exist believe it or not!

I think there are probably a hell of a lot of fire brand preachers wives who can attest to this ;)
 
that's what i was thinking; those poor, undersexed, cloistered preacher's wives. they know not the pleasure of burning and screaming out in pure ecstacy.
 
For some reason this subject brings The Reverend Jim Baker to mind.

And wasn't there another televangelist that was busted for soliciting prostitutes?
 
This is the funniest thing I've heard all day :rofl: I don't think it says anywhere in the Bible that you can't have good sex, own a sex shop, or tease the clergy, though I admit I've never read it all the way through.
 
And wasn't there another televangelist that was busted for soliciting prostitutes?
Click to expand...

Jimmy Swaggert. he would go to the edge of New Orleans and pick up the prostitutes on the old main highway. i take pride in that highway when i drive down it -- the strip of road that made Swaggert a mortal. real seedy area...just scrapyards, old motels and trailer parks.
 
Slytherin said:
I don't think it says anywhere in the Bible that you can't have good sex...
Click to expand...

Quite right. A rabbi friend has a great story about another rabbi who lived in a very prudish town. That rabbi got the idea of hanging bells on the four-poster so that when he and the wife went at it the whole town could hear and rejoice, and -- hopefully -- lighten up.
 
in bible class, one teacher was talking about good relationships between a husband and wife. she mentioned that when she and her husband had sex, they could feel Jesus with them.

eew...

i'm sure JC the Riz has more important things to do then watch a Christian couple barely engage in coitus for less than 10 minutes.
 
so the bible lets you have three in a bed sessions! i should visit the christian union at my university....
 
synthwerk said:
I'm sure JC the Riz has more important things to do then watch a Christian couple barely engage in coitus for less than 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

Just curious, but why would you say "barely engage in coitus"?

Appearances can be deceiving. Some of the most Christian people you know, some of the most demure appearing people you know, and some of the most unappealing (to you) people you know- they just might be the highest sexed or kinkiest people you know. Behind closed doors and all that.

I beg to differ that Christians are that boring in bed, because we do reproduce, at a minimum, and some of us have loads of fun with the (un)dress rehersals. Plus even non Christian kinky people rarely advertise the fact, why should it be any different because they are Christians?
 
:eek!!!!: I've got nothing against Christianity per se, but I have to say the Christian Union students freak me out. Under every trendy-friendly, fluffy student girl in a big fluffy jumper and copious friendship bracelets and funky hair dye lurks the most frightening Bible-wielding fundamentalist on the planet. Of course, that's just my personal experience, I'm sure some are very nice... but I confidently predict you'll burn in hell if you try to bed a pair of them :D Just a warning, like
 
the christian union students sell toasties at the chaplancy at my uni to people coming out the student uni drunk. it is always manned by VERY attractive young ladies. sadly they'll only talk about jesus :(
 
because it's funny. it's funny to image, finally, they're married and they can finally have their first experiance with sex...first ever ever ever, and Jesus can watch...he can perch on the headboard, even. and they don't know what to do because they've been told to never engage in sexual activities before marriage. so the first time is the awkward stumbleround. i know exactly who i am talking about.

lighten up...you really need to stop taking my humour so seriously.

plus, i should know about Xtian kinks...
 
Toffeenose said:
it is always manned by VERY attractive young ladies. sadly they'll only talk about jesus :(
Click to expand...

And even if you do manage to charm the pants off one, they'll only end up inviting him into bed with you. :rolleyes: :)

The ones at our college I was vaguely friendly with always used to ask "So, how's your relationship with God today?" I always wanted to answer with a gasp "None of your damn business!" and storm off. What a bloody personal question!
 
You lighten up too, I wasn't taking it so seriously, I thought it was funny, actually, that you figure because we believe in Jesus we can't be good in bed.

I note that you focus on these two poor uninformed lovers as being clumsy as first timers...The logical supporting argument is that you or someone you know, on the other hand, was suave and expert first time out of the chute, no? Gimme a break! ALL virgins are hopeless as lovers, Christian or not. Practice makes perfect and a variety of partners doesn't make you a better lover, it only makes you a lover with a greater variety of partners.

And why is it more weird to feel your sexual congress is sanctified than it is to glory in illicit (read: outside of marriage) sex?
 
Slytherin said:
And even if you do manage to charm the pants off one, they'll only end up inviting him into bed with you. :rolleyes: :)
Click to expand...
makes me wish He was the daughter of god.
was going make more comments but i don't want to be barred from the board for being filthy:D
 
hope i haven't cuased any offence fallen angel. just stereotypes are a good basis of joke. sorry.
 
Toffeenose said:
hope i haven't cuased any offence fallen angel. just stereotypes are a good basis of joke. sorry.
Click to expand...

No. I rarely get upset at all, and only one time ever at something that someone posted on the boards. I like a good arguement though. But I sometimes pursue a discussion if I feel like someone is supporting their point with faulty logic. Or a narrow view.

But the one and only time I got genuinely upset it was personal. If it's not personal there's zero reason to get upset.

I must post with a strange tone though. A lot of times people apologize to me and it's never been necessary. I must sound snooty or ticked off in my posts. SO: Sorry right back atcha, because I don't MEAN to sound snooty or ticked off.
 
did i say married sex was bad? no. lately my head has been filled with daydreams of wedded, domestic bliss. i get a bigger emotional rush from looking at baby beds and thinking of engagement rings than i do from sexual intimacy. i'm not some misogynistic sex-a-holic who is oblivious to marriage.

so all virgins are bad lovers? are you sure you're sure? really really? you don't think there have been some people out there who actually aren't insecure and close-minded? bah...what a stupid thing to think. it would be boastful and arrogant of me to talk about my first time, but it wasn't how you stated the way it is between virgins. my first time was so open and wonderful and full of love and understanding and completion...that's all i have to say. nothing is set in stone...even the ineptitude(read:clumsiness) of virgins. i'm simply stating a funny observation.

illicit (read: outside of marriage) sex
Click to expand...

thank you for patronising me...darrrr duh...:heh:

*sigh*
 
Sigh. Synthwerk. I was not patronizing you. I was trying to define "illicit" before someone slamdunked me on semantics. People do that on this board - me included. It was a self-protective manouver. Sorry if it read wrong.

I said what I said about inept virgins because of the way your post read. You were very specific that these two people were unlikely to have a good first experience because it was their first experience. Why else would I have brought that up?!?

C'mon - I will grant you that not every first sexual experience is bad, if you will admit that being Christian would have little or nothing to do with enjoyment of sex or a healthy sexual outlook.
 
you're not seeing Christianity from the POV of the teachers who taught it to me. the Catholics here preach it as a way of making babies. they discourage sex as a means of just pleasure.

to trump your theory, i consider myself a Christian, and i have great sexual experiance.

bah. nevermind
 
nevermind indeed - I read your post on the Holygrail thread and trust me, by any definition you would get agreement on by a Christian minister you are not one....

i believe in Jesus, but i don't believe he was God-made-man and was divine. i believe he was born to Mary, a member of a Jewish resistance group who was opposed to a Roman State, and was groomed by her to lead and over throw the Romans(and radically change the Hebrew dogma of the time.) i see him more like Martin Luther King Jr. or William Wallace. he was just trying to free his people.
Click to expand...

That set of beliefs, by definition, means that you specifically are not a Christian. A Christian is one who believes that "people cannot save themselves by their good works or restore themselves to a right relationship with God. God sent His Son, Jesus, into the world. He is both true God and true man. He lived to fulfill God’s law for us, died on the cross to pay the penalty our sins deserved, and rose from the dead so that we might have eternal life. He ascended into heaven, where He now sits at the right hand of The Father to intercede for us. Because of Jesus’ death on the cross, God declares a person just -- or righteous -- and forgiven. This happens not because of human effort, but because the justification won by Jesus is applied to the one who believes Jesus as Savior."

italics my own. but that's the crucial phrase. Are you saved from damnation by acceptance of Jesus as your Saviour?

I will grant that these are the protestant Christian beliefs and may differ from Catholic, Gnostic, or eastern Orthodox Christian beliefs slightly. But not much.
 
Hey Synthwerk!

you da man!!! (I love that word!!!" misogynistic " ):yeay:
 
i mean christian as in what christ was preaching.

what christ preached and what preachers preach are two different things. you can be a christian and not believe in the ressurection. you can be a christian just by believing in the good works he did and following his teachings. it's really that simple; it's not as tarted up as most would believe.
 
synthwerk said:
what christ preached and what preachers preach are two different things.
Click to expand...

I think that is a very sweeping and inaccurate statement. Please re-examine the logic behind that statement. Perhaps you meant "what Christ preached and what I have heard many preachers preach are two different things"? Since you have not heard all preachers and I suspect have mostly experience with the Catholic church, you need to acknowlege that you are making broad statements based on limited evidence or experience

you can be a christian and not believe in the ressurection. you can be a christian just by believing in the good works he did and following his teachings. it's really that simple; it's not as tarted up as most would believe.
Click to expand...

No it's not. I'm curious who taught you that? You can ascribe to some christian beliefs, and I validate you for that, because you are obviously trying to make the world a better place by your actions, but that does not make you Christian.

Synthwerk, please believe that I am not the sort of person who would put you down because your beliefs and mine are not the same. That is not what I'm doing here. But some of the posts you've made are a little intolerant of Christians, and some are inaccurate, like the one I quoted above. Some things in life are a matter of opinion. Some are a matter of fact. There is a specific, accurate definition of a Christian. I have posted it. Your stated beliefs don't fit that definition. Not a slam, not a slight. Not a judgement on my part. Just some facts.
 
Elisheva said:
A rabbi friend has a great story about another rabbi who lived in a very prudish town. That rabbi got the idea of hanging bells on the four-poster so that when he and the wife went at it the whole town could hear and rejoice, and -- hopefully -- lighten up.
Click to expand...

What a jerk!
 
i never said preachers preachedjust opressively, negative things. some preachers preach things that deviate positively from strict biblical accounts such as sexuality, humanity, the actual material value of God, etc. what i am trying to say is that between Jesus and the present, there is the bible, and even that can't be a reliable source.

don't worry, the joke doesn't make sense anymore since we've over analyzed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top