It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bible and Marriage

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Its funny how if you were trying to be a good Christian, that the "right path" would vary depending on what culture you were in. For example the bible says "be fruitful and multiply" but if your in a culture that looks down upon sex before marriage then you have sinned. Also the bible says "use all of these seed bearing plants to your advantage" but if you used a plant (Example: Cannabis) that the culture deemed wrong you would also be at fault for sin. A squirrely religion if you ask me. Ideologies betray!




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: kalalausoul
Its funny how if you were trying to be a good Christian, that the "right path" would vary depending on what culture you were in. For example the bible says "be fruitful and multiply" but if your in a culture that looks down upon sex before marriage then you have sinned. Also the bible says "use all of these seed bearing plants to your advantage" but if you used a plant (Example: Cannabis) that the culture deemed wrong you would also be at fault for sin. A squirrely religion if you ask me. Ideologies betray!


Let's make it clear here, it is the society as a whole that determined that about Cannabis, not Christianity.

And show us the verse that says "use all of these seed bearing plants to your advantage". The Bible does say "by the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat thy bread". The ground was cursed.

Paul said "all things are permitted, but not all things expedient" meaning that yes, you have the free will to do whatever you want, but whatever you want might not be beneficial.

Does not even nature itself teach you what is unseemly?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock




I am highly anti religion but am open to the fact that god may exist. I'm very anti bible as well.


I think this is amusing for someone who does not believe in the bible but yet they make a post in a religion section and want to discuss the bible.

Isn't this nothing more than trolling?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Never read Kama Sutra...send me the verse....and the difference between that book and the bible is the Kama Sutra isnt a religion trying to gather large groups of people and ask for money.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
a reply to: rockpaperhammock




I am highly anti religion but am open to the fact that god may exist. I'm very anti bible as well.


I think this is amusing for someone who does not believe in the bible but yet they make a post in a religion section and want to discuss the bible.

Isn't this nothing more than trolling?


Not at all...if I was trolling id have never mentioned I was anti religion then picked on the religious people with a "surprise I don't like the bible!".

I think its very important when a discrepancy is found anywhere to point it out. Is there anything wrong with learning something new? Sometimes people point out different translations...in fact the orginal translation I found said the marriage is not valid...however after looking into further its actually what I have posted in the OP.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko



Nope, not at all! If you're a baker who has to bake a cake and you refuse to make a gay wedding cake and get fired, it was your decision. No one says conscientious objection doesn't come with its own problems.



If you don't want to take pictures of a gay wedding, no one is forcing you to.

That is just unamerican and goes against the thought of any freedom
yes they will now force a photographer to service gay weddings just the same as a baker being forced.
The reason it is unamerican is because of the free market.
If i refuse to do gay events then i just created a market for you to profit from. It would be my mistake and your gain.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

No, no one is forced to work gay events. If you are threatened with being fired for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding and you still refuse to, it is your own fault you got fired and no one else's.

You cannot claim someone is forcing you to do something if they give you a choice.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
unless you are the business
the coorporate world is a whole other topic

Most of these bakeries are small businesses as well as the photographers.

Many states are passing laws that take away the right to refuse service to people and that is unamerican and against the free market system.

If i do not want a certain type,color or sex of person to be served in my establishment then i should have that right to not profit as much for it. The market will reflect the will of the people

I should have the right to open a gay wedding only cake store tomorrow if i wanted.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

So how does this relate to what I said? If anything we agree. People SHOULD have the choice to not work a certain job based on beliefs, that's why conscientious objection is a thing, that doesn't mean those decisions shouldn't come with repercussions of their own though.

Like I said, a person getting fired over not wanting to shoot a gay wedding is their own fault. They would have kept their job if they decided to shoot it, but they chose not to meaning they chose to lose their job.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

currently people are being sued over the issue based on the claim of discrimination of gays wanting service

Sole operators are being sued and shut down because of the laws against the right to refuse service. It is more about those having to go out of business

There is no end to the loss of freedom in the us

My venture to open a gay cake store and have only gay employees and gay customers is not a legal venture
edit on 26-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."



So when Jesus said this...

& invalidated the perceived "invalidation of the OT" that so many Christians claim...

Is it ok to ignore him on this occasion?



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Isn't it more unamerican to refuse service to someone who you feel is an abomination when supposedly "all men are created equal"...

I'm sure that saying has something to do with America & what it stands for...


Can't for the life of me remember where I've heard it that I get the feeling it is engrained into the values of the four fathers of the United States...








posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Refusing serve to gays at a bakery is not a Christian thing to do.

Love your enemies be merciful even as your Father in Heaven is merciful. To he who asks you to go a mile, walk with him two.
The greatest of all is the servant of all, even as God has given to us the greatest and shown us mercy.

Love is patient. Love is kind.

Do not try to step on other people's freedom but love thy neighbour as thyself. This is the freedom God has called us all to.

Gay marriage encourages fidelity. Is it better in God's eyes to not be married and sleep with different people or to comit to a single person feel fulfilled and fully able to serve The Lord



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

These passages are written from man, but not orders from Father. If Brother did not speak it (words in red), Father did not give the order. Father is quoted very rarely in the Bible, and when he is, here words are no complete.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."



So when Jesus said this...

& invalidated the perceived "invalidation of the OT" that so many Christians claim...

Is it ok to ignore him on this occasion?


Here is more of that chapter, after which Christ, whose righteousness was greater than the scribes and Pharisees, goes on to modify what those laws actually meant.

Matthew 5, 19 - 20



19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Moses brought down the tablets with the law as God told it to him, the commandments. Most of the rest of the Mosaic laws were compiled much later. Scholars believe Leviticus had developed over a long period, edited and with many additions. Regardless, Christians don't have that same covenant with God as the Jews.

2 Corinthians 3 - 6



3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.





edit on 27-1-2015 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Typo



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: WarminIndy

Never read Kama Sutra...send me the verse....and the difference between that book and the bible is the Kama Sutra isnt a religion trying to gather large groups of people and ask for money.


LOL, well you don't know much about Hinduism. Yes, the Kama Sutra is an extension of Hinduism and written by sages of Hinduism. The Bible isn't a religion either. Are you naive to assume that religion is just simply about getting money? Wow.

OK, from the Kama Sutra and its purpose in Hinduism


Dharma is obedience to the command of the Shastra or Holy Writ of the Hindoos to do certain things, such as the performance of sacrifices, which are not generally done because they do not belong to this world, and produce no visible effect; and not to do other things, such as eating meat, which is often done because it belongs to this world, and has visible effects. Dharma should be learnt from the Shruti (Holy Writ), and from those conversant with it. Artha is the acquisition of arts, land , gold, cattle, wealth, equipages and friends. It is, further, the protection of what is acquired, and the increase of what is protected. Artha should be learnt from the king's officers, and from merchants who may be versed in the ways of commerce. Kama is the enjoyment of appropriate objects by the five senses of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting, and smelling , assisted by the mind together with the soul. The ingredient in this is a peculiar contact between the organ of sense and its object, and the consciousness of pleasure which arises from that contact is called Kama. Vatsyayana. The Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana / Translated From the Sanscrit in Seven Parts With Preface, Introduction and Concluding Remarks (Kindle Locations 242-251).



That's the set up of Kama


When all the three, viz., Dharma, Artha, and Kama come together, the former is better than the one which follows it, i.e., Dharma is better than Artha, and Artha is better than Kama. But Artha should be always first practised by the king, for the livelihood of men is to be obtained from it only. Again, Kama being the occupation of public women, they should prefer it to the other two, and these are exceptions to the general rule. Vatsyayana. The Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana / Translated From the Sanscrit in Seven Parts With Preface, Introduction and Concluding Remarks (Kindle Locations 252-255).


Kama Sutra is indeed a religious practice.

The Kama says it is ok to pretend to be sick, which means to be dishonest, just to get her to come to visit him

words. When he comes to know the state of her feelings towards him he should pretend to be ill, and should make her come to his house to speak to him. There he should intentionally hold her hand and place it on his eyes and forehead, and under the pretence of preparing some medicine for him he should ask her to do work for his sake in the following words: "This work must be done by you, and by nobody else." When she wants to go away he should let her go, with an earnest request to come and see him again. This device of illness should be continued for three days and three nights. Vatsyayana. The Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana / Translated From the Sanscrit in Seven Parts With Preface, Introduction and Concluding Remarks (Kindle Locations 1299-1303).


But hey, being dishonest with girls is acceptable for some people.


her. It is only, moreover, when she is certain that she is truly loved, and that her lover is indeed devoted to her, and will not change his mind, that she should then give herself up to him, and persuade him to marry her quickly. After losing her virginity she should tell her confidential friends about it. Vatsyayana. The Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana / Translated From the Sanscrit in Seven Parts With Preface, Introduction and Concluding Remarks (Kindle Locations 1328-1330).


It is ok in Hinduism to not be a virgin when married.

And here's the verse about getting girls drunk


(4.) The man should on the occasion of festivals get the daughter of the nurse to give the girl some intoxicating substance, and then cause her to be brought to some secure place under the pretence of some business, and there having enjoyed her before she recovers from her intoxication, should bring fire from the house of a Brahman, and proceed as before. Vatsyayana. The Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana / Translated From the Sanscrit in Seven Parts With Preface, Introduction and Concluding Remarks (Kindle Locations 1377-1379).


You know, the Kama explains about every type of sex, but here, you have a religion with religious texts saying it is ok to get girls drunk and have sex with them, to lie to girls to get them to visit and then ok to take her virginity.

But if that's what you agree with, be Hindu and follow the Kama Sutra and that is exactly what the OP is trying to do, force the Bible into judgment because it is against adultery (the Kama approves of adultery), against homosexuality (the Kama not only approves but gives descriptions of gay sex) and the Bible says that men who rape women are subject to penalty. But hey, let's just judge the Bible because it gives restrictions.

Like I said, if people want a religion or a god that approves of their sexual license, then find a god or religion that approves.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: arpgme
Refusing serve to gays at a bakery is not a Christian thing to do.

Love your enemies be merciful even as your Father in Heaven is merciful. To he who asks you to go a mile, walk with him two.
The greatest of all is the servant of all, even as God has given to us the greatest and shown us mercy.

Love is patient. Love is kind.

Do not try to step on other people's freedom but love thy neighbour as thyself. This is the freedom God has called us all to.

Gay marriage encourages fidelity. Is it better in God's eyes to not be married and sleep with different people or to comit to a single person feel fulfilled and fully able to serve The Lord


Sorry to rain on your parade, but it is a violation of someone's religious expression to force them to make cakes to celebrate gay marriage. Those who were gay and tried to force this knew that it was offensive to begin with.

Let's take your logic and ask this...suppose you work at a bakery and some white supremacists asked you to make a cake with a schwastika on it, would you be offended or would you make the cake for them, take their money and gleefully go about your day, or would you have something to say about it?

Christians know they are offensive because the teaching of the cross is an offense to the non-believer, Jesus said that it would happen and it is. The very word Christian is offensive to people.

If you claim to love Jesus, then why support the offensiveness to His name?



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: jhill76

I have heard this before...by any chance do you know if they make a book that just has the words in red...like...just the words they spoke and nothing else?



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Ok so you are helping prove my over all point that religion is ridiculous. That book is pretty wildly stupid...right up there with the bible.

And I know religion isn't all about collecting money...but show me one that doesn't collect money.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: deadeyedick



Isn't it more unamerican to refuse service to someone who you feel is an abomination when supposedly "all men are created equal"...



I'm sure that saying has something to do with America & what it stands for...





Can't for the life of me remember where I've heard it that I get the feeling it is engrained into the values of the four fathers of the United States...












No con on over and find out what freedom we hve left



Let's be clear. I did not state in any of my hypothetical post that thinking of others as being an abomination. You inferred that to spin to arrive at your false assumptions and that made you barf but not my words.

INTENT is the hole of the law for the most part.

My fake factory was inspired not by hate for others but love of a certain type and that should be legal. It seems convienent that one of mo's followers would be against ouur freedoms in america.

If i did choose to run such a business then the free market will then decide my fate not the small miniorty that are against freedom.

My neighbor can open a business right next to me and do things a different way. again this is freedom


Save your barfing for when reality of what you have chosen to govern your life sets in



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join