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.

 

Unmarried couple having sex is the same as a human having sex with an animal?

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


Yes it might say that it is a sin in that passage but elsewhere it says the following:

Luke 18: 15When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Mark 9: 42 “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.....

If you had sexual relations with a child it would be in contridiction of earlier parts of the bible many of which have been stated in this thread. There have also been passages mentioned in this thread about not having sex with family members, dont you see you children as family members?
You know what you are claiming dont you? and on top of that you are diverting from your own thread topic which you have been so protective since you started the thing.
Ill say what I have said before: If you have studied the bible you wouldnt be claiming such things.
Like many have said in the past you cant take one vs out of the bible and base an argument on it. You must take the bible as a whole. If God is telling you something he doesnt just give you a bible passage but he tells you in other ways as well - this is like taking things out of the bible, there will be multiple passages backing up other passages in the bible, these must be taken into account before coming out and saying something as they usualy give more insite into the discussion and provide more information then the original passage gave.


[edit on 23-8-2008 by funky monk]




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by funky monk
 




Yes it might say that it is a sin in that passage but elsewhere it says the following:



What if Daddy doesn't show little Jimmy these other passages? What if Daddy just shows little Jimmy that one and tells little Jimmy "You don't want to make God angry. You don't want to be a sinner. You don't want to go to hell....."

And this is in line with this thread. Many have attempted to use the bible to help with their arguments. The bible was written by men and is obviously massively contradictory. The point is, everything in that book is up for interpretation.

And nowhere in that book does it say anything about having sex with an animal being the same as two un-married consenting adults having sex. Some of you have interpreted it to say that, but it doesn't actually say it.




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Surely what two, (or more if that's your thing!), consenting adults get up to in private is surely no-one else's business.
As long as no-one else is getting hurt just where is the problem?


I hear arguments like this all the time, "if I don't hurt anybody..."

If unconstrained sexual activity causes pregnancy, then "unwanted children" become a social problem for all of society to deal with.

If the pregnancy is "aborted" then someone has been denied their rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and has been murdered; I am sure that being poisoned with saline or having one's head cut open and their brain vacuumed out hurts.

When broken families result from these relationships, it puts strain on traditional families and hurts children.

When extramarital sexual activity is accepted, trust in relationships is severely impacted. Then divorce rates increase and society begins to experience a myriad of social problems.

So, the notion that "sexual activity between consensual adults" doesn't hurt anybody is very much only a justification for a very destructive practice. More often than not, it does hurt somebody.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
And nowhere in that book does it say anything about having sex with an animal being the same as two un-married consenting adults having sex. Some of you have interpreted it to say that, but it doesn't actually say it.


The penalty for both acts was death in Leviticus (see chapter 20 for reference) and it also was commanded that the animal be put to death as well. In this way, it could be construed that the sins were comparable.

The only exception for sexual activity outside of marriage is when the two are unmarried and the activity results in a child.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
If you want to live your life according to Biblical tenants; that's fine and more power to you.

I don't.

quoting scripture proves nothing.

I could write a book and say, "this is the word of God" because God spoke to me and told me to write it down. Would you believe me?





[edit on 23-8-2008 by whaaa]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
quoting scripture proves nothing.


Go away troll I was responding to a specific post.

Here is a good forum for you to read: Sick of all the idiots on ATS



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   


What if a 10 year old girl or boy's father is raping him or her and sodomizing him or her which is also rape and includes oral sex? Should he or she accept this and not disobey? I mean, the bible is so cut and dry with you people. It's all or nothing, so this is acceptable to you all? Because if this is the message you are sending to your children, you are telling them to let Daddy rape them.


LOL, this EB dude is a living, breathing logical fallacy. Use the "exception to define the rule" much?

OF COURSE this isn't permitted... WHAT-SO-EVER.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   


quoting scripture proves nothing.


Ummm, isn't the topic of the thread what the Bible says about something???

Lemme get this straight, we cannot use Bible verses to prove or reject what the Bible has to say???

Gotcha. *rolls eyes*



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




LOL, this EB dude is a living, breathing logical fallacy. Use the "exception to define the rule" much?

OF COURSE this isn't permitted... WHAT-SO-EVER.



But it's in the bible. It says quite clearly as a poster showed us that it is a sin to "disobey one's parents." So, to disobey one's parents, according to the thumps, is the same as having sex with an animal or murder.

So....little Jimmy HAS to do what Daddy says, else he is a sinner just like he went and killed someone or had sexual relations with the neighbor's dog. I am just using the same logic all of you are when you say that sex with an animal is the same as two un-married consenting adults having sex.

Thus, little Jimmy HAS to do whatever Daddy askes unless little Jimmy wants to be damned to hell for all eternity. This is not my belief but obviously it is what you thumps believe.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


1. It does say to obey you parents. You are correct. But NOWHERE does it say that if a parent commits a horrendous act should that child not alert the proper authorities. In Biblical times that was the priest, then the parent that committed this act would be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death.

It was an EXTREME exception to the rule. Of course it was absolutely forbidden, with the punishment to be death.

I think you are being difficult on purpose. Either to mock, or to ridicule the Bible. So in essence, you aren't truly looking for answers or truth, but for a seam with which to attack the the Bible. There is always a reason for a person to employ a logical fallacy, and it's never to uncover or bring to light the truth.





[edit on 23-8-2008 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




But NOWHERE does it say that if a parent commits a horrendous act should that child not alert the proper authorities. In Biblical times that was the priest,


A priest? A HA HA HA HA! Oh yeah....priests can be trusted with children.


According to you all, the bible IS the authority.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


Here we go again with you. Did I say a Catholic priest? No, a Levite priest.

If you don't want a real discussion I'll leave you be, you just want to mock, ridicule, distort fact and other's positions. And use every logical fallacy you can muster.

Do you want a frank, honest discussion or not?

Your "question" has been answered, there is no where in the Bible that condones a parent raping their child, for 1 thing, that's using the exception to define the rule, secondly, that parent would be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death by his own family.

Do you want to have a "big boy" discussion or not?



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




Here we go again with you. Did I say a Catholic priest? No, a Levite priest.


Do you want to have a "big boy" discussion or not?


Catholic priests are not the only "religious" figures that abuse their power and abuse children as well as adults within their "churches."

I'd love to have a big boy discussion. Do you know any?

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


Correct, while that is verifiable, can you name an instance where a Levite priest had done so?

Catholic priests do this because they are forbidden to marry. That isn't Biblical, in fact the Pope is allegedly from the li(n)e of Peter the apostle, *gasp* Pater was married.




[edit on 23-8-2008 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


1. It does say to obey you parents.


In the Old Testament, the law calls for a child to honor his father and his mother, not just obey. Rebellious children who are troublemakers are subject to punishment, but only after conviction by the elders of the city. So, this is not blind obedience. Incest was punishable by the death of the perpetrator, just as rape was.

In the New Testament, children are to obey their parents "in the Lord" which is, according to Godly instruction. It is also stressed that Christians "obey God rather than men."

So, the ramblings of Excitable_Boy that abuse are protected by Biblical commands are complete and utter nonsense.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
Catholic priests do this because they are forbidden to marry. That isn't Biblical, in fact the Pope is allegedly from the li(n)e of Peter the apostle, *gasp* Pater was married.


Many of the Apostles were married. Also, Eastern Orthodox priests have always married, as have deacons. Bishops are typically unmarried because they are drawn from the monastic communities, but this is only customary now... it is not mandated by the scriptures, nor has it always been the practice of the Church.

Many priests in the Roman Catholic church (RCC) have done these horrible things, and some RCC Bishops have not disciplined them accordingly. But in all fairness to the RCC, these practices are looked upon as wicked, and the laity are pretty pissed about it too.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
And again...the abuse is not just in the Catholic church. It is actually in any organization where there is abuse of power, which is pretty much any organization.

Look at the Mormon church. Old men marrying 14 year old girls. Come on...it's not just the Catholic church...not by a long shot.

And let's be clear: it's not simply the fact that Catholic priests can't marry that causes the problems. The fact is, because of this rule it attracts perverts and pedophiles. Some that hate themselve and try to hide behind the church. Others purposely join the church so they have children readily available to abuse.

It would be a tremendous help to the Catholic church to allow priests to marry. Then, less psychotic perverts and sociopaths would join the priesthood.

I have a cousin that joined the Catholic priesthood because he was gay. He never came out until after he left the priesthood. He joined a monastery in Vermont and lived there for about ten years. He had many affairs there with other men as did many other men there. He left because of all the hipocrisy (sp?). When he came home, he came out of the closet.

The original Pope John Paul wanted to allow priests to marry and that was one of the main reasons why he was assassinated. He also had other ideas that did not follow the status quo.

Religion just sucks and God agrees! But again, He knows we're human and He loves us all UNCONDITIONALLY!



[edit on 23-8-2008 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
And again...the abuse is not just in the Catholic church. It is actually in any organization where there is abuse of power, which is pretty much any organization.


Wow... why stop there? Abuse happens outside of organizations too, and even with disorganized or personal religion. It also happens between children, or even by the neighborhood pervert. I don't see your point other than to vent with "religion" as your focus, and from your own examples, that seems a bit displaced or a double standard.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Like I said SD, he's a living, breathing logical fallacy.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Like I said SD, he's a living, breathing logical fallacy.



"Let he without sin cast the first stone"

Does the above phrase apply to insults as well? Are insults still considered sins?

I wonder what the sin ratio is for "insults" compared to "animal sex"???



[edit on 23-8-2008 by whaaa]

[edit on 23-8-2008 by whaaa]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join