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: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

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"???





Recognizing fallacies in actual arguments may be difficult since arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between assertions. Fallacies may also exploit the emotional or intellectual weaknesses of the interlocutor. Having the capability of recognizing logical fallacies in arguments reduces the likelihood of such an occurrence.


Anyone can choose to debate with logic.

Pointing out the use of, or the repeated use of logical fallacies isn't an "insult". It's calling a "spade" a "spade". If a person takes criticism as an "
insult", that is their fault, not the person pointing it out.




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Pointing out the use of, or the repeated use of logical fallacies isn't an "insult". It's calling a "spade" a "spade". If a person takes criticism as an "
insult", that is their fault, not the person pointing it out.


I think what determines an insult is the intent of the insulter.
Criticism in the wrong spirit is an insult. Rationalize it if it makes you feel
better.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
There has been enough sniping and personnal attacks on this thread. Debate the topic not each other. No further off-topic posts or personnal attacks will be tolerated.

gallopinghordes
forum mod.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Oh my. Another case of someone criticizing the faith without understanding the facts. Miriam explained it quite well.

If you aren't a Christian, then what is defined as a sin according to Christianity shouldn't bother you one bit. It would be like me feeling guilty for doing something Islamic law considers a sin or objecting to something the Koran describes as a sin. I'm not Muslim so it holds no sting what they think of me or what the Islamic texts state regarding my actions.

To me this is an example of the conscience being gnawed at. If you didn't believe somewhere deep inside the Bible is the Word of God, you wouldn't give a hoot what it describes as sin.

Do I like the idea of sex outside of marriage being a sin? Well, it it's a moot point now since I am married but it was rather frustrating back when I was single. However, it is a sin according to the Bible and I can understand the wisdom and benefits of abstinence. Biblical rules are not 'just because' or because God doesn't want us to have any fun. They are for our own benefit and protection.

And just for the record, I use the term 'you' in a general sense. Not directed to any particular member.

[edit on 8/23/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
sorry, ive been absent due to complications and after catching up on this thread, it makes me want to march right back into the hospital.

this thread is a classic example of unreasonableness



unreasonable


Main Entry:
un·rea·son·able Listen to the pronunciation of unreasonable
Pronunciation:
\-ˈrēz-nə-bəl, -ˈrē-zən-ə-bəl\
Function:
adjective
Date:
14th century

1 a: not governed by or acting according to reason b: not conformable to reason : absurd 2: exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation


argument is so stupid. all sin is equal and receives the same punishment. there is nothing anyone can bring to the table that will say this sin is worse than that sin. think different? then prove me wrong.

but this discussion isnt about the bible is it?

lets face it, this thread doesnt have a topic. this thread was made with the deliberate and intentional purpose slandering me. i said something that rubbed EB the wrong way, he's decided to make a mockery of it. and you know what... thats fine by me. let him. let him say all the things he wants to.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
argument is so stupid. all sin is equal and receives the same punishment. there is nothing anyone can bring to the table that will say this sin is worse than that sin. think different? then prove me wrong.


This question is a question of theology, no? The Christian and Hebrew Scriptures often distinguish between sins.

Several sins under the Old Covenant were treated differently; some required the perpetrator to pay a fine or make reparations, others ostracism, and others still had a death penalty. So, in the sense that "the punishment fits the crime" not all sins were equal.

Under the New Covenant, there are several references where sins are not equal either. These would include:

* Jesus answered, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11)

* "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men." (Matthew 12:31)

* For you... have neglected the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23)

* If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death. (I John 16-18)


Thus, the idea that all sins are the same is a Western (Protestant through Roman Catholicism) tradition. It has its roots with the theology of Augustine of Hippo and Anselm of Canterbury. It is not supported by the scriptures, nor was it the tradition of the Church throughout history. Thus, it is a tradition of men, not of God.


lets face it, this thread doesnt have a topic. this thread was made with the deliberate and intentional purpose slandering me.

No, this thread does not really have a topic. And to have it censored because someone whose username (perhaps not ironically) is reminiscent of a cry baby was "insulted" is a real travesty, IMO. Perhaps the moderators can spend more energy policing trolls, as this would encourage discussion. But the expectation that a thread under "Religion, Faith, And Theology" will not allow users to invoke the scriptures---which have provided the basis for much of Western law, customs, and cultural norms/taboos---is entirely unreasonable.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 


its a very well thought out post.

in the end though what is the punishment for sin?

romans 6:23 - for the wages of sin is death...

is this contradicted in the OT? not at all


gen 3:[17] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
[18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
[19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


so adam wasnt to be put to death. he was to grow old and die. we ALL share this same fate because we have all sinned. same punishment for the same crime.

if you are talking about consequences or emotional reactions to sin, then yes, they are different. a person murdering someone is more than likely to be met with a heavier response than someone who tells a little white lie.

and even in some respects you are right. there is a worst sin. the passages you quoted where referring to fully-knowing unrepentant sin. in this respect, someone who sins like this never repents, and are not eligible for resurrection. so in that respect, yes they are "worse". but also keep in mind, the punishment is the same. essentially non-existence.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The last two replies were excellent. Stars for both you guys.

It seems to me is that any sin, even something so seemingly innocent as eating a piece of fruit that was forbidden, is enough to spiritually separate us from God. Sin is also like a virus or like ink that spreads on paper due to capillary action. It is very true that some sins are described as being more severe according to the Bible but it always boils down to sin, any sin, and all sin, separates us from God.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
the way i always looked at it is that sin is going against god's will. even jesus accepted direction from his father and he was perfect.

jeremiah said
jer 10:[23] O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

the thing about sin, is basically your telling god that you want to do your own thing. he commands you to do or not do something and you think its better to do or not do something else. so you put it quite nicely, it is a separation from god.

now whether that sin is eating a piece of fruit (which i think god kept that commandment simple on purpose so that noone could say it was unreasonable or burdensome) or its committing murder, is inconsequential. in the end your still saying to god, im going to do thing my way.

people who dont like that tend to make up excuses. white lie is different from a black lie, but they ignore that its still a lie. and even white lies sometimes have black lie consequences.

fornication is the same thing. if sex is not handled correctly, it has some pretty heavy consequences. i know im paying for my sins.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
the way i always looked at it is that sin is going against god's will.

This is a very valid way to look at it as well. And as to the topic of the forum, I think we are both in agreement as to both being really bad.

Which does more damage... a bunker buster bomb, or a hydrogen bomb? I suppose if you were at ground zero, it wouldn't much matter. It is similar with sin, as both the scenarios being discussed are very bad.

I wasn't trying to undermine your argument, only to provide evidence as the "proof" you requested.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScienceDada
I wasn't trying to undermine your argument, only to provide evidence as the "proof" you requested.


i know, and your right, i was mistaken.

i just wish all the discussions on this forum were as civilized



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I refrained originally from responding to the OP after reading the thread.

Having revisited this, I realized something at face value.

That if someone is having difficulty with the choice of sex with an animal versus premarital sex that perhaps their is a much larger issue at hand.

Sex with a human versus an animal? As you read this truly ask yourself. Animal? or Human? Hmm...Seems pretty iron clad to me.

unbelievable premise, and a weakness in ATS when people make threads for points and controversy versus seeking the absolute truth on a real moral premise.

Its my view that the thread was created to create controversy rather then address a moral and puzzling dilemma which people face every day.

Premarital sex and the bonding there in, although not desirable, has lead and to many of a good relationship.

And who is to say, that two people that love within their own hearts are not married already?

This thread is laughable.

Peace


[edit on 24-8-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Wow, how did Paedophilia get dragged into this?

No-one ever stated that beastialty is ok.

I don't really care for a God who thinks that if two consenting, single adults, have protected sex they should be punished with death.

If that's your God, keep him and I feel genuine disgust and pity for those that follow his alleged words.

Let he without sin and all that.......?

Oh the arrogance.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
No-one ever stated that beastialty is ok.



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


Seems to me, that the OP has a difficulty making a distinction

Peace



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


No, it has been stated that Unmarried couples having sex is EQUALLY sinful as beastiality.

No-one has stated that beastiality is ok.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Then ask perhaps you need to ask yourself....

Is there really any question in your mind in terms of that moral question.

No.

It is not the same.

Peace



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


Read the thread.

I think you will find that I agree with you, they are most definately NOT the same.

There are however, people who believe that both acts should be punishable by death!

I despair for some people.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
There are however, people who believe that both acts should be punishable by death!

I despair for some people.


Indeed, and I did look back on the thread. I mean you no offense. If I did so, I apologize.

The term " punishable by death " especially in the OT is an interesting term.

Which type of death do we speak?


To the messenger of the church in Sardis, write: 'The one who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars says this: 'I know what you've been doing. You are known for being alive, but you are dead


Perhaps it is not the physical death that was inspired, but the death of which we knew not.

Peace



[edit on 24-8-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 




That if someone is having difficulty with the choice of sex with an animal versus premarital sex that perhaps their is a much larger issue at hand.

Sex with a human versus an animal? As you read this truly ask yourself. Animal? or Human? Hmm...Seems pretty iron clad to me.



HIFIGUY...it appears you are the one trying cause contraversy....not me. NO ONE on here was trying to make a CHOICE between what you are alledging. We were trying to figure out how a Christian could say that having sex with an animal was the same as two un-married adults having sex. But, of course, I don't need to explain this as again, you are just trying to make this something it is not for whatever agenda you have.



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


Seems to me, that the OP has a difficulty making a distinction

Peace



If you're going to quote me, why don't you quote me properly? Where is the question mark on the end of that sentence you quoted from me? Just look at the title of this thread friend. OH....but I'm trying to be contraversial.
I have no difficulty making a distinction. I understand the distinction quite clearly. There have been many Christians on this thread that do not understand the difference between the two and now you have joined the mix. How delightful!



Could you add something to the thread besides nonsense?

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Excitable_Boy]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join