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: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   


Are your words so fascinating and awesome that we must all bow down and respond to every single comment you make? Aren't you being a bit arrogant assuming that every word you write we are all anxiously waiting to reply?


Well I have to ask you the same thing when you calmly claim that your words may not be likeable but they are indeed truth.

Example



Therefore, what I talked about earlier is true to you all.


And frankly I am sick of hearing this 'I don't attack people, you do' (paraphrased so don't start on the 'I didn't quote you all the way thing')



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!


Then calling the Christians 'Thumpers.'

If that isn't atatck, flaming and such than I am not sure what is but let's stay on topic and get to the root of the problem.

These are far and away the best words I have heard here yet.



If you aren't a Christian, then what is defined as a sin according to Christianity shouldn't bother you one bit.


I am not a Christian. My wife and I shared a partner once WHILE we are married. I find zero fault in a Christian believing what we did is wrong but the thing is, it doens't bother me so why would I go on and on and on about it? Just let it go and go on life with your truth. I applaud how much you stick to your convictions but rememebr this. Your truth isn't ours.

-Kyo




posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by KyoZero
 




If you aren't a Christian, then what is defined as a sin according to Christianity shouldn't bother you one bit.


I am not a Christian. My wife and I shared a partner once WHILE we are married.


I'll discuss this in two parts:
1. If we shouldn't be bothered by what is considered "sin" to a Christian, then Christians shouldn't tell non-Christians that anything they are doing is a sin. Doesn't it work both ways?

Why are Christians bothered by what us non-Christians believe to NOT be a sin?

If Christians think sex is so horrible, that is fine but why must they tell EVERYONE that if they have sex before marriage it is as bad as having sex with a goat? Why must they tell anyone non-Christian that pre-marital sex is the same as murder? Shouldn't they just share that amongst themselves?

If they want everyone to leave them alone and quit picking on them and blah blah blah....then why don't they save their sermons for the other Christians instead of trying to throw their beliefs down the throats of non-Christians? I mean in the whole world and not just in this thread.

2. You had a threesome? Very proud of you.



[edit on 25-8-2008 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   


1. If we shouldn't be bothered by what is considered "sin" to a Christian, then Christians shouldn't tell non-Christians that anything they are doing is a sin. Doesn't it work both ways?


1. Yes it does but the thing is, as I am sure you already know, people on both sides of these arguments are always going to be beligerent. Now please bear in mind when I say people I mean 'some' people. I know full well the vast majority are good.

So I guess what I am getting at is that both sides need to learn to be the bigger person and move on. Yes I agree that I don't want to be preached to all day so I excuse myself and move on and I thnk everyone else should do that too.

I mean obviously in this thread we opened it for discussion but otherwise we should just let it be.

I suppose I wouldn't mind as much

2. Sex is a wonderful thing but what we did wasn't planned. It was more of...I dunno how to explain it...love on all three sides.

-Kyo



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Umm, .. and I'm sure "Marriage" constitutes a "legal" marriage? ..

So you're telling me.. that somewhere down the road.. a religious thinking person might have noticed that...

"hey.. man and woman seem to get together quite a bit.. maybe I can 'intervene' and perhaps devise some kind of system that allows me to have expensive buildings where I can collect monies and then I can explain to them weekly how they should live their lives and raise their kids... then maybe I can expand my venture" ..

and all the other religious thinking men thought this was a brilliant idea to control the activities of the people..

------

Okay .. vivid imagination I know.. lol

But really.. having sex with an animal is having sex with an animal..
Sure some people can be wild in the sack.. but I don't think it qualifies the same as having Dolly The Sheep pushing back on you in bed...

People will justify their belief systems by exaggerating their boundaries and applying false labels to other peoples belief systems so that way theirs seem more rational, all the while none of us are quite rational unless we're among people who think the same as us.. hence our social conditioning and media programming, the human being is the oddest of all the animals/mammals by way of our ability to program and reprogram and because of this, information is big business.

[edit on 8/25/2008 by PuRe EnErGy]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
From this thread you can sure see that socially acceptable actions are what govern society today as in the past.

It is not socially acceptable for either sex to mate with a beast, but it is socially acceptable for 2 people of either sex that want to have sex to go ahead even if they aren't married. This is not a big deal and considered normal today.

But this is by human standards, not God's, some label this as progressive.

If we choose are own standards, the majority can always keep moving the line of where people moral compass points

For example, I not going to say where I live, but it is legal for a 40 year old to have sex with a willing 14 year old here. Many would disagree with that law, but the majority agreed it should be allowed.

Some will say well that's not right, others will say well if this person is a mature 14 let them.

The above example highlights why humans should not direct moral code, only God should.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
So then what do we say about the world under God in Texas where polygamy is happening right now and a guy who is above 40 has married and slept with a 13 year old? To them it is Divine right passed by God. I don't think any religion should dictate moral code. Heck a few hundred years ago Christianity was the MAJOR MAJOR majority. More so than today and sleeping and bearing kids at 13-15 was not just accepted, it was the norm. The problem I find is that if you ask 12 people to interpret the rules of the bible you'll get 12 different answers.

Bear in mind I am not saying pedophilia is right or good but these were laws passed down by so-called followers of God

-Kyo



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by KyoZero
 


you cant necessarily look at the church as a standard of sorts. they have been getting things wrong for many centuries, incorporating beliefs and traditions in order to keep people coming to the church. so to say that the church allowed something or encouraged it, isnt really a good measure of what the bible says

also people who get 12 different interpretations are usually people who leave out or add bits they dont like.

through examples (adam and eve, abraham and sarah) of marriage in the bible, it shows that marriage is ment by god to be a union based on love.

Ephesians 5:[28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
[29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

colosians 3:[19] Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

women are to be respectfully and submissive to their husbands.

col 3:[18] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

eph 5:[33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

this might sound draconian by todays standards, but keep in mind the bible is not giving a blank check to husbands to do what they want. they have to treat their wifes with love and consideration.

both people in a marriage should be mature enough to know what they are getting into.

1 cor 7:[36] But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

the flower of her age is relative. it simply means that she is old enough to make mature decisions. this age will largly depend on the culture, back in medieval times, people grew up faster. 15 or 16 usually was old enough. today its different.

all my married friends from america got married around 20-25. thats normal for america.

here in spain, people usually wait longer, until they are 28-35. in fact its not uncommon to have a 25 year old still live at home.

in the end through, a clear picture emerges of 2 two people, man and a woman, who love each other and are mature enough to know what they are getting into, being in a union based on love.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:26 AM
link   


in the end through, a clear picture emerges of 2 two people, man and a woman, who love each other and are mature enough to know what they are getting into, being in a union based on love.


Obviously you know I support gay marriage and am very open but this way of putting it is so much nicer than simply 'gays aren't allowed to marry.' See up here I see that age doesn't so much matter it's the maturity (something I have long believed). People thought I was odd being 22 and marrying an 18 year old, meh...oh well.

Thanks for taking the time to answer as always. I still believe gay marriage should be allowed but at least you aren't beligerent like some.

-Kyo



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   
if homosexuals want to marry, let them. its their decision. the kingdom of god is not part of this world so i dont understand why christians get so bent out of shape (no pun intended) and feel that they need to impose laws in government.

(a government thats going to be destroyed at armageddon anyway)

its come up a few time in this thread and i noticed it too in the chat room last night, so ill make this point.

jesus told his disciples to preach and to teach (not convert by force, conversion should always be voluntary). he also gave very specific instructions on what to do if someone rejects the message, you dust off your feet and move on.

remember there is a difference between preaching, and forcing ones beliefs. i think when the church starts making laws, its trying to force.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:49 AM
link   


jesus told his disciples to preach and to teach (not convert by force, conversion should always be voluntary). he also gave very specific instructions on what to do if someone rejects the message, you dust off your feet and move on.


nd I wish some would learn this. I also wish on the other hand that others would at least give things a try instead of calling Christians names.

-Kyo



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


You are so right about that. Too many people forget what is actualy taught about sharing the message to people.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
if homosexuals want to marry, let them. its their decision. the kingdom of god is not part of this world so i dont understand why christians get so bent out of shape (no pun intended) and feel that they need to impose laws in government.




"The Kingdom of God is not part of this World"

I am totally amazed at this statement by you miriam.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Just curious. Why are you amazed she said that?



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Perhaps I made an erroneous assumption that God is Omniscient, Omnipotent and permeates all of his creation. I thought this was Biblical dogma.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Ok, thanks for clarifying. There were a few things you could have been referring to and I didn't want to assume anything before replying. Jesus said 'My Kingdom is not of this world.'


Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

www.biblegateway.com...


We are also told to be 'in the world but not of it.'

Although it is true God is in control and has dominion over all, we are told during this time we are still under the burden of sin. Not to mention, 'the power of lawlessness is at work.' Jesus wasn't worried about material matters like physical beauty, wealth, status, and all the other superficial things humans consider important. He also told us to store up our treasures in Heaven.

So, yes, God does have dominion over all but our focus is to be on the spiritual and the eternal- not the material and the temporary. Also, the first time Jesus came, He came as a servant. When he returns again He will come as a glorious king to reign eternally.

In the original Greek, we see the word 'kosmos.' Here are some definitions that are appropriate to the context:


the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ. World affairs, the aggregate of things earthly. The whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

bible.crosswalk.com...


In the context, Jesus is under arrest. He is saying He is not concerned with the earthly matters of His arrest and His future crucifixion. His mission was more important than all of that and held a spiritual importance not limited to this material realm.

So what Miriam was most likely referring to is her reason to not get flustered over the things she sees wrong with the world. She isn't going against 'dogma' but following Jesus' own comforting teachings. This world is in rebellion to God and we are still living in an age under the effects of the fall. We are promised that all things will be restored eventually but not yet. Therefore, don't be overly worried with the concerns of 'this world' because we are not of this world or realm but are eternal spiritual beings with a mission the supersedes these passing trials.

[edit on 8/27/2008 by AshleyD]



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



That sounded like rationalization and biblical double speak.
Perhaps we should let M. speak for herself and tell us exactly what she meant.

That's one of the things that really bothers me about the "Word of GOD"
It is so open to interpretation, depending on your chosen dogmatic flavor.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by whaaa]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Sure we can do that. It would save me from getting a migraine.

Miriam, the floor is yours.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


To respond to your edit:

Hon, you seemed totally unaware Jesus Himself said 'My Kingdom is not of this world.' Then said you were 'amazed' Miriam said such a thing. All she did was reference what Jesus Himself said. Then I showed you the context, the original Greek, and cross references it with other Biblical passages.

You got my answer and you can now await one from Miriam if she wishes. Not sure why people ask Christians a question, get a sound answer from a Christian, have that answer backed up with sources, and then still balk.

One day I am going to grasp the concept of Matthew 7:6.

[edit on 8/27/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 




jesus told his disciples to preach and to teach (not convert by force, conversion should always be voluntary). he also gave very specific instructions on what to do if someone rejects the message, you dust off your feet and move on.



What about the good Christians that came to the "new world" (America/United States) to convert the "savages" (Native Americans)? They killed off 90% of the "savages" because they wouldn't convert to Christianity or just because it was fun killing Native Americans (and raping a large amount of the women before they killed them). This was all done in the name of Christianity. Can you explain it?

What would Jesus think of this? The same happened in Australia and many other places where ethnic cleansing was done in the name of Jesus and Christianity.

I would love an explanation from any Christian on this one.....I know it's off topic for this thread but I can get it on topic. Is killing in the name of Jesus okay vs. killing for another reason? Is ethnic cleansing in the name of Jesus okay? Or, is the genocide of 90% of Native Americans by Christians a sin? Is it like having sex with goat?



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I'm not a Biblical scholar or anything but murder and genocide seems
a little worse than sex with a goat. That's just from a layman's point of view you understand.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join