Religion vs Fornication vs Homosexuality: a Pattern of Paradox?

I remember growing up in America and attending service & Sunday school, yet witnessing peer children as young as 8yo engaging in intimate activities in as casual events as daycare, summer camp, sleepovers.

I remember in around the 5th grade, one of the students being pregnant and not knowing who the father was.

I remember in junior high school springtime, as the winter jackets came off so many girls' bellies would show.

I remember the young cousins on my dad (Christian) side doing things not even related adults are supposed to do.

Is it something in the air, is this something new or something that has been happening even in generations B.C?

This is my first thread in ats forum, and reflects as I came here to read about provocative ideas and intel, ancient aliens, government conspiracies..... and encounter instead, many paradoxical ironies & discussions for lack of a better word/term, as I read about so much at so many levels that people, government, churches, society preach one thing yet so contradictory to their...practice

Ie, an increasing culture of fornicators deflecting the sin/criticism over to say, gay marriage! Lol I mean, how transparent can you get?!? Preach that intimacy is to be reserved for after marriage, yet as a society on whole run around practicing the opposite up until at some old age 'coming to the senses' ie being born again or what not, then to top it off have a problem with especially the homosexual variety and boycott homosexuals' privilege to marriage... Absurd?

reply to post by tropic


Ok..

Firstly, where the hell is that chart from?

Secondly, religious hypocrisy has been prevalent among the religious ,ever since it was created.

Really the only difference between a cult and a religion, is that in the religion, the person who knows it's a giant scam, is dead.

Religion and social issues are always used as a tool to divide us common folk and keep us busy fighting ourselves as opposed to those who wish to control us.

~Tenth

Ie, an increasing culture of fornicators deflecting the sin/criticism over to say, gay marriage!

Well I certainly think deflection is a common phenomenon in general. Or Freud's projection. I am sure some of it is the result of people transferring their own guilt.

Largely I would say it's simply people regurgitating beliefs. Beliefs they have not thought critically about.

Thanks for the post. I've not heard the word "fornication" in a decade or more and can now reinsert it (no pun intended) back into my personal lexicon.

As the other poster asked - where did you get the graph? I would love to understand the methodology used to obtain the statistics.

Historically, "fornication" of all sorts was actually far higher in ancient times. The Romans and the Greeks knew how to party.

The graph image was saved from this Wordpress blog.

iranianredneck.wordpress

Well I suppose you could also argue that those preaching intimacy after marriage and who profess to be Christians actually aren't.

And I'm not sure where you grew up but where I did I never saw anyone get pregnant even throughout high school so that may have more to do with location then a switch in culture.

reply to post by tropic

Is it something in the air, is this something new or something that has been happening even in generations B.C?

Nothing new under the sun. Old stuff coming back around, and as the cycle loops around and comes full circle we prepqare for the end.

Ecclesiastes 1:1-11

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2 “Vanity[a] of vanities,” says the Preacher;
“Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.”

3 What profit has a man from all his labor
In which he toils under the sun?
4 One generation passes away, and another generation comes;
But the earth abides forever.
5 The sun also rises, and the sun goes down,
And hastens to the place where it arose.
6 The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
7 All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.
8 All things are full of labor;
Man cannot express it.
The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
Nor the ear filled with hearing.

9 That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which it may be said,
“See, this is new”?
It has already been in ancient times before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things,
Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come
By those who will come after.

This bit above actually came from Jesus 1000 years before he was human.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


In your religious view the Old Testament was the word of Jesus. Meaning Jesus is God and the whole Bible is authored by divinity?

reply to post by tropic


This kind of stuff has been around since time immemorial. This is nothing new.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

This bit above actually came from Jesus 1000 years before he was human.

I thought that most Christians believe that Ecclesiastics was written by Solomon. The Jews Credit the book to King Hezekiah. But no one knows who really wrote the book.

The book takes its name from the Greek ekklesiastes, a translation of the title by which the central figure refers to himself: Koheleth, meaning something like "one who convenes or addresses an assembly".[11] According to Rabbinic tradition he was Solomon in his old age,[12] but for various reasons critical scholars have long rejected this idea [13]. The Talmud ascribes authorship to King Hezekiah and his colleagues [Bava Batra 14b-15a]. The author of Ecclesiastes is presently a mystery.
en.wikipedia.org...

It certainly wasn't written by Jesus before he was human!

There's nothing wrong with fornication. It's human nature, religion forbids a lot of what makes us human. Under age pregnancies are down to lack of education and/or discipline and are a direct result of how the child is brought up, it's not down to lack of religion, religion is not needed for anything.

reply to post by tropic


Oh,those Wednesday evenings waiting for the girls to come out from catechism.I was just a mere boy ,a methodist boy back in the '70s.

Religion is hypocritical to it's core.
Be peace loving and do not kill your brother.And so on.

Ask all those priest who were convicted of molestation and such.......did God approve of it?

bishop-accountability.org...

According to the John Jay report commissioned by the U.S. bishops, allegations of sexual abuse were made in 1950-2002 against 4,392 priests. The number is generally believed to underestimate the problem. A few bishops have released the names of accused priests, but no official list exists of U.S. priests who have abused children and vulnerable adults. Below we present the most complete list currently available, culled from media reports and legal documents – with many photos, assignment records, and source articles.

Sounds like you'd rather all those girls get an abortion in order to be responsible to the community.


How about THOSE statistics huh? Generally speaking, I suppose athiests could indeed care less about other life forms.

reply to post by Wonders

Generally speaking, I suppose athiests could indeed care less about other life forms.

That's a horrible and asinine general assumption to make.

Absent religion, does not mean people are somehow void of heart. In fact, I think that's a rather heartless thing to say.

reply to post by windword

I thought that most Christians believe that Ecclesiastics was written by Solomon. The Jews Credit the book to King Hezekiah. But no one knows who really wrote the book.

Who told the prophets what to say, rousing them up every morning to speak to the people? It may have been written by the hands of a man, but who was directing him what to say? The Word did, the very same who stood with Moses on Mt. Sinai.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

In your religious view the Old Testament was the word of Jesus. Meaning Jesus is God and the whole Bible is authored by divinity?

That is one common view in christianity. Not hard to reconcile once you know who Jesus really is. He gives alot of clues in the NT in the hebraisms and symbolism. Even jews know that God cannot be seen by the eyes of men, yet there were many instances where he in fact was seen by men.

John 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. (spoken by Jesus)

So at this point when he said this, none had ever seen or heard the Father. So who was that one Mt. Sinai with Moses when he gave the Law? Who was that talking with Moses the day he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Who did Joshua worship in Joshu 5? Who did Manoah and his wife see in Judges 13?

John 5: 39-40

39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

The only scriptures Jesus could be referring to is the OT books, the Torah and Tenach. The NT hadn't been written yet. So these books spoke of him. The OT spoke of the Savior, who is our Creator.

John 5:45-46

45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.

So, both the Tenach and the Torah reveal Jesus. Moses only wrote bout our Creator, the Savior.

Thats because Jesus is the God of the OT, or i should say the Son of God before he became a man. The Son reveals the Father, because where the Son is, so is the Father. Jesus is the physical manifestation of the Father, kind of like an extension.

In fact Jesus claimed to be the owner of the "sheep", not just some hired helper.

John 10:11-15

11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

We all have body, spirit and soul because we are made in our Creators image. He too has body, spirit and soul, but where our spirits are born dead into this world and need resurrection, the man called Jesus or Yeshua was born with God's spirit in him. Our Creator walking around in the meatsuit of a man and the miracles he performed proclaimed him, but the very people who he chose, couldn't see him. This is where ancient kings got their idea for dressing up like a commoner and walking amoung their people to get a feel for how their people felt about them, and to know wether or not the people's hearts were near their king.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Who said that the books of Julilees and Enoch were NOT given by "the great spirit"?

Apparently, you believe that what is in the Bible was told to people like David and Solomon and then GOD made sure those books were included in the cannon, but other's who said that they heard GOD word were discarded.

It's strange that those books that your GOD wanted included in the Bible advocate rape, slavery and murder. Weird!

Originally posted by Wonders
Sounds like you'd rather all those girls get an abortion in order to be responsible to the community.
How about THOSE statistics huh? Generally speaking, I suppose athiests could indeed care less about other life forms.

How many children have you and your church recently adopted in order to ease the burden of unwanted pregnancy? Further, have you lobbied for welfare reform that enables low-income mothers to raise their children out of poverty? It's easy to run off at the mouth if you don't have to deal with the results.

What did I read recently on the net? Any religion that tells an unmarried woman she cannot have an abortion...then calls that child 'illegitimate', is in serious need of review.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Wonders
Sounds like you'd rather all those girls get an abortion in order to be responsible to the community.
How about THOSE statistics huh? Generally speaking, I suppose athiests could indeed care less about other life forms.

How many children have you and your church recently adopted in order to ease the burden of unwanted pregnancy? Further, have you lobbied for welfare reform that enables low-income mothers to raise their children out of poverty? It's easy to run off at the mouth if you don't have to deal with the results.

What did I read recently on the net? Any religion that tells an unmarried woman she cannot have an abortion...then calls that child 'illegitimate', is in serious need of review.

I don't believe in organized religion. I'm dealing with the result of your angry assumptions, it's easy.
I am pro choice. I think that there's something a bit wrong with forcing a woman to raise a child she otherwise would have had killed. If a woman really wants her child's life cut short, and she is encouraged to get rid of "it", and goes through with it, she ought to deal with those consequences whatever that may be.

Originally posted by Wonders
I think that there's something a bit wrong with forcing a woman to raise a child she otherwise would have had killed. If a woman really wants her child's life cut short, and she is encouraged to get rid of "it", and goes through with it, she ought to deal with those consequences whatever that may be.

And vice-versa...if the community insists that she have the child, then they ought to commit to help raising it. My only anger is directed at religious hypocrisy. If it was misdirected towards you, then my apologies.

Quick edit to say, though, you are indulging in heavily charged language, however much you say you support a choice.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Wonders
I think that there's something a bit wrong with forcing a woman to raise a child she otherwise would have had killed. If a woman really wants her child's life cut short, and she is encouraged to get rid of "it", and goes through with it, she ought to deal with those consequences whatever that may be.

And vice-versa...if the community insists that she have the child, then they ought to commit to help raising it. My only anger is directed at religious hypocrisy. If it was misdirected towards you, then my apologies.

Quick edit to say, though, you are indulging in heavily charged language, however much you say you support a choice.

edit on 11-2-2013 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because, eh?

I think one's anger ought to be towards hypocrisy in general.
Personally, I'm not counting on any community for emotional support, I'd be setting myself up for dissapointment, imo.