Why i'm against sex before marriage

[Meow Mix]

I'm married, and my husband and I had sex before we married. I think that it's a personal decision that one shouldn't take lightly, if anything. But, marriage for many, is merely a piece of paper while to others, it's a sacred bond that should last forever. For some, sex is a means of strictly seeking pleasure with another person, but to others, it serves as a physical and emotional bond. It varies from person to person. I can see your points, OP - but, when emotions and chemistry are involved, sometimes our best theories on life get moved aside.

It can also vary even in the same person. I unabashedly seek casual sex, it's my primary method of getting laid right now while I'm doing my MS and PhD. I haven't been in a serious relationship for a while and have had no time or desire to.

Yet I know what it's like to have deeply emotional, connected sex with a romantically loved partner: it's a different thing, and something I look forward to again when I meet the right person. Sex doesn't have to be one or the other, and I know that isn't what you were saying, this is more just for readers in general.

 

[Deidre]

It can also vary even in the same person. I unabashedly seek casual sex, it's my primary method of getting laid right now while I'm doing my MS and PhD. I haven't been in a serious relationship for a while and have had no time or desire to.

Yet I know what it's like to have deeply emotional, connected sex with a romantically loved partner: it's a different thing, and something I look forward to again when I meet the right person. Sex doesn't have to be one or the other, and I know that isn't what you were saying, this is more just for readers in general.

I get that, and very true, everyone's experiences, situations, and desires are different. Me personally, I was never into casual sex, despite there being opportunities. I had to be in love. Or what I thought was love. I was a serial dater before getting married a few years ago, so love was largely an illusion at times.

And that was largely a byproduct of shaming tactics from my Catholic upbringing. My parents are still Catholic, and the teachings are filled with shame for even desiring sex outside of marriage. I agree though that sex doesn't have to be either/or. It can just be.

 

[Meow Mix]

I get that, and very true, everyone's experiences, situations, and desires are different. Me personally, I was never into casual sex, despite there being opportunities. I had to be in love. Or what I thought was love. I was a serial dater before getting married a few years ago, so love was largely an illusion at times.

And that was largely a byproduct of shaming tactics from my Catholic upbringing. My parents are still Catholic, and the teachings are filled with shame for even desiring sex outside of marriage. I agree though that sex doesn't have to be either/or. It can just be.

That and the still somewhat existent "guys that get laid are heroes, girls that get laid are sluts" bull****. That was hard for me to get over.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The next Messenger will not do that because the next Messenger will know that Baha'ullah was a true Messenger of God just as has happened with all the Messengers who recognized the ones that came before them.

Except for, you know, the whole "ancient laws that have nothing to do with us anymore" as you said here and have done. Also riding on the assumption that the "next messenger" will agree with bahaullah.

Stop making straw men.

We've been over this, blazer. And that you are saying now that it's not the message that we need in this age does not make that you've said this prior to now. You have rather relied on verbiage that conveys the belief that bahaullah's message is "more authentic" than what came before, and thus is more accurate. You directly criticized the Bible (many times) and more recently the Quran for being flawed through second-hand authorship rather than straight from the Prophet's hand. "Written by fallible men", I believe was the words you used. Quit speaking out both sides of your mouth.

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance.

Seems you baha'is have a great deal of trouble over what "substance" means.

The scripture is not wrong and I am not going to paraphrase it again.

Good. Please don't. Because I really don't care what your holy book says. It's all the same nonsensical license to Cherry Pick.

You don't know what a Manifestation of God is because that was not defined in your ancient scriptures

No, I know quite well and often what a manifestation of a god is. However "my ancient scriptures"? Now THAT is laughable. Do tell just what those scriptures are, blazer. Talk about not being able to read a room... Yikes.

that is one reason why the Christians believed Jesus was God incarnate.

No, Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, that he was god in the flesh, because of Trinitarianism and the Ecumenical Council. But go on.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except for, you know, the whole "ancient laws that have nothing to do with us anymore" as you said here and have done. Also riding on the assumption that the "next messenger" will agree with bahaullah.

The next Messenger will reveal a new message and new teachings and laws that are applicable to the age in which He comes. The spiritual teachings will agree with what Baha'u'llah revealed because as I said before those are never altered. They are restated and phrased differently but they are essentially the same: faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy.

We've been over this, blazer. And that you are saying now that it's not the message that we need in this age does not make that you've said this prior to now. You have rather relied on verbiage that conveys the belief that bahaullah's message is "more authentic" than what came before, and thus is more accurate. You directly criticized the Bible (many times) and more recently the Quran for being flawed through second-hand authorship rather than straight from the Prophet's hand. "Written by fallible men", I believe was the words you used. Quit speaking out both sides of your mouth.

True, I said that the older messages are "less than sufficient" but they are not "flawed" just because they are second hand. I said that the Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance.

Seems you baha'is have a great deal of trouble over what "substance" means.

I am sure it means different things to different people. To me the substance means the essence, or essential elements, of what God's Manifestations intended to convey, and that has been preserved in all the holy books.

No, I know quite well and often what a manifestation of a god is. However "my ancient scriptures"? Now THAT is laughable. Do tell just what those scriptures are, blazer. Talk about not being able to read a room... Yikes.

Your Old Testament Bible scriptures, what else. You defend them like a guard dog defends a mansion.
What room?

No, Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, that he was god in the flesh, because of Trinitarianism and the Ecumenical Council. But go on.

Yes, I know that is why they believe that Jesus is God, but why did they decide that Jesus is God? Likely because they knew that Jesus was more than man and they had no such concept as a Manifestation of God who has a twofold nature back then. So they decided Jesus was God, but then they say He is fully man and fully God which is completely illogical.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Your Old Testament Bible scriptures, what else.

How very unperceptive of you. I want you to do a few things, blazer.
1. Look at my username.
2. Look at my sub-title.
3. Look at my religion.
4. Try not to feel too dumb.

Yes, I know that is why they believe that Jesus is God,

Evidently not, as you claim it's a misunderstanding of "manifestation" or some such rot. And yes, the notion of a "two fold nature" did exist back then, in the more aptly termed demi-god. Herakles, Akilleus, Imhotep, Cetshwayo, Sæmingr, Cú Chulainn, etc.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Really. And I don't imagine you have these "clear scriptures", eh elijah?

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, that he was god in the flesh, because of Trinitarianism and the Ecumenical Council. But go on.

Christians believe the divinity of Christ because that’s the clear teaching of the Scriptures not because of any council. Never even considered those councils, I read the Bible for myself and see that.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Really. And I don't imagine you have these "clear scriptures", eh elijah?

John 1

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Query: Isolate "Jesus is God"

 

[ElishaElijah]

Query: Isolate "Jesus is God"

You just did

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No, I'm asking you where in that chapter it states - clearly, as you claimed - that Jesus is god.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, I'm asking you where in that chapter it states - clearly, as you claimed - that Jesus is god.

You said Christians believe Jesus is God because of a council. I gave you the clear scriptures why I believe Jesus is God and John 1 says it clearly, the Gospels are about Jesus Christ. Maybe just admit your assumption is wrong and now you know.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Okay so let me be clear; I have zero interest in reading through a chapter of your scripture to pick out where you think it clearly says "Jesus is god." Rather than give the whole bloody chapter, show us clearly which verse this is "clearly" stated. Don't be obtuse, challenge though that might be.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Okay so let me be clear; I have zero interest in reading through a chapter of your scripture to pick out where you think it clearly says "Jesus is god." Rather than give the whole bloody chapter, show us clearly which verse this is "clearly" stated. Don't be obtuse, challenge though that might be.

If you click John 1 and read, seems too much for you, but continue in your ignorance about why Christians believe Jesus is God and you’ll continue to make false statements.

 

[Trailblazer]

How very unperceptive of you. I want you to do a few things, blazer.
1. Look at my username.
2. Look at my sub-title.
3. Look at my religion.
4. Try not to feel too dumb.

I never feel dumb about things unless I am dumb. Sometimes I am dumb but not when it comes to people. I did look a long time ago and I wondered why you were talking about the Bible like you were a Christian and I intended to ask you as soon as I had a break in my other duties.... So why are you defending the Bible as if you are a Christian? Were you a former Christian and that is why you know so much?

Evidently not, as you claim it's a misunderstanding of "manifestation" or some such rot. And yes, the notion of a "two fold nature" did exist back then, in the more aptly termed demi-god. Herakles, Akilleus, Imhotep, Cetshwayo, Sæmingr, Cú Chulainn, etc.

I do not misunderstand what a Manifestation of God is according to the Baha'i Faith, and that is the only understanding I care about...

Okay, whatever you say. I am no expert in history or religion. Geography, psychology, and homeopathy were my areas of study. I was never interested in religion or history. I'm still not very interested, I am more interested in people.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Can't even back up your own claims. Unsurprising, yet still disappointing.

Now for facts. The first seven Ecumenical Councils - more specifically the First Council of Nicaea in 10,325 HE and the Third Council of Constantinople in 10,680 - sought to establish the Divine nature of Jesus. While some believe John 1 to lend to Trinitarianism, major contributors to Trinitarianism - Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas - reject statements in John as Jesus speaking on his humanity. Rather, supporting scripture for the formula of Trinitarianism doctrine - and thus the belief that Jesus is one and the same with god - lie in Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:13, 1 Corinthians 12:4-5, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2 and Revelation 1:4-5. While contributors to the doctrine, nowhere in the New Testament is the divinity of Jesus clearly and undoubtedly stated.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So why are you defending the Bible as if you are a Christian?

That's the neat thing; I'm not. I'm criticizing your dismissal of the Old Testament when you formerly held the Quran in elevated regard, despite their similar nature of authorship. And your continued dismissal of the nature of the Old Testament's deliverance, despite the prophets being of "equal status".

 

[Trailblazer]

View attachment 52769

No, I'm asking you where in that chapter it states - clearly, as you claimed - that Jesus is god.

Good luck with that because it does not state that at all.... I already have an analysis of those verses all written up from posting to Trinitarians but I am keeping my analysis in abeyance for now.

 

[oldbadger]

No they are not.

It just reduces risk compared with risks involved with direct infection to achieve immunity. That's all.

The antibodies are not categorized as Arnold Swartzenegger vs Sylvester Stallone.

If and when the Delta variant gets to rage through your district like it is through the UK....... for goodness sake just get the bloomin' vaccination!

We are getting 50,000 new cases each day, but because some are vaccinated our hospital intake and daily death count is low.

Just get vaccinated.............