|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Sept 13, 2017 4:27:43 GMT -5
Hi Fretslider, A person usually marries when they fall in love and of course have children. But you also get people who are only interested in having sex for itself , they are not interested in marriage.You also have what is known as one night stands and that is definitely lustful. you can have plenty of lust in marriage ..lust is not all about one night stands and casual sex partners .. in a healthy relationship married or not.. there are a variety of reasons for having sex... nothing wrong with a nice bit of down to earth lust either Hi Mouse, If that is what you like? be it on your head. To me, it is love that matters. I have no time for lust.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Sept 13, 2017 4:56:28 GMT -5
Hi Fretslider, Which is just as well as they loved each other. This is what is important because sex is all about loving each other, not about lusting after someone. """"because sex is all about loving each other"""", no it isn't .. sex is all about procreation... when anything seeds its self and has male/female role s it isn't about love its about procreation just remember that all species of animal life procreate or have sex in exactly the same manner.. and that even in plant life the female has to be pollinated to reproduce its self ie to procreate humans try to raise reproduction into some thing it isn't...they try to ignore the fact that the sexual urge and need to reproduce is part of our our make up.....we try to differenciate from all other species by adding words like love .... when if we were honest its really about pleasure.. and when the pleasure mutual so much the better.. Hi Mouse, As a teanager, I had a friend who came from a very good fanily. He was a University graduate, good looking with perfect manners. I cared about him, but it was his brain that I was interested in. He wanted to marry me, but I didn't feel that way about him. I never even kissed him let alone have sex with him. I'm a person who needs to love the person before I would ever allow sex to take place, which happened after I met my husband at the age of twenty five when I came out to this country. We were married soon after. It certainly was not lust.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 14, 2017 7:19:54 GMT -5
I wonder... Do you believe humans (Homo sapiens) is a species of animal. Or do you believe otherwise? Hi Fretslider, We are Soul.!!! Can you try answering the question, it's a simple yes or no....
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Sept 14, 2017 19:31:42 GMT -5
Hi Fretslider, We are Soul.!!! Can you try answering the question, it's a simple yes or no.... Hi Fretslider, The body that Soul uses is made of flesh. Does that answer your question?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 15, 2017 4:00:27 GMT -5
""""because sex is all about loving each other"""", no it isn't .. sex is all about procreation... when anything seeds its self and has male/female role s it isn't about love its about procreation just remember that all species of animal life procreate or have sex in exactly the same manner.. and that even in plant life the female has to be pollinated to reproduce its self ie to procreate humans try to raise reproduction into some thing it isn't...they try to ignore the fact that the sexual urge and need to reproduce is part of our our make up.....we try to differenciate from all other species by adding words like love .... when if we were honest its really about pleasure.. and when the pleasure mutual so much the better.. Hi Mouse, As a teanager, I had a friend who came from a very good fanily. He was a University graduate, good looking with perfect manners. I cared about him, but it was his brain that I was interested in. He wanted to marry me, but I didn't feel that way about him. I never even kissed him let alone have sex with him. I'm a person who needs to love the person before I would ever allow sex to take place, which happened after I met my husband at the age of twenty five when I came out to this country. We were married soon after. It certainly was not lust. the world does not revolve around you and your personal experiences or any one elses are irelevent ..... we are talking the entire species the human race and what is the norm of the human group/species of every ethnic group/race /nationality [the norm being the majority] species of animal life procreate or have sex in exactly the same manner as human beings the female carries the seed and the male pollinates and that even in plant life the female has to be pollinated to reproduce its self ie to procreate to reproduce its self humans try to raise reproduction into some thing it isn't...they try to ignore the fact that the sexual urge and need to reproduce is part of our our make up.....we try to differenciate from all other species by adding words like love .... when if we were honest its really about pleasure
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 15, 2017 5:33:19 GMT -5
Can you try answering the question, it's a simple yes or no.... Hi Fretslider, The body that Soul uses is made of flesh. Does that answer your question? Fret said """"Do you believe humans (Homo sapiens) is a species of animal. Or do you believe otherwise?"" all that is required as an answer is yes or no... so untill such time as you give a yes of no the question is unanswered
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 15, 2017 5:58:29 GMT -5
Can you try answering the question, it's a simple yes or no.... Hi Fretslider, The body that Soul uses is made of flesh. Does that answer your question? Lets try to make it easy for you A Homo sapiens is an animal B Homo sapiens is not an animal So, is it A or is it B?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 15, 2017 5:59:58 GMT -5
Hi Fretslider, The body that Soul uses is made of flesh. Does that answer your question? Fret said """"Do you believe humans (Homo sapiens) is a species of animal. Or do you believe otherwise?"" all that is required as an answer is yes or no... so untill such time as you give a yes of no the question is unanswered Thank Christ! At least someone gets it.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Sept 15, 2017 9:21:33 GMT -5
Hi Fretslider, The body that Soul uses is made of flesh. Does that answer your question? Fret said """"Do you believe humans (Homo sapiens) is a species of animal. Or do you believe otherwise?"" all that is required as an answer is yes or no... so untill such time as you give a yes of no the question is unanswered Yes or No can certainly be qualified. It keeps things more interesting. Backing someone into a "yes" or "no" corner ends conversation in a rather unsatisfactorily way.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Sept 15, 2017 9:24:47 GMT -5
what ? where that come from and why..and why mention my name? very odd Hi Mouse, I've just seen this post, it might have been a last post? Dec3rd so your guess is as good as mine, I don't know what it is all about either You're dredging up old posts, Lassie. Sometimes that works and other times it causes confusion. Anytime you want to resume an old discussion, at the very least include a copy of the referenced post! Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Sept 15, 2017 10:36:25 GMT -5
Fret said """"Do you believe humans (Homo sapiens) is a species of animal. Or do you believe otherwise?"" all that is required as an answer is yes or no... so untill such time as you give a yes of no the question is unanswered Yes or No can certainly be qualified. It keeps things more interesting. Backing someone into a "yes" or "no" corner ends conversation in a rather unsatisfactorily way. I have a somewhat different take on this. The question is asking for a yes or no response and (can) actually lead to a more in-depth exchange. The responder can say ‘yes’, or ‘no’ or, they can say something like, answering it yes or no does not explain how I see the issue. Or they might say if you wish I can answer it either yes or no, but I would prefer that you clarify the question, that is, are you asking the question strictly in the physical attributes of a being, or do you include the non-physical attributes such as self-awareness or consciousness. In my opinion, this (and similar questions) seem to always run into the same road block. The question is asked in the context of the temporal world which implies that the reply should follow the same context. In the context of Scottish Lassie, it is not simply in the context of the temporal world. This is trying to communicate in two different languages with no common key to translate. It is when one of these approaches tries to cover both worlds with a single definition. It won’t work.
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Sept 15, 2017 11:13:02 GMT -5
Yes or No can certainly be qualified. It keeps things more interesting. Backing someone into a "yes" or "no" corner ends conversation in a rather unsatisfactorily way. I have a somewhat different take on this. The question is asking for a yes or no response and (can) actually lead to a more in-depth exchange. The responder can say ‘yes’, or ‘no’ or, they can say something like, answering it yes or no does not explain how I see the issue. Or they might say if you wish I can answer it either yes or no, but I would prefer that you clarify the question, that is, are you asking the question strictly in the physical attributes of a being, or do you include the non-physical attributes such as self-awareness or consciousness. In my opinion, this (and similar questions) seem to always run into the same road block. The question is asked in the context of the temporal world which implies that the reply should follow the same context. In the context of Scottish Lassie, it is not simply in the context of the temporal world. This is trying to communicate in two different languages with no common key to translate. It is when one of these approaches tries to cover both worlds with a single definition. It won’t work. LOL Pretty funny Men en tol. Gave me a grin.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Sept 15, 2017 11:57:05 GMT -5
I have a somewhat different take on this. The question is asking for a yes or no response and (can) actually lead to a more in-depth exchange. The responder can say ‘yes’, or ‘no’ or, they can say something like, answering it yes or no does not explain how I see the issue. Or they might say if you wish I can answer it either yes or no, but I would prefer that you clarify the question, that is, are you asking the question strictly in the physical attributes of a being, or do you include the non-physical attributes such as self-awareness or consciousness. In my opinion, this (and similar questions) seem to always run into the same road block. The question is asked in the context of the temporal world which implies that the reply should follow the same context. In the context of Scottish Lassie, it is not simply in the context of the temporal world. This is trying to communicate in two different languages with no common key to translate. It is when one of these approaches tries to cover both worlds with a single definition. It won’t work. LOL Pretty funny Men en tol. Gave me a grin. An interesting take on my posting Dex. I hadn't thought of it as being funny.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Sept 15, 2017 19:33:48 GMT -5
Yes or No can certainly be qualified. It keeps things more interesting. Backing someone into a "yes" or "no" corner ends conversation in a rather unsatisfactorily way. I have a somewhat different take on this. The question is asking for a yes or no response and (can) actually lead to a more in-depth exchange. The responder can say ‘yes’, or ‘no’ or, they can say something like, answering it yes or no does not explain how I see the issue. Or they might say if you wish I can answer it either yes or no, but I would prefer that you clarify the question, that is, are you asking the question strictly in the physical attributes of a being, or do you include the non-physical attributes such as self-awareness or consciousness. In my opinion, this (and similar questions) seem to always run into the same road block. The question is asked in the context of the temporal world which implies that the reply should follow the same context. In the context of Scottish Lassie, it is not simply in the context of the temporal world. This is trying to communicate in two different languages with no common key to translate. It is when one of these approaches tries to cover both worlds with a single definition. It won’t work. It could go either way, depending on whether one is looking for a civil discussion or an argument.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Sept 15, 2017 21:17:59 GMT -5
I have a somewhat different take on this. The question is asking for a yes or no response and (can) actually lead to a more in-depth exchange. The responder can say ‘yes’, or ‘no’ or, they can say something like, answering it yes or no does not explain how I see the issue. Or they might say if you wish I can answer it either yes or no, but I would prefer that you clarify the question, that is, are you asking the question strictly in the physical attributes of a being, or do you include the non-physical attributes such as self-awareness or consciousness. In my opinion, this (and similar questions) seem to always run into the same road block. The question is asked in the context of the temporal world which implies that the reply should follow the same context. In the context of Scottish Lassie, it is not simply in the context of the temporal world. This is trying to communicate in two different languages with no common key to translate. It is when one of these approaches tries to cover both worlds with a single definition. It won’t work. It could go either way, depending on whether one is looking for a civil discussion or an argument. Or, it could be that both parties are trying to impress the other with what they know is right, but both appear to the other only as argumentative because there is no common ground of understanding on which to base a dialog.
|
|