Is Sex before marriage really a sin? [Archive]

Barringtonia

12-09-2007, 05:00

Jeruselem

12-09-2007, 05:00

This "marriage" thing is just a way making people behaving in monogamous manner. In mother nature, most creatures don't have this kind of articifial limit on how many sexual partners they have.

Wilgrove

12-09-2007, 05:08

My fiance is my best friend, I can talk to her about practically anything, in the end it has little to do with sex - so why make 'the right person' your criteria for having sex?

For the same reason the woman you're with is your fiance.

Barringtonia

12-09-2007, 05:08

Already been there, the question is not if she's the right person, the question is, if she's the right person that you want and only want.

I thought my first girl was the 'right person', well not so much, I was really driven by a desire to get laid - but, since then, I've met many girls I thought were right for me but, after varying time periods, it seems they weren't.

Finally I feel that 'right for you' is nothing special, it's really about having someone who can take your flaws and still accept and love you and vice versa.

My fiance is my best friend, I can talk to her about practically anything, in the end it has little to do with sex - so why make 'the right person' your criteria for having sex?

The PeoplesFreedom

12-09-2007, 05:12

Well, since it does say it is in the bible, IIRC, I would say it is.

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 05:13

Well, since it does say it is in the bible, IIRC, I would say it is.

By golly, there's an awful lot of questionable material mentioned in the bible with it.

The PeoplesFreedom

12-09-2007, 05:20

By golly, there's an awful lot of questionable material mentioned in the bible with it.

Wha? I'm sorry, I am ultra-tired and didn't get that. If your mocking what the Bible said about it, well, it is what Christians follow, and if you discard one part why not the rest?

Sohcrana

12-09-2007, 05:20

Ever since then I've been wondering, is sex before marriage really a sin?

I'll answer your question with yet another question: does that cloud look like Richard Nixon?

Answer: it looks like whatever you think it looks like.

Kurona

12-09-2007, 05:22

Yes it is. Plain and simple it is. You can sugar coat it all you like but it is. You want to do it, be prepared to accept the responsiblity.

JuNii

12-09-2007, 05:23

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 05:23

Wha? I'm sorry, I am ultra-tired and didn't get that. If your mocking what the Bible said about it, well, it is what Christians follow, and if you discard one part why not the rest?

I mock the bible often, but that's not really where i was gonna go with it. Truly, there's some twisted issues brought up in the bible regarding sex and morality and "sinfulness".
Ever read about Onan?

Wilgrove

12-09-2007, 05:23

Yes it is. Plain and simple it is. You can sugar coat it all you like but it is. You want to do it, be prepared to accept the responsiblity.

Ok, so why is it a sin? Is it a sin because the Bible says it's a sin? A book that's been written by man who claim to be 'inspired'?

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 05:24

but I see waiting for marriage to be an excercise in control.

QFT.

Zilam

12-09-2007, 05:25

All of my life, when I've heard that Sex before marriage is a sin. Oh you cannot have sex before marriage because if you do, then your penis will fall off, or your vagina will rot. For awhile I believed it, and abstained. However, I soon gave up on saving myself for marriage because well I never thought I would actually get a chance to be married. So, I've decided to at least save myself for the right person. Recently I have met that right person and had the most magical night of my life. I don't know maybe we did it because we were both lonely and had the same mindset, etc. Whatever the reason I'm glad it happened.

Ever since then I've been wondering, is sex before marriage really a sin? I mean Adam and Eve were never married and they still produced offspring. The more I think about it, the more I believe that this whole 'No sex before marriage' was man made instead of divine revelation.

There was a reason God wanted sex with in marriage. Look at all the diseases, unwanted pregnancies, etc, that stem from promiscuous behavior. Now I know STDs and unwanted pregnancies can happen in marriages too. But let me ask you something, who is more likely to be able to take care of a baby, a single mother who doesn't know who the father is, or a married couple? We can see in our society how that works. Another thing, if two people only have sex with each other, that means no cheating or premarital relations with anyone else, how likely are they to get STDs? I'd say very slim.God makes rules not to take away fun, but rather to keep us safe. When we spiritual mature, we understand this. Just like when you get older, you understand why your parents were strict.

JuNii

12-09-2007, 05:25

Already been there, the question is not if she's the right person, the question is, if she's the right person that you want and only want.
I've heard that some cultures practice living together for a short time before marriage. That does not mean sex. it means living together to get to know the other person, their habits and whether or not you two can live together.

The PeoplesFreedom

12-09-2007, 05:26

Ok, so why is it a sin? Is it a sin because the Bible says it's a sin? A book that's been written by man who claim to be 'inspired'?

If it was just a bunch of men who wrote it, why follow it? If you throw out one part, why not the rest?

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 05:27

how likely are they to get STDs? I'd say very slim.God makes rules not to take away fun, but rather to keep us safe. When we spiritual mature, we understand this. Just like when you get older, you understand why your parents were strict.

The obvious answer to that is hyperchronic masturbation and frottage/frotterism.
Sheesh, netvet like yourself could give lessons, booyah!

Zilam

12-09-2007, 05:30

The obvious answer to that is hyperchronic masturbation and frottage/frotterism.
Sheesh, netvet like yourself could give lessons, booyah!

Hey, whats that over there. -rubs genitals on you while you look away-

:p

Lesson 1, don't ever look away!

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 05:32

If it was just a bunch of men who wrote it, why follow it? If you throw out one part, why not the rest?

Because they make great plays when presented with legos.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19b.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19c.html
+
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_06.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_07.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co14_34.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co14_35.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1tm02_11-12.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/ep05_22-23.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/ep05_24.html

Pirated Corsairs

12-09-2007, 05:35

Wha? I'm sorry, I am ultra-tired and didn't get that. If your mocking what the Bible said about it, well, it is what Christians follow, and if you discard one part why not the rest?
I ask myself that every day.

There was a reason God wanted sex with in marriage. Look at all the diseases, unwanted pregnancies, etc, that stem from promiscuous behavior. Now I know STDs and unwanted pregnancies can happen in marriages too. But let me ask you something, who is more likely to be able to take care of a baby, a single mother who doesn't know who the father is, or a married couple? We can see in our society how that works. Another thing, if two people only have sex with each other, that means no cheating or premarital relations with anyone else, how likely are they to get STDs? I'd say very slim.God makes rules not to take away fun, but rather to keep us safe. When we spiritual mature, we understand this. Just like when you get older, you understand why your parents were strict.

Ah, but God specifically created said STDs, etc. Why? Well, apparently to prevent us from having sex (Though, I realize you specifically never claimed that. I'd actually be interested to hear your take on it). It seems like it would have been trivial for God to make it such that sex was not at all dangerous, not matter who it's with. Strict parents would generally love to let their kids do what they want, but they don't have the ability to always make it such that their kids don't have negative consequences for their choices. God easily could remove those negative consequences.

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 05:36

Hey, whats that over there. -rubs genitals on you while you look away-

:p

Lesson 1, don't ever look away!

Thanks for getting that! The q-tips weren't working.

Hey ... what's a mushroom stamp again? Verdigroth keeps going off about it. :confused:

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 05:37

I ask myself that every day.

Except Sundays, of course ... you know, the false Sabbath?

Zilam

12-09-2007, 05:39

I ask myself that every day.

Ah, but God specifically created said STDs, etc. Why? Well, apparently to prevent us from having sex (Though, I realize you specifically never claimed that. I'd actually be interested to hear your take on it). It seems like it would have been trivial for God to make it such that sex was not at all dangerous, not matter who it's with. Strict parents would generally love to let their kids do what they want, but they don't have the ability to always make it such that their kids don't have negative consequences for their choices. God easily could remove those negative consequences.

Disease, nor evil was created by God. But rather these things result from the absence of God. Our sins allowed for such things to happen. When He created us to reign over the earth. We had authority over nature and presumably, evil. But when when sin entered into the world, we gave our authority up to satan. Then Christ came, and defeated sin, so that those who believe in Him, may receive the authority back, to fight against disease, and evil. Of course, to you guys, this is all superstition, and hokey beliefs, but its what I whole heartedly believe.

Soheran

12-09-2007, 05:40

I mean Adam and Eve were never married

Genesis 2:
"23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.' 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."

Not only were Adam and Eve married, but they are the Biblical model for marriage--not in the sense that their marriage was perfect, but rather that all marriages are based off theirs.

Good Lifes

12-09-2007, 05:44

Two words: Bastard Children

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 05:45

Genesis 2:
"23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.' 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."

Not only were Adam and Eve married, but they are the Biblical model for marriage--not in the sense that their marriage was perfect, but rather that all marriages are based off theirs.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Yeah, all marriages based off theirs, eh?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13045420&postcount=23

Wilgrove

12-09-2007, 05:45

There was a reason God wanted sex with in marriage. Look at all the diseases, unwanted pregnancies, etc, that stem from promiscuous behavior. Now I know STDs and unwanted pregnancies can happen in marriages too. But let me ask you something, who is more likely to be able to take care of a baby, a single mother who doesn't know who the father is, or a married couple? We can see in our society how that works. Another thing, if two people only have sex with each other, that means no cheating or premarital relations with anyone else, how likely are they to get STDs? I'd say very slim.God makes rules not to take away fun, but rather to keep us safe. When we spiritual mature, we understand this. Just like when you get older, you understand why your parents were strict.

Yes, but we are of an age where we have condoms, pills, and surgery to shut off our plumbings. I used a condom when we made love, and she's on the pill now. Hell I'm actually considering getting a vasectomy soon since I do not want children.

Tuo

12-09-2007, 05:46

Yes, according to the Christian bible, extramarital sex is a sin.

Is extramarital sex a bad thing? From an agnostic's POV, I don't believe so. I believe that the rule was created in order to stop the spread of disease, prevent unwed mothers and keep family lines secure, as well as to take the fun out of sex. As long as the relationship is healthy, sex isn't being used as a crutch or weapon, and measures are taken to ensure safe(r) sex, I really don't see it being a problem.

So, if you want to keep having sex, get educated. Find out what the risks are, find out what you want and what your partner wants, and have fun. ;)

Wilgrove

12-09-2007, 05:46

Two words: Bastard Children

One word, Vasectomy.

Wilgrove

12-09-2007, 05:47

my question is: are we talking about "legally" being married, or married before god, because that is two different things.

Being married before god means you've made a commitment to another person before to make a life together, " till death do us part" has nothing to do with it, you're only married as long as you honor that commitment.

LEGALLY married on the other hand is a bunch of crock, signing a paper saying you're married doesn't make the commitment any more real, it just allows for the equitable division of the assets.

QFT.

Gartref

12-09-2007, 05:48

Is Sex before marriage really a sin?

It all depends on how freaky you get.

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 05:50

Brandonedoists

12-09-2007, 05:52

Well, since it does say it is in the bible, IIRC, I would say it is.

Although I myself am an atheist (or at the most, philisophically agnostic) I believe what your looking for is in: (king james version)

Hebrew 13-4 "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers god will judge."
or
Corinthians 7-1 "Now concerning the things where-of ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
Corinthians 7-2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

There's a few other passages, but i think those were what your looking for, more or less.

Read the bible, know thine enemy.

Wilgrove

12-09-2007, 05:54

i don't understand that reply.

QFT = Quoted for Truth.

Soheran

12-09-2007, 05:55

Yeah, all marriages based off theirs, eh?

I didn't say it was a good thing. ;)

The only thing I like about the whole Adam and Eve story is the first part, where the purpose of marriage is explained:

"Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'"

Strange... no mention of procreation.

Tuo

12-09-2007, 05:56

Hell I'm actually considering getting a vasectomy soon since I do not want children.

Rock on, Wilgrove! :D

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 05:56

QFT.

i don't understand that reply.

Thanks much

Soheran

12-09-2007, 05:59

Just like when you get older, you understand why your parents were strict.

Unless they strictly applied irrational and arbitrary rules.

Like God.

Wilgrove

12-09-2007, 06:07

I believe in god, and I believe in god's rules, HOWEVER, I don't believe in many of the human interpretations of them.

with faith must come common sense.

Agreed.

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 06:09

I believe in god, and I believe in god's rules, HOWEVER, I don't believe in many of the human interpretations of them.

with faith must come common sense.

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 06:09

I didn't say it was a good thing. ;)

The only thing I like about the whole Adam and Eve story is the first part, where the purpose of marriage is explained:

"Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'"

Strange... no mention of procreation.
Even weirder, "god" cast a heavy sleep upon Adam and performed a free-floater extraction on him to make Eve ...

DATE-RAPE!!! God slipped Adam some flunitrazepam and made an urban legend out of people stealing kidneys in back alleys!

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 06:10

with faith must come common sense.

Le sens commun n'est pas si commun.
*shakes head*

Bergelland

12-09-2007, 06:16

*Parachutes himself into the thread*
Well i don't see any reasons for sex to be considered a sin (i know it is). For me, sex is not just normal, it is also beautiful, and of course, it feels great too. My guess is that back in the big bearded guys' days people seen sacrifice as a way to get closer to God, but that's just me.

Zilam

12-09-2007, 06:27

Yes, but we are of an age where we have condoms, pills, and surgery to shut off our plumbings. I used a condom when we made love, and she's on the pill now. Hell I'm actually considering getting a vasectomy soon since I do not want children.

Yes, but those things still aren't at 100%. Condoms still tear, ya know? Plus, what about emotional damage? Two people are making love, but are comitted, and one breaks the other heart. Now, one person gave their all to the other, and that other person took them for granted, and broke their heart. Its not just a physical risk, but emotional one. And if you are a believer, then its a spiritual risk. If you are out being promiscuous and/or lusting, then how can you be serving God faithfully?

We are told that the flesh and spirit are contrary to each other. If we live to fulfill the flesh, then we cannot be part of God's kingdom. If we live to fulfill the spirit, then we cannot partake in sinful things.

Zilam

12-09-2007, 06:29

Even weirder, "god" cast a heavy sleep upon Adam and performed a free-floater extraction on him to make Eve ...

DATE-RAPE!!! God slipped Adam some flunitrazepam and made an urban legend out of people stealing kidneys in back alleys!

I hope you guys don't think we Christians really take that as literal. I am of the opinion, that it is technically possible to have happened that way, but rather Moses(the author of the first 5 books) was inspired to write that story in a way to be simple for man to understand, and also to make a good story for people to relate to.

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 06:31

I hope you guys don't think we Christians really take that as literal. I am of the opinion, that it is technically possible to have happened that way, but rather Moses(the author of the first 5 books) was inspired to write that story in a way to be simple for man to understand, and also to make a good story for people to relate to.

Date rape is a good story to relate to, Zi? o.0
*shudder*

I think the only thing "y'all" christians have to worry about as far as other peoples' opinions go is whether or not you attribute sensibility to the sensible parts of the bible or not, really.

Zilam

12-09-2007, 06:46

Date rape is a good story to relate to, Zi? o.0
*shudder*

I think the only thing "y'all" christians have to worry about as far as other peoples' opinions go is whether or not you attribute sensibility to the sensible parts of the bible or not, really.

Its not a story about date rape. If your mind is that twisted, then me thinks you need to have a sleep :p

The story is to show us how we can have God with us, if we simply obey him. Once we disobey, we are faced with all the ills of this world. If God is with us, then evil departs. If we remove God, it opens us up for evil to enter in.

Zilam

12-09-2007, 06:47

You are one of the only people I've listened to that understands that the way the bible was written and translated was based on human view points of a higher inspiration, not to be taken completely seriousley.

Very awesome.

Yeah, our type is few and far between. I think about 300 years ago, we'd be burned as witches and/or heretics.

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 06:49

I hope you guys don't think we Christians really take that as literal. I am of the opinion, that it is technically possible to have happened that way, but rather Moses(the author of the first 5 books) was inspired to write that story in a way to be simple for man to understand, and also to make a good story for people to relate to.

You are one of the only people I've listened to that understands that the way the bible was written and translated was based on human view points of a higher inspiration, not to be taken completely seriousley.

Very awesome.

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 06:52

Yeah, our type is few and far between. I think about 300 years ago, we'd be burned as witches and/or heretics.

Probably and proudly,

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 06:53

Its not a story about date rape. If your mind is that twisted, then me thinks you need to have a sleep :p
Now YOU'RE trying to date-rape me?!?
:p
It is twisted. It wasn't with Adam's permission you know.

The story is to show us how we can have God with us, if we simply obey him. Once we disobey, we are faced with all the ills of this world. If God is with us, then evil departs. If we remove God, it opens us up for evil to enter in.

I wouldn't say that about Genesis persay, although you seem to be implying the issue with the serpent and Eden's garden.
Adam grew *lonely*. God already had another fling! :p
Perhaps with one of Adam's prior wives, like Lilith? ;)

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 06:54

You are one of the only people I've listened to that understands that the way the bible was written and translated was based on human view points of a higher inspiration, not to be taken completely seriousley.

Very awesome.

Zilam's actually pretty cool/hot.

He's a little preoccupied with sex, though. He'll "work it out". :p

Zilam

12-09-2007, 06:57

Zilam's actually pretty cool/hot.
You flatter me too much:fluffle:

He's a little preoccupied with sex, though. He'll "work it out". :p

Since when? I'm like...abstaining until I get married, and that doesn't seem to be a likely thing for me:p Sex is far from my mind. -nods-

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 06:57

Yeah, our type is few and far between. I think about 300 years ago, we'd be burned as witches and/or heretics.

Not witches, but perhaps heretics.
'sides, there were a few high points (relatively):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 06:58

You flatter me too much:fluffle:
What-evah. :rolleyes:

Since when? I'm like...abstaining until I get married, and that doesn't seem to be a likely thing for me:p Sex is far from my mind. -nods-

Since you doinked my eardrum nary a thread ago! :p

Zilam

12-09-2007, 06:59

Not witches, but perhaps heretics.
'sides, there were a few high points (relatively):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

I feel as if I should have been born when the Church first started up sometimes. For some reason, the modern church has turned far away from the original message and goal. :(

Zilam

12-09-2007, 07:00

Since you doinked my eardrum nary a thread ago! :p
And if you don't hush, that won't be the only thing getting doinked. ;) :p

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 07:01

I feel as if I should have been born when the Church first started up sometimes. For some reason, the modern church has turned far away from the original message and goal. :(

You could blame the telephone game, but it's really about the reason why *every* social construct succumbs to corruption, when it finally does: greed (as all sins are facets of it)

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 07:02

And if you don't hush, that won't be the only thing getting doinked. ;) :p

I have two. Is this a dp night or what?
*covers ribs with straightjacket*

Everonia

12-09-2007, 07:02

In response to the original question.

It is a sin to those who have faith in *insert religion's* teachings. You are free to believe what you want, just don't shove it down my throat, k?

Zilam

12-09-2007, 07:05

You could blame the telephone game, but it's really about the reason why *every* social construct succumbs to corruption, when it finally does: greed (as all sins are facets of it)

I have two. Is this a dp night or what?
*covers ribs with straightjacket*

Sir, your intellect is very attractive, so my suggestion is that you make sure you keep those ribs hidden for a while. Well, if worst comes to worst, I could always pray, and ask God to put a sleep upon you. :eek: ;)

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 07:08

Sir, your intellect is very attractive, so my suggestion is that you make sure you keep those ribs hidden for a while. If it's my intellect that's so attractive, it would appear i need earplugs, nostril plugs, a ball gag *and* a blindfold .... hey, that does seem kinda attra- never mind. Enough with your sweet murmurs.

Well, if worst comes to worst, I could always pray, and ask God to put a sleep upon you. :eek: ;)It's already happening anyway, and this time not due boredom! Early day tomorrow.
So long as god doesn't daterape me while i'm driving wifey to work, it'll probably turn out alright. Is that so much to ask?

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 07:08

I feel as if I should have been born when the Church first started up sometimes. For some reason, the modern church has turned far away from the original message and goal. :(

I don't think that they've "turned away" it's just that they, (we) don't understand the language and terminology of the original text, so there is a confusion. Also, I don't beelieve that there have been modern miracles of any magnitude, and we, as a race, need confirmation. it is no longer a reality, it has become more of an idea to most people, they don't truly understand/grasp that it is all real, the people and events, and the power.

Zilam

12-09-2007, 07:09

I don't think that they've "turned away" it's just that they, (we) don't understand the language and terminology of the original text, so there is a confusion. Also, I don't beelieve that there have been modern miracles of any magnitude, and we, as a race, need confirmation. it is no longer a reality, it has become more of an idea to most people, they don't truly understand/grasp that it is all real, the people and events, and the power.

Well, there are miracles worked all the time. They aren't reported though. I know people that have seen other being raised from the dead in Africa. As I have shared in another thread, I have seen a man's broken arm healed as a result of my friend and I praying over it. The miracles are there, but not in great quantity, especially in the west. The western church, in my honest opinion, has ruined the name of Christianity.

The Brevious

12-09-2007, 07:11

Well, there are miracles worked all the time. They aren't reported though. I know people that have seen other being raised from the dead in Africa. As I have shared in another thread, I have seen a man's broken arm healed as a result of my friend and I praying over it. The miracles are there, but not in great quantity, especially in the west. The western church, in my honest opinion, has ruined the name of Christianity.

That reminds me (last note) - what do you know of the church in Ethiopia? You might (if you haven't already) check that out.

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 07:12

In response to the original question.

It is a sin to those who have faith in *insert religion's* teachings. You are free to believe what you want, just don't shove it down my throat, k?

If you don't want to discuss religion, don't post here. This is a civilized and polite religouse/idealistic discussion in which you are invited to join.

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 07:15

Well, there are miracles worked all the time. They aren't reported though. I know people that have seen other being raised from the dead in Africa. As I have shared in another thread, I have seen a man's broken arm healed as a result of my friend and I praying over it. The miracles are there, but not in great quantity, especially in the west. The western church, in my honest opinion, has ruined the name of Christianity.

there is a difference between the Christain religion and christianity. Christianity is a divine relationship with god, the religion itself is open for interpretation.

Zilam

12-09-2007, 07:18

there is a difference between the Christain religion and christianity. Christianity is a divine relationship with god, the religion itself is open for interpretation.

Religion is the opposite of what God intended. A friend of mine said something tonight that resonates in me right now. Never did the apostles call themselves Christians, but rather servants of Christ. It was at Antioch, where the WORLD first called them christians, because they were Christ like. Now when the world calls us christians, it is someone that claims to be of Christian religion, but its not because we are Christ-like, as the original church was, when it earned that title. When he said that, it made me realize that we need to work hard as servants of Christ to earn that title of Christ like, again, to live up to our name, other wise, we are just wasting our time.

That reminds me (last note) - what do you know of the church in Ethiopia? You might (if you haven't already) check that out.
I know nothing of it, but I will look it up. :)

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 07:26

Religions:christianity, judaism, islam, confucisam, atheism, evolutionism, etc

At this point in the thread there's so much wrong it is not worth continuing.

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 07:26

Religions:christianity, judaism, islam, confucisam, atheism, evolutionism, etc all have ideas and activites that give structure to society and help to teach the message of said religion, however, to be a "christian" it is only necessary to believe in Christ and his payment of our sins.

As i've said, i believe christianity and being a christain are two different things.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 07:30

and, to the original question. In order to consider the question of "is premarital sex a sin" we must assume a few facts.

1) there is a god
2) god gave us laws
3) one of those laws is to not engage in premarital sex
4) failure to adhere to those laws is a sin

If all those statements are true, then yes, premarital sex is a sin. If one of those statements is not true, then no, it is not a sin.

If it is a sin, it is a sin regardless of whether someone believes it to be. Likewise, if it is not a sin, it is not a sin regardless of whether someone believes it is. Thus ones faith is entirely irrelevant to the truth. Either it is, or it isn't. What one believes is irrelevant to the ultimite fact that it is either is, or it is not, regardless of what one thinks of it.

I have ABSOLUTLY no way to conclusivly show that all of those statements are true, or that any of them are not, in fact true.

So, in other words, how the hell do you expect me to speak for god which may or may not exist?

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 07:31

At this point in the thread there's so much wrong it is not worth continuing.

wrong for you, right for us, ENJOY.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 07:32

wrong for you, right for us, ENJOY.

really? well, feel free to explain how confucianism, atheism and "evolutionism" which is a meaningless word are "religions"

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 07:35

Athiest, i take it

you take it wrong.

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 07:37

So, in other words, how the hell do you expect me to speak for god which may or may not exist?

Athiest, i take it, by not answering the question you have answered the question. This board is intended to get youre opinion, and as such, you've given it. Thank you for youre input and lets be nice.

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 07:42

really? well, feel free to explain how confucianism, atheism and "evolutionism" which is a meaningless word are "religions"

confucism; although thay may have other deities, the teachings of Confucism is held almost as religous teachings.

Atheism; although there is no deity, it still gives the follower a way of thinking, one reason for religion.

evolutionism; again explains life and gives a way of thinking, no deity same response. A deity is not a prerequisite for a religion.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 07:46

confucism; although thay may have other deities, the teachings of Confucism is held almost as religous teachings.

Atheism; although there is no deity, it still gives the follower a way of thinking, one reason for religion.

evolutionism; again explains life and gives a way of thinking, no deity same response. A deity is not a prerequisite for a religion.

so "a way of thinking" is a religion? That's a rather...nonsensical definition. Atheism doesn't have any "way of thinking" other than "there is no deity", it has no ethical, spiritual or moral connotations. It is merely the belief in something, no more a "religion" than the belief that tomorrow I will have a cup of coffee.

Evolutionism doesn't "explain life" in the slightest, as evolution does not touch the question of the origin of life. Evolution doesn't deal with the question of how life got started. it is no more a "religion" than math or biology.

Likewise your views on what confucianism is are rather...misguided.

Jasporia

12-09-2007, 07:57

well then, O wise one, seeing as you have the universe figured out, how about you enlighten me with your vast array of knowledge;

religion, what does it consist of and why do we have it, is there only one true religion? does it matter what we call the deities? And if "belief" doesn't make up the bas eof religion, what does?

Ruby City

12-09-2007, 08:00

I think the sin here is to make kids without having a commitment to stay together and raise the kids as is your responsibility. Traditionally such a commitment was entered by getting married. The line has blurred now when some faithfully stick together and raise kids without the marriage ceremony while others get married, get divorced and leave their kids. I'm not sure where the line goes today or if sex with modern means of avoiding risk of pregnancy counts. It's probably still a sin to have sex without a long term intention to stay together.

Barringtonia

12-09-2007, 08:05

*snip*

The thing is, I'm happy you got laid and that it broke a nonsensical idea that sex before marriage is a sin.

Although, in technical terms, she was the 'right person' by default because she's the one who broke that principle, all you're doing his justifying your original principle by saying 'well I made absolutely sure she was the right person see', when that is just as nonsensical.

There's nothing wrong with wanting your first time to be magic - in many ways it's a good thing - but all you're doing is justifying your broken belief - as so many religious people do when they give in to reality.

Yet there's also nothing wrong with getting laid with multiple people, gaining different experiences and finally....

...understanding that being faithful to one person is about trust and commitment and enjoying each other's company, which will lead to great sex anyway, and has nothing to do with sex intrinsically.

Sunny Yellowflowers

12-09-2007, 08:18

First of all, I don't believe in 'sins', God isn't that of a rulefreak, I think. I rather speak of a learningprocess, learn from the things you did wrong and try to do it better. Make the right choices, what feels right for you and what turns out the best for you. It's about the intention. That said, that doesn't mean that I think it's good if people have many bedpartners. I think it's important that you know the person you're sleeping with well and that you care about eachother, preferably you're in a committed relationship. The paper that says you're married, doesn't say anything about the love you feel for a person, so it isn't really needed, although I think a marriage is a very beautiful way of saying to the world that you love eachother and intend to stay together. Sex, or rather lovemaking, isn't just a physical thing, there are emotions and feelings attached, always. So don't mess with it, use it wisely. Sex isn't sinful, it's beautiful and a gift from God, but be careful with it.

South Lorenya

12-09-2007, 08:18

Premarital sex is usually not a sin -- and when it is, it's for other reasons (such as you being 18 and your partner being 14!)

Puertorrican workers

12-09-2007, 08:26

Who determined that sex before marriage is a sin??? The Pope... obviously because he does not want to have sex, neither want us to have it!!

Cabra West

12-09-2007, 09:06

Ever since then I've been wondering, is sex before marriage really a sin? I mean Adam and Eve were never married and they still produced offspring. The more I think about it, the more I believe that this whole 'No sex before marriage' was man made instead of divine revelation.

I think you may just have had a major revelation about religion and the concept of sin ;)

I always said that sex opens your mind and gives you new perspectives. :D

Philosopy

12-09-2007, 09:07

I've always thought that sex before marriage is one of those things that, if God does care about it, is probably pretty low down on His list of priorities.

Callisdrun

12-09-2007, 09:12

Cameroi

12-09-2007, 09:17

entirely a matter of deffinician and who'se doing the defining. as far as i'm concerned morality has nothing whatsoever to do with questions of sexuality.

and everything, and only everything, to do with the avoidance of causing suffering and real harm. only where the one might impinge upon the other does it become any legitimate concern thereof.

=^^=
.../\...

Alavamaa

12-09-2007, 09:36

hey you who actually know your Bible! Is there anything about premarital sex in New Testament? We have already thrown away many parts of the Old Testament, why should we stick to this one?

I remember this quote: "Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate." And in the Exodus it says that: "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to anyone and sleeps with her, he must accept her as his wife” (or something like that..) So if you have sex, you're married in the eyes of God, right?

Umdogsland

12-09-2007, 10:20

All of my life, when I've heard that Sex before marriage is a sin. Oh you cannot have sex before marriage because if you do, then your penis will fall off, or your vagina will rot. For awhile I believed it, and abstained. However, I soon gave up on saving myself for marriage because well I never thought I would actually get a chance to be married. So, I've decided to at least save myself for the right person. Recently I have met that right person and had the most magical night of my life. I don't know maybe we did it because we were both lonely and had the same mindset, etc. Whatever the reason I'm glad it happened.

Ever since then I've been wondering, is sex before marriage really a sin? I mean Adam and Eve were never married and they still produced offspring. The more I think about it, the more I believe that this whole 'No sex before marriage' was man made instead of divine revelation.And the way I see it divine revelation in itself is man made.
There has already been something similar recently.

Well, there are miracles worked all the time. They aren't reported though. I know people that have seen other being raised from the dead in Africa. As I have shared in another thread, I have seen a man's broken arm healed as a result of my friend and I praying over it. The miracles are there, but not in great quantity, especially in the west. The western church, in my honest opinion, has ruined the name of Christianity.Why attribute to miracle what could be attributed to something concrete and definitely real. Surely it could just have been a coincidence that you prayed while his arm healed. I'm sure his arm would have healed if you hadn't prayed. When my arm was broken, it healed off its own accord in 3 weeks and I seriously doubt any1 prayed.
confucism; although thay may have other deities, the teachings of Confucism is held almost as religous teachings.

Atheism; although there is no deity, it still gives the follower a way of thinking, one reason for religion.

evolutionism; again explains life and gives a way of thinking, no deity same response. A deity is not a prerequisite for a religion.
Atheism is not a religion in itself. There could be atheist religions like some Buddhism but atheism in itself is not a religion any more than monotheism or polytheism.

Andaras Prime

12-09-2007, 10:50

I bet the sex before marriage thing is some kind of ancient population control conspiracy.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 12:56

Bottle

12-09-2007, 12:59

Not only were Adam and Eve married, but they are the Biblical model for marriage--not in the sense that their marriage was perfect, but rather that all marriages are based off theirs.
Egad, let's hope not. Adam and Eve had one shitty relationship.

"Here, let me rip out your body parts to craft a domestic slave-being who will be forced into life-long servitude for you! Ooh, and just to make sure she really, really, really loathes your touch, I'm going to ensure that she has to experience excruciating pain birthing the children that you force her to have!"

Smunkeeville

12-09-2007, 13:02

Peepelonia

12-09-2007, 13:03

Maniaca

12-09-2007, 13:12

Yeah,

no matter how bad you wish otherwise.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 14:54

Atheism; although there is no deity, it still gives the follower a way of thinking, one reason for religion.

Likewise, lack of belief in Santa Claus is a religion, because it gives its followers a "way of thinking" (i.e. "Santa isn't real.")

Wouldja lookit that? It turns out we are all members of the same religion!

evolutionism; again explains life and gives a way of thinking, no deity same response. A deity is not a prerequisite for a religion.
It never fails. Any person who uses terms like "evolutionism" or "Darwinism" will invariably be completely clueless about what evolutionary theory actually says.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 15:01

There was a reason God wanted sex with in marriage. Look at all the diseases, unwanted pregnancies, etc, that stem from promiscuous behavior. Now I know STDs and unwanted pregnancies can happen in marriages too.

Wait, you've already lost me.

"God clearly wants sex to happen only within marriage, and by way of evidence I will point out the existence of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Of course, those still exist within marriage anyhow."

How does that logic work?

Marriage doesn't prevent STD transmission or unwanted pregnancy. If the presence of STDs and unwanted pregnancies are supposed to be indicators that a given sexual behavior is unwise, wouldn't God have made marriage into a kind of magical contraceptive or something?

But let me ask you something, who is more likely to be able to take care of a baby, a single mother who doesn't know who the father is, or a married couple?

Depends on the people involved. Being married does not, and has never, made unfit parents magically turn into fit parents.

Just like how marriage doesn't magically prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancy, marriage also doesn't magically bestow the Gift Of Good Parenting.

Having two loving, committed, responsible parents is fabulous for kids. Having three is even better. Four would be outstanding.

But marriage isn't going to automatically make that happen. You can't just take a single parent, marry them off, and be guaranteed a good result.

A GOOD marriage is going to help with parenting. But we have endless examples of how marriage isn't always good.

We can see in our society how that works.

Yep. We see that the overwhelming majority of kids raised by single mothers do just fine.

Are you aware of how insulting and paternalistic it is to imply that kids would be better off if only their mamas were honorably wed? Think about it: you're actually assuming that you know better than all the single mothers out there.

Women who have children on their own generally have, you know, reasons. Most often, the individual who fathered their offspring is either unable or unwilling to parent. Are you really prepared to tell them that you, a total stranger, know better than they do about their situation? Are you really going to tell them that you know things would be better if they were married, even though they obviously have reached a different conclusion about their personal circumstances?

Some people make bad choices, and women are people too, so obviously there are some single mothers who have made bad choices. But it's pretty silly and arrogant to assume that all those women and all their kids would be better off married, when you actually don't know the first thing about their situations.

Another thing, if two people only have sex with each other, that means no cheating or premarital relations with anyone else, how likely are they to get STDs?

Never, in the history of human civilization, has marriage equaled 100% sexual monogamy.

Never, in the history of human civilization, has marriage been required for humans to practice sexual monogamy.

You're not making a case for marriage. You're making a case for sexual monogamy. The two are not remotely equivalent.

I'd say very slim.God makes rules not to take away fun, but rather to keep us safe. When we spiritual mature, we understand this. Just like when you get older, you understand why your parents were strict.
If you're still immature enough to need a parent figure being strict with you, then you're not old enough to be sexually active. When you've grown up enough to make mature judgments for yourself, without Papa standing over you to keep you in line, then perhaps you'll be ready for an adult relationship. Until then, it will be best for you AND your partners if you keep yer pants on.

Cabra West

12-09-2007, 15:10

There was a time when the concept of self-control was valued instead of reviled.

It's been re-evaluated. Most people these days don't see the point of exercising control just for the sake of it.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 15:12

There was a time when the concept of self-control was valued instead of reviled.

Cabra West

12-09-2007, 15:13

You have some serious anger issues.

Bottle? Nah, she just reacts adequately to the hatred heeped upon half of humanity in the bible.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 15:14

There was a time when the concept of self-control was valued instead of reviled.
Yeah, it's sad to see the number of people who believe that they are only capable of self-control if they completely abstain from something altogether. It's like how many anorexics can't feel that they are in control unless they are depriving themselves of food altogether.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 15:15

Egad, let's hope not. Adam and Eve had one shitty relationship.

"Here, let me rip out your body parts to craft a domestic slave-being who will be forced into life-long servitude for you! Ooh, and just to make sure she really, really, really loathes your touch, I'm going to ensure that she has to experience excruciating pain birthing the children that you force her to have!"

You have some serious anger issues.

Cabra West

12-09-2007, 15:20

You have some serious anger issues.

Bottle? Nah, she just reacts adequately to the hatred heeped upon half of humanity in the bible.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 15:24

It's been re-evaluated. Most people these days don't see the point of exercising control just for the sake of it.

re-evaluated by whom? by what moral/ethical/cultural authority? People who simply refuse to see the value in self-control and endorse indulgence for its own sake?

Bottle? Nah, she just reacts adequately to the hatred heeped upon half of humanity in the bible.

Ah so you share those issues. Got it.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 15:30

You have some serious anger issues.
I'm afraid you've lost me. Are you saying that there's something wrong with me because I'm not angry about that particular Bible story? I suppose it would make sense for people to get angry about abuses and such, but you have to remember that I believe the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor rather than an actual description of literal events. I don't tend to get genuinely angry at metaphors.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 15:40

Yeah, it's sad to see the number of people who believe that they are only capable of self-control if they completely abstain from something altogether. It's like how many anorexics can't feel that they are in control unless they are depriving themselves of food altogether.

Could we not distort the issues, please?

Hey, thanks.

It isn't about abstaining form sex, period. (I realize there are some who hold to that view, but it's not Biblical and it's equally wrong.)

Hamilay

12-09-2007, 15:40

re-evaluated by whom? by what moral/ethical/cultural authority? People who simply refuse to see the value in self-control and endorse indulgence for its own sake?

Ah so you share those issues. Got it.

Name me one benefit of a responsible and mature adult abstaining from consensual premarital sex. Go on, I dare you.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 15:44

Could we not distort the issues, please?

Hey, thanks.

??

Seriously, what are you talking about?

I thought you were starting a line of thought about self control. Did I miss something?

Bottle

12-09-2007, 15:47

re-evaluated by whom? by what moral/ethical/cultural authority? People who simply refuse to see the value in self-control and endorse indulgence for its own sake?

Self-control for its own sake is no different than indulgence for its own sake. In both cases, the individual is simply doing something to do it, usually because it makes them feel good.

It's also odd to suggest that self-control and indulgence are opposites in some way. I don't see how that works. One can exercise self-control while also indulging oneself.

Cabra West

12-09-2007, 15:54

re-evaluated by whom? by what moral/ethical/cultural authority? People who simply refuse to see the value in self-control and endorse indulgence for its own sake?

The very same, yes. Re-evaluated by each individual for him/herself. The ultimate moral and cultural authority.

Ah so you share those issues. Got it.

Ah. Speaking out against hatred and discrimination means having issues. Got it. You must live in a funny little world.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 15:54

I'm afraid you've lost me. Are you saying that there's something wrong with me because I'm not angry about that particular Bible story? I suppose it would make sense for people to get angry about abuses and such, but you have to remember that I believe the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor rather than an actual description of literal events. I don't tend to get genuinely angry at metaphors.

When you use vitriolic descriptive language like that, you reveal anger. You've decided it means 'X', it pisses you off, and so that's your way of dealing with it.

Doesn't make you right, BTW.

Name me one benefit of a responsible and mature adult abstaining from consensual premarital sex. Go on, I dare you.

I'll do you even better.

1)STDs cease to be an issue. If every person abstained from extramarital sex, STDs would be a thing of the past.

2)The rate of unwanted pregnancies would plummet. Find the stats on unwanted pregnancies in marriage and those outside of marriage. Not remove the ones outside of marriage. What you're left with will be but a tiny fraction.

3)Prostitution and all issues surrounding it would vanish.

My son once asked me why it was a sin. My reply was that God isn't on a power trip. When something is considered sinful it's because it would be in our own best interests to avoid doing it. In this case, saving oneself for marriage means taking the most intimate thing two people can share and reserving it only for your spouse and for none other. They deserve that of you. Otherwise, when you do someday get married after having indulged yourself with however many girls before, then your wife has to live with the knowledge that there are other women out there who have been just as physically intimate with her husband as she is. She deserves better. (That goes both ways, of course.)

And why avoid sleeping with a fiance'? Because first of all, an engagement isn't binding like marriage is. There's no guarantee that the wedding will happen so indulging in sex before that is taking a huge risk. Second, if this person is truly committed to you and will marry you, then what's the hurry? Make the wedding night truly special.

Some people do still value self-control, and no, it's not for its own sake although even if it were, that's still not a bad thing. Mastering control over oneself makes a person stronger.

Law Abiding Criminals

12-09-2007, 15:56

Sex is evil, immoral, disgusting, and degrading to all parties involved. The only way that it is not so is if it is between an opposite-sex married couple whose marriage was ordained by the Church, it is conducted in total privacy with the lights completely off, it is in the missionary position with minimal foreplay, it is not enjoyed by either partner, and it is strictly done to procreate and is successful in doing so. Anything else is offensive to God and a single violation of this rule is sufficient to send all parties involved as well as their children ten generations down to hell for all eternity.

Well, if I didn't throw this out here, we just wouldn't have any extreme positions, now, would we?

I could take the opposite effect - there's absolutely nothing wrong with sex between anyone and anything, and in fact, we need to impose quotas on sex rather than forbidding it. A person over the age of 17 who does not have sex with another human being (or animal, or rock, or something...even themselves) at least six times in any given 30-day period shall be re-educated in the joys of sexual activity and its health benefits.

There. We have both extreme positions here. Now for something more common sense and lazy:

Just don't do anything stupid, people.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 15:57

Self-control for its own sake is no different than indulgence for its own sake. In both cases, the individual is simply doing something to do it, usually because it makes them feel good.

It's also odd to suggest that self-control and indulgence are opposites in some way. I don't see how that works. One can exercise self-control while also indulging oneself.

Can you elaborate please, on how someone can simultaneously exercise self-control and self-indulgence?

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:00

??

Seriously, what are you talking about?

I thought you were starting a line of thought about self control. Did I miss something?

And now for the whole post:

Could we not distort the issues, please?

Hey, thanks.

It isn't about abstaining form sex, period. (I realize there are some who hold to that view, but it's not Biblical and it's equally wrong.)

Barringtonia

12-09-2007, 16:00

*snip*

Some people throw themselves at life with all the force they can muster - if you believe God created this life, why not experience it to the fullest extent?

If I created a planet as rich as this, with the variety of people, I'd want those people to live it, love it and learn rather than coop themselves up with misguided beliefs about my perceived intentions.

Seems you would want to control them and order them how to live their life.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 16:02

In this case, saving oneself for marriage means taking the most intimate thing two people can share and reserving it only for your spouse and for none other. They deserve that of you.

And it's bizarre near worship of sex that screws so many people up. The most intimate thing two people can share? Are you kidding me? Sex isn't inherently intimate. It isn't inherently "special", it isn't even inherently fun unless you somewhat know what you're doing.

Sex is sex, nothing more nothing less, to treat it with this near fanatical worship by viewing it as this extra special thing is causes so many damned issues.

Otherwise, when you do someday get married after having indulged yourself with however many girls before, then your wife has to live with the knowledge that there are other women out there who have been just as physically intimate with her husband as she is. She deserves better. (That goes both ways, of course.)

And so what? A normal healthy adult doesn't have a freakout if she learns that her partner actually knew other women before her. A normal healthy adult doesn't view that she is "treated badly" and "deserves better" if someone she loves knew someone else before they were ever together.

And why avoid sleeping with a fiance'? Because first of all, an engagement isn't binding like marriage is. There's no guarantee that the wedding will happen so indulging in sex before that is taking a huge risk.

A huge risk, FOR WHAT? What is this huge gigantic risk, that we'll fuck and decide we're not right for each other? That's pretty good to find out BEFORE the binding agreement huh?

Second, if this person is truly committed to you and will marry you, then what's the hurry? Make the wedding night truly special.

If you need something as mundane as sex to make the night of your marriage special, I feel sorry for the future of your marriage. If you feel so little about your partner that you need to have sex to make that evening special, you really shouldn't be getting married.

Some people do still value self-control, and no, it's not for its own sake although even if it were, that's still not a bad thing. Mastering control over oneself makes a person stronger.

Sure, in the same way annorexics think that refraining from food makes them stronger.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 16:03

Can you elaborate please, on how someone can simultaneously exercise self-control and self-indulgence?

because self-control, for no other purpose than to control oneself is indulgence.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:06

Some people throw themselves at life with all the force they can muster - if you believe God created this life, why not experience it to the fullest extent?

If I created a planet as rich as this, with the variety of people, I'd want those people to live it, love it and learn rather than coop themselves up with misguided beliefs about my perceived intentions.

Seems you would want to control them and order them how to live their life.

This is going to sound a little mean but it's not meant to. I just couldn't think of a gentler way to phrase it so bear with me:

Hasn't it occurred to you that there might well be more to living in the world than simply hanging out for a lifespan? Again, I'm not trying to be nasty I'm asking genuinely if you've ever looked at it that way.

Hamilay

12-09-2007, 16:06

1)STDs cease to be an issue. If every person abstained from extramarital sex, STDs would be a thing of the past.

2)The rate of unwanted pregnancies would plummet. Find the stats on unwanted pregnancies in marriage and those outside of marriage. Not remove the ones outside of marriage. What you're left with will be but a tiny fraction.

3)Prostitution and all issues surrounding it would vanish.

My son once asked me why it was a sin. My reply was that God isn't on a power trip. When something is considered sinful it's because it would be in our own best interests to avoid doing it. In this case, saving oneself for marriage means taking the most intimate thing two people can share and reserving it only for your spouse and for none other. They deserve that of you. Otherwise, when you do someday get married after having indulged yourself with however many girls before, then your wife has to live with the knowledge that there are other women out there who have been just as physically intimate with her husband as she is. She deserves better. (That goes both ways, of course.)

Ahem. I should have specified that it was safe sex; I was intending to put that but due to Jolt's forum problems it slipped past me. However, that is still mostly covered by the qualifier responsible.

Many, many STDs are transmitted through marriage. IIRC married monogamous women are the group with the fastest-growing rate of STD transmission.

Plenty of married people visit prostitutes. The subject is premarital sex, not extramarital sex.

And why avoid sleeping with a fiance'? Because first of all, an engagement isn't binding like marriage is. There's no guarantee that the wedding will happen so indulging in sex before that is taking a huge risk. Second, if this person is truly committed to you and will marry you, then what's the hurry? Make the wedding night truly special.

Some people do still value self-control, and no, it's not for its own sake although even if it were, that's still not a bad thing. Mastering control over oneself makes a person stronger

A huge risk of what, exactly?

I don't see how it's your business to be the official wedding night planner for anyone.

Cabra West

12-09-2007, 16:08

This is going to sound a little mean but it's not meant to. I just couldn't think of a gentler way to phrase it so bear with me:

Hasn't it occurred to you that there might well be more to living in the world than simply hanging out for a lifespan? Again, I'm not trying to be nasty I'm asking genuinely if you've ever looked at it that way.

Possibly. And since I'm the official goddess of chocolate and sex of NSG, I hereby decree that paradise is only for those who indulge fully but responsibly in life.
Which is about as likely to happen as anything else, really.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 16:08

When you use vitriolic descriptive language like that, you reveal anger. You've decided it means 'X', it pisses you off, and so that's your way of dealing with it.

Doesn't make you right, BTW.

I think you're leaping to some radical assumptions, there.

Just to clear things up, I wasn't at all angry when I made the post you quoted. I was actually being a bit silly.

If you interpret myths literally, you can get some very funny results.

I'll do you even better.

1)STDs cease to be an issue. If every person abstained from extramarital sex, STDs would be a thing of the past.

And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their bums a-hopping.

Or, if you prefer, if every person abstained from driving a car, car accidents would be a thing of the past.

You aren't talking about "self-control," you're talking about abstaining. They're not always the same thing.

2)The rate of unwanted pregnancies would plummet. Find the stats on unwanted pregnancies in marriage and those outside of marriage. Not remove the ones outside of marriage. What you're left with will be but a tiny fraction.

Given the number of women world-wide who are married and yet do not have access to contraception, I think that's a bit of a radical assumption on your part.

3)Prostitution and all issues surrounding it would vanish.

Well, yeah...if nobody had the desire to visit prostitutes, prostitution wouldn't exist.

Not sure what the point here is. You're trying to talk about a world that has never, and will never, exist. (I.e. a world in which no human seeks out sex with persons other than their wedded spouse.) We could make up all sorts of fictional utopias like that, by simply eliminating any of a number of human drives. But why bother?

My son once asked me why it was a sin. My reply was that God isn't on a power trip. When something is considered sinful it's because it would be in our own best interests to avoid doing it. In this case, saving oneself for marriage means taking the most intimate thing two people can share and reserving it only for your spouse and for none other.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but I really feel bad for you if you think sex is the most intimate thing two people can share.

They deserve that of you. Otherwise, when you do someday get married after having indulged yourself with however many girls before, then your wife has to live with the knowledge that there are other women out there who have been just as physically intimate with her husband as she is. She deserves better. (That goes both ways, of course.)

Or you could find a woman like me, who doesn't feel remotely bad about her partner having had past sexual experience. Why should I care?

The fact that my partner has smelled a rose before he met me does not mean he is unable to appreciate one that I give to him now. It doesn't make my gift any less meaningful or special between us, because the emotion and the intimacy of our relationship is not confined to mere physical gestures or material matters.

And why avoid sleeping with a fiance'? Because first of all, an engagement isn't binding like marriage is. There's no guarantee that the wedding will happen so indulging in sex before that is taking a huge risk. Second, if this person is truly committed to you and will marry you, then what's the hurry? Make the wedding night truly special.

If your wedding night can't be special unless you're losing your virginity, then you shouldn't be getting married in the first place. If the most special thing about your marriage is sex, you're probably not going to make it as a couple.

Some people do still value self-control, and no, it's not for its own sake although even if it were, that's still not a bad thing. Mastering control over oneself makes a person stronger.
This seems like a total non sequitur. People who have sex outside of wedlock don't necessarily lack self-control, and people who abstain from sex outside of wedlock don't necessarily possess it.

Merephos

12-09-2007, 16:09

Abstinence is something that some parents and religious teachers try and force young people into. If you genuinely love someone there's nothing wrong with sex before marriage, especially if you use protection. My girlfriend and I are both still 15 and we're waiting 'till she turns 16 before we do it and this is our own choice. Personally I have a deep dislike for all religions and many of their teachings and abstinence in particular has always got on my nerves. I say good on you for doing it and for people who think it's a sin, well that's their loss. And if I go to hell for performing a perfectly natural human act with the girl I love, then the gods that humans worship see something wrong with that, they can take it up with me anytime.

Barringtonia

12-09-2007, 16:10

This is going to sound a little mean but it's not meant to. I just couldn't think of a gentler way to phrase it so bear with me:

Hasn't it occurred to you that there might well be more to living in the world than simply hanging out for a lifespan? Again, I'm not trying to be nasty I'm asking genuinely if you've ever looked at it that way.

I thought you phrased it very politely - to be honest, I'm in awe of this planet, of humanity, I find people fascinating and I'm really not sure I want to hold myself back from it in the unlikely event that I'll be judged by its creator for enjoying it.

Why would someone create something so wonderful and then make all sorts of rules as to how we would live in it?

Wouldn't he leave it up to us?

Are there not many mansions in heaven?

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:14

And it's bizarre near worship of sex that screws so many people up. The most intimate thing two people can share? Are you kidding me? Sex isn't inherently intimate. It isn't inherently "special", it isn't even inherently fun unless you somewhat know what you're doing.

Sex is sex, nothing more nothing less, to treat it with this near fanatical worship by viewing it as this extra special thing is causes so many damned issues.

Well there's the problem. You've taken an experience that strengthens the bond between two people both emotionally and mentally, it is the method by which people reproduce, and you're saying it's not inherently intimate? You've devalued the whole thing to the point where it's no wonder you'd endorse just tossing it out there.

And you talk down to those who believe as I do as if you hold some kind of enlightened superiority for it. That's priceless.

And so what? A normal healthy adult doesn't have a freakout if she learns that her partner actually knew other women before her. A normal healthy adult doesn't view that she is "treated badly" and "deserves better" if someone she loves knew someone else before they were ever together.

Well if sex means nothing to you then I wouldn't expect you to agree with me on this.

A huge risk, FOR WHAT? What is this huge gigantic risk, that we'll fuck and decide we're not right for each other? That's pretty good to find out BEFORE the binding agreement huh?

SO now you flip-flop from sex being unimportant and meaningless to something that's so important that you'd expect to divorce someone if it turns out that the sex isn't very exciting.

But I bet you don't put much stock in marriage either, do you?

If you need something as mundane as sex to make the night of your marriage special, I feel sorry for the future of your marriage. If you feel so little about your partner that you need to have sex to make that evening special, you really shouldn't be getting married.

So what makes it special, in your mind, if there's nothing new about it?

Sure, in the same way annorexics think that refraining from food makes them stronger.

What's with this analogy? It doesn't even make any sense and now I"ve seen it twice. You guys must really think it's a slam-dunk.

because self-control, for no other purpose than to control oneself is indulgence.

And black is white and up is down?

Ashmoria

12-09-2007, 16:17

Ok, so why is it a sin? Is it a sin because the Bible says it's a sin? A book that's been written by man who claim to be 'inspired'?

YES

duh

where else do you think the definition of sin, ANY sin, comes from?

if you take christianity seriously you need to take the prohibition on extra marital sex seriously. "i wanna get laid" is not a good reason to decide that you know better than thousands of years of theological thought.

if you dont take christianity seriously, do as you please. what difference does it make what they say is or isnt a sin?

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:20

Ahem. I should have specified that it was safe sex; I was intending to put that but due to Jolt's forum problems it slipped past me. However, that is still mostly covered by the qualifier responsible.

Many, many STDs are transmitted through marriage. IIRC married monogamous women are the group with the fastest-growing rate of STD transmission.

Plenty of married people visit prostitutes. The subject is premarital sex, not extramarital sex.

Then I'd say those arguments apply to extramarital sex too. How does that invalidate them in this discussion?

And "safe sex" is a relative term. Condoms aren't as safe as they're made out to be. Some STDs aren't slowed by them at all and others are less likely to be transmitted but there's no guarantee. My point stands.

A huge risk of what, exactly?

I don't see how it's your business to be the official wedding night planner for anyone.

Re-read please. It's easier than repeating myself.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 16:27

It's remarkably telling that you take the expression "sex is not the most intimate thing people can do" and equate that to "sex is worthless and of no value what so ever so we should all go fucking whomever we want without any self control"

It's remarkably telling because it is a classic illustration of exactly what I'm saying. This fanatical near worship of sex as this amazing thing, this most special and intimate thing, that the mere suggestion that it might not be, in and of itself, as important as you make it out to be, means someone is saying it's worthless and not worthy of any self control.

When you're done proposing a ludicrus strawman and actually want to respond to the arguments I have made, rather than the foaming at the mouth rabid fantaticism of this nonsense, come find me. Until then I have no desire to try and defend arguments I haven't made.

And if you honestly can't see that someone can simultaniously hold the opinion that sex is not the most intimate thing possible while at the same time not believing it is not worth exercising self control, and are not just setting up a straw man in some misguided attempt to "win", I really feel sorry for you.

Pure Metal

12-09-2007, 16:29

Ever since then I've been wondering, is sex before marriage really a sin?

no. no. and no.

Rambhutan

12-09-2007, 16:30

Condoms aren't as safe as they're made out to be. Some STDs aren't slowed by them at all.

Do you have some evidence for this assertion? Proper medical evidence by the way, not some 'it said so on the magic plates' stuff.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 16:32

Can you elaborate please, on how someone can simultaneously exercise self-control and self-indulgence?
Neo Art has helpfully provided one answer to this.

However, there's an even more basic answer.

I indulge my desire to eat something tasty, but I exercise control as I do so. I choose what I eat, and how much of it. I indulge while also controlling myself.

One can make a quite controlled decision to indulge, and one can control the extent to which one chooses to indulge. The two are not at all mutually exclusive.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 16:33

(and btw, just because you disagree doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it. K thx)

yeah, he actually asked for valid sources. What a dick.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:34

I think you're leaping to some radical assumptions, there.

Just to clear things up, I wasn't at all angry when I made the post you quoted. I was actually being a bit silly.

If you interpret myths literally, you can get some very funny results.

Have you ever looked at your posts to see how they might come across?

And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their bums a-hopping.

Or, if you prefer, if every person abstained from driving a car, car accidents would be a thing of the past.

You aren't talking about "self-control," you're talking about abstaining. They're not always the same thing.

They can be. How does that refute my point?

Given the number of women world-wide who are married and yet do not have access to contraception, I think that's a bit of a radical assumption on your part.

I don't think world-wide is an apropriate frame of reference for a discussion like this. We're talking about whether premarital sex is a sin, and the discussion seems to include only Christianity. To expand your focus world-wide is illogical because it would then encompass other beliefs which are outside the scope of the discussion.

Well, yeah...if nobody had the desire to visit prostitutes, prostitution wouldn't exist.

Not sure what the point here is. You're trying to talk about a world that has never, and will never, exist. (I.e. a world in which no human seeks out sex with persons other than their wedded spouse.) We could make up all sorts of fictional utopias like that, by simply eliminating any of a number of human drives. But why bother?

Because Christianity isn't about being perfect. It's about striving for perfection even though we can't get to it. Why? Because we're imporoved by the journey. Sure that world can't exist but if we all strove for it, the world would still be a helluva lot better than it is now.

Or have you given up on that?

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but I really feel bad for you if you think sex is the most intimate thing two people can share.

I did specify physically, but I'm curious as to what you feel trumps it?

Or you could find a woman like me, who doesn't feel remotely bad about her partner having had past sexual experience. Why should I care?

You've already established your position on the meaning of sex. You wouldn't care.

The fact that my partner has smelled a rose before he met me does not mean he is unable to appreciate one that I give to him now. It doesn't make my gift any less meaningful or special between us, because the emotion and the intimacy of our relationship is not confined to mere physical gestures or material matters.

So if I understand you correctly, since you've completely devalued sex your emotional connection to your mate is somehow superior to that of, say, my wife and me?

If your wedding night can't be special unless you're losing your virginity, then you shouldn't be getting married in the first place. If the most special thing about your marriage is sex, you're probably not going to make it as a couple.

See above.

This seems like a total non sequitur. People who have sex outside of wedlock don't necessarily lack self-control, and people who abstain from sex outside of wedlock don't necessarily possess it.

Someone who abstains (willingly) from premarital sex is demonstrating a greater of degree of self-control than somone who doesn't. If you disagree, please elaborate on how that is.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:35

Do you have some evidence for this assertion? Proper medical evidence by the way, not some 'it said so on the magic plates' stuff.

Ever heard of Herpes?

(and btw, just because you disagree doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it. K thx)

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 16:36

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:37

Neo Art has helpfully provided one answer to this.

However, there's an even more basic answer.

I indulge my desire to eat something tasty, but I exercise control as I do so. I choose what I eat, and how much of it. I indulge while also controlling myself.

One can make a quite controlled decision to indulge, and one can control the extent to which one chooses to indulge. The two are not at all mutually exclusive.

Maybe we're operating on different understandings of the term 'indulgence.' To me, a person on a diet who has provided for some flexibility to have a chocolate eclair isn't really indulging because it fits into their diet plan. When I think of indulgence I usually think of it as being something that's outside of that. (Not that it's necessarily bad, but it is a time when self-control is being relaxed.)

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 16:38

Actually, I've asked for elaboration on what IS more intimate on a couple of occasions and I have yet to receive an answer.

Which pretty much makes the rest of that rant irrelevant.

What kind of intimacy are we talking about? Physical? Mental? Emotional? My not answering you because of your inability or unwillingness to adequately articulate your question is your failing, not mine.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:38

yeah, he actually asked for valid sources. What a dick.

Are you blind? Was that all you saw?

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 16:39

Are you blind? Was that all you saw?

I saw him stating that, after you make a medical claim, he wants a medical source, not a religious one.

A source, I note, you haven't actually provided yet

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:40

It's remarkably telling that you take the expression "sex is not the most intimate thing people can do" and equate that to "sex is worthless and of no value what so ever so we should all go fucking whomever we want without any self control"

Actually, I've asked for elaboration on what IS more intimate on a couple of occasions and I have yet to receive an answer.

Which pretty much makes the rest of that rant irrelevant.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:41

Isselmere

12-09-2007, 16:41

Sex before marriage is not a mortal sin if I remember correctly, unlike adultery, so yes but no. It's more often a case of "you really shouldn't, but people do it," although, of course, your culture may vary. Common law marriages are increasingly common in any case.

Sex after marriage is another question entirely ...

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 16:42

You know, one part of this really stuck with me. It's the "she deserves better than to know you slept with someone else."

Which leads me to one major question. Why? Why does anyone deserve to expect that I would not have had sex with someone before we became involved in a relationship? How could any normal, emotionally healthy person feel somehow devalued because someone she is involved in was involved with someone else before they ever got together?

Explain this one to me because I just don't get it.I can't excplain it because that isn't what I said. You've distorted it.

Uh huh, sure you didn't:

Otherwise, when you do someday get married after having indulged yourself with however many girls before, then your wife has to live with the knowledge that there are other women out there who have been just as physically intimate with her husband as she is. She deserves better.

Feel free to explain how that is in any way different than what I said.

Rowans floating island

12-09-2007, 16:45

sex before marriage is definitely not a sin because
a) there is no such thing as god or sin
and
b) that therefore means that life randomly appeared, and prospered because it reproduced =
sex is the meaning of life! :fluffle: :D

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:46

What kind of intimacy are we talking about? Physical? Mental? Emotional? My not answering you because of your inability or unwillingness to adequately articulate your question is your failing, not mine.

Actually I'm chalking it up to your inability to read.

RTFF and you'll have your answers.

I'm not going to keep going in circles with you.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:47

Rambhutan

12-09-2007, 16:47

Ever heard of Herpes?

(and btw, just because you disagree doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it. K thx)

Yes - and condoms have been found effective in reducing its transmission. Is your whole "condoms are not as effective as made out" part of a propaganda effort about 'purity' before marriage? If so I would consider you portraying one of the most effective methods of combatting stds as not effective as you being an ass.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 16:47

Have you ever looked at your posts to see how they might come across?

I'm quite aware that my blunt sense of humor gives some people the wrong impressions. Most people are very good sports about it, and most people don't mind when I clarify or correct any misinterpretations or mistaken assumptions.

The few that do mind are generally people who wouldn't appreciate my jokes no matter how carefully I phrase them. That's okay...not everybody needs to have the same sense of humor as me!

They can be. How does that refute my point?

You have, thus far, been generally equating the two. The fact that they CAN BE the same, but often are not, directly refuse the idea that they are necessarily equivalent.

In other words,

Assertion: A is B.
Counterpoint: Here are cases in which A does not equal B. Therefore, while A may sometimes equal B, it is not accurate to state that A always equals B, and it is not accurate to state that A and B are interchangeable.

I don't think world-wide is an apropriate frame of reference for a discussion like this. We're talking about whether premarital sex is a sin, and the discussion seems to include only Christianity. To expand your focus world-wide is illogical because it would then encompass other beliefs which are outside the scope of the discussion.

You were talking about things like marriage, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies. None of those things are exclusively confined to Christians or Christianity, so why would I assume that your statements applied only to Christians?

Because Christianity isn't about being perfect. It's about striving for perfection even though we can't get to it. Why? Because we're imporoved by the journey. Sure that world can't exist but if we all strove for it, the world would still be a helluva lot better than it is now.

Or have you given up on that?

I don't see why one must be striving for perfection in order to improve and grow. I also don't see why "perfect" people would have to be people who only want to be monogamous, sexually speaking, or why "perfect" people would have to lack any of our natural human drives, so I don't really understand why you are traveling down this particular tangent.

I did specify physically, but I'm curious as to what you feel trumps it?

Geez, that's a freaking huge list...

Sex is definitely not the most physically intimate relationship two people can share. For one thing, "sex" covers a huge range of behaviors and interactions, and many of them aren't particularly physically intimate. If anything, I think pregnancy would qualify for the title of "most intimate physical relationship that will reasonably occur between two humans."

As for non-physical intimacy, sex doesn't necessarily create any intimacy at all. If there is already pre-existing intimacy, sex can be a way to express and indulge that intimacy. But if there's no intimacy to begin with, sex isn't going to create it out of nothing.

Sex can be mechanical and impersonal. Sex can be trivial. Sex can even destroy intimacy, in some sad situations.

Sex is what the people involved make of it. Expecting sex to create intimacy isn't fair, to you or to your partner.

You've already established your position on the meaning of sex. You wouldn't care.

My point here was to say that it's not accurate for you to teach your child that his future bride will definitely be insulted or bothered by him having past sexual experience. Many women don't feel that way. He should probably not go into a relationship assuming that he already knows how his partner feels about important issues. That tends to lead to fighting (grim voice of experience speaking, here).

So if I understand you correctly, since you've completely devalued sex your emotional connection to your mate is somehow superior to that of, say, my wife and me?

No, you do not understand me correctly.

Someone who abstains (willingly) from premarital sex is demonstrating a greater of degree of self-control than somone who doesn't. If you disagree, please elaborate on how that is.
Someone who abstains from premarital sex is not necessarily demonstrating any different degree of self-control than someone who doesn't.

As I've said before, there's no reason to assume a loss of self-control if a person chooses to do something.

I choose to take the subway sometimes. Does this mean I lack self-control because I am not abstaining from riding the subway?

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 16:51

Actually I'm chalking it up to your inability to read.

RTFF and you'll have your answers.

I'm not going to keep going in circles with you.

Uh huh. So you can't adequately state your question then say it's my fault that you don't get an answer.

Well I'll give you one anyway, just because I'm a nice guy like that. Intimacy is linked with feelings of closeness, safety, trust and transparency among partners in a collaborative relationship. For an act to be intimate it must therefore either elicit, or support such feelings of closeness, safety, trust and openness.

Shared experiences with a partner help develop such feelings. As aspects of a partner's personality are revealed such feelings of safety trust and closeness can grow as your partner is shown to be someone in whom placing those feelings is a wise choice.

As such, anything that fosters and supports such feelings supports intimacy. In that vein, there is nothing inherent about sex that does any of that. It can, but not necessarily.

More importantly it's circular logic. It's the feeling of sex is an extremely intimate thing, so should only be shared with someone you love. If you view sex in such a way, it will generally appear to be true. If you only have sex with those you feel a sense of closeness, safety and trust with, it will foster those feelings of closeness, safety and trust.

But that has nothing to do with sex itself. There's nothing inherently intimate about the act. If you define sex in those terms, then it will have that meaning to you. But that's entirely circular logic, sex is only intimate if you choose to view it in an intimate way.

As to "what would be more intimate", anything that is more likely to foster feelings of closeness, safety, and trust. As such, talking to someone and asking them how they are feeling are far more intimate acts than sticking my penis in her.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 16:51

Maybe we're operating on different understandings of the term 'indulgence.' To me, a person on a diet who has provided for some flexibility to have a chocolate eclair isn't really indulging because it fits into their diet plan. When I think of indulgence I usually think of it as being something that's outside of that. (Not that it's necessarily bad, but it is a time when self-control is being relaxed.)
If you want to define it that way, okay. I appreciate the clarification, because I definitely don't use the same definition as you do.

But that still leaves things as they stood before. If my "sexual diet" provides for some flexibility to have extramarital sex, then by your logic this isn't really indulging, and I am still exercising plenty of self-control.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 16:54

As to "what would be more intimate", anything that is more likely to foster feelings of closeness, safety, and trust. As such, talking to someone and asking them how they are feeling are far more intimate acts than sticking my penis in her.
Indeed.

If someone were to ask me to recall the most intimate moment of my relationship, the memory I would choose would not be a sexual one. The times I have felt most intimate with my partner were not caused by us having sex, though we often have sex when we are feeling very intimate.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:54

I thought you phrased it very politely - to be honest, I'm in awe of this planet, of humanity, I find people fascinating and I'm really not sure I want to hold myself back from it in the unlikely event that I'll be judged by its creator for enjoying it.

Why would someone create something so wonderful and then make all sorts of rules as to how we would live in it?

Wouldn't he leave it up to us?

Are there not many mansions in heaven?

Thanks.

But that's the thing: There are lots of wonderful things in the world but it would be inaccurate to say that there aren't points at which we can misuse or overindulge in them. We're not here just to love like we're on vacation for a lifetime then expect to move on to an eternal reward after not demonstrating our worthiness to receive it.

If a person completely ignores God's directives because they think somehow they have a keener understanding of morality than the God who created it, how then, can they expect to learn anything? God knows better than we do. Period. Sometimes the reasons are pretty clear (as I think this case is an example) and sometimes not, but what would you think of a child who never obeyed their parents simply because they didn't have the perspective to understand the reasons for the rules?

Too many people run around with the idea of "If I don't understand why it's bad then it must not be bad after all." That's a pretty arrogant way of thinking IMHO. Look around. Does the average person strike you as a grand authority on ethics and morality? And yet more and more everybody actls like their own expert with only one guiding light in common: "I want to do whatever I want." And everything else must fall into place to accomodate it. It's why our culture is beginning to dissolve. Everybody wants to satisfy themselves and ideas like self-control, self-sacrifice and common morality are reviled as old-fashioned and ultra-conservative. Those who still adhere to them are being characterized as a threat to "progressive" thinking.

Sorry to get off on a rant there ;)

Neesika

12-09-2007, 16:56

Sex is a biological process. It's mechanics...nothing romantic imbedded in it that you haven't put there.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 16:56

Is sex before marriage a sin?

Well, I suppose it depends on what you define as sin. My definition is "that which intentionally hurts another person unnecessarily". So by my definition, sex is only a sin if you are trying to use it to hurt someone.

It does not sound like this is the case... it seems that you like this woman and she likes you and you are both enjoying the sex and being careful about it, so I would have to say a hearty NO, this is not a sin.
It's a bit of a departure from the current direction of the thread, but I think this is also an important element:

If you're going to ask "Is X a sin," you first are going to have to decide, "From where shall I get my definition of sin?"

There are countless religions with countless different takes on the subject of sin. There are even more individual philosophers and thinkers with their own perspectives. And if you want to get right down to it, each and every thinking person has probably had an individual view of sin that is their very own.

So whose do you want to use?

Upper Botswavia

12-09-2007, 16:56

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:58

Uh huh. So you can't adequately state your question then say it's my fault that you don't get an answer.

What question..?

Well I'll give you one anyway, just because I'm a nice guy like that. Intimacy is linked with feelings of closeness, safety, trust and transparency among partners in a collaborative relationship. For an act to be intimate it must therefore either elicit, or support such feelings of closeness, safety, trust and openness.

Shared experiences with a partner help develop such feelings. As aspects of a partner's personality are revealed such feelings of safety trust and closeness can grow as your partner is shown to be someone in whom placing those feelings is a wise choice.

As such, anything that fosters and supports such feelings supports intimacy. In that vein, there is nothing inherent about sex that does any of that. It can, but not necessarily.

More importantly it's circular logic. It's the feeling of sex is an extremely intimate thing, so should only be shared with someone you love. If you view sex in such a way, it will generally appear to be true. If you only have sex with those you feel a sense of closeness, safety and trust with, it will foster those feelings of closeness, safety and trust.

But that has nothing to do with sex itself. There's nothing inherently intimate about the act. If you define sex in those terms, then it will have that meaning to you. But that's entirely circular logic, sex is only intimate if you choose to view it in an intimate way.

Thank you for sharing your perspective.
(Not being sarcastic)

As to "what would be more intimate", anything that is more likely to foster feelings of closeness, safety, and trust. As such, talking to someone and asking them how they are feeling are far more intimate acts than sticking my penis in her.

I can talk to my mom and ask her how she's feeling. I can do that with my boss, my friends, I can do that with you. With that being the case, what makes my relationship with my wife more intimate than any of the above?

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 16:58

Indeed.

If someone were to ask me to recall the most intimate moment of my relationship, the memory I would choose would not be a sexual one. The times I have felt most intimate with my partner were not caused by us having sex, though we often have sex when we are feeling very intimate.

the problem is as I have said, people have built it up to this "huge wonderful magical thing" in their heads, and so attach some sense of intimacy to it.

Then they go around believing sex to be this wonderfully intimate act (indeed, which it can be with the right person) and as such attach some sense of feeling to it which really doesn't belong there.

Then they look down on other people because we're somehow hurting ourselves by not sharing this wonderful intimate gift only with the people we want to be forever and eternally wonderfully intimate with. Completely unaware that the only reason that sex appears to them to be so wonderfully intimate is that they've attached some sort of half worshiping half loathing stigma on to sex, and that the rest of us are perfectly capable of having intimate reactions without dilluding ourselves that sex is the most intimate thing we're capable of.

it's actually, honestly, a really sad image to think someone believes that that's as good as it gets.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 16:58

Neesika

12-09-2007, 16:59

I can talk to my mom and ask her how she's feeling. I can do that with my boss, my friends, I can do that with you. With that being the case, what makes my relationship with my wife more intimate than any of the above?

The nature of your romantic attachment to your wife, I'm assuming.

If you stopped having sex with her, say even just for a week, would that romantic attachment suddenly disappear?

If your method of renewing or sustaining your intimacy with your wife involves sex, then great...if it involve rock climbing, or fucking other people even...then great. It's really dependent on how your relationship works and on the intimacy you share...not on the specific acts through which that intimacy is expressed.

Drakemonia

12-09-2007, 17:00

How can it be a sin considering sex is a completely natural thing while marriage is a man/church made concept. If it were a sin surely thats claiming man are the source of all sin, considering we invent them all.

Neesika

12-09-2007, 17:01

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:02

If you want to define it that way, okay. I appreciate the clarification, because I definitely don't use the same definition as you do.

But that still leaves things as they stood before. If my "sexual diet" provides for some flexibility to have extramarital sex, then by your logic this isn't really indulging, and I am still exercising plenty of self-control.

Possibly, but I would ask this: If I'm not really indulging by "budgeting in" a doughnut or two during my diet, there's implicitly the idea that going beyond that is a bad thing (undermining the diet).

So applying that comparison to this discussion, what, in your opinion, is the harm in going beyond that flexibility?

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:04

I can talk to my mom and ask her how she's feeling. I can do that with my boss, my friends, I can do that with you. With that being the case, what makes my relationship with my wife more intimate than any of the above?

1) I don't presume to know the level of intimacy with your wife.

2) again, I'd imagine, purpose and scope. A romantic relationship involves far greater levels of trust, closeness, and security. I don't really feel the need to feel a deep level of trust and closeness with my boss, but I would my spouse.

Intimacy is about feeling not about act. Acts that are intimate are those acts which deepen and support those feelings. Sex can do that, but doesn't always. There is nothing inherently intimate about sex, the intimacy comes from the attachment you place on it.

If you view it as an act that only close, loving people should indulge in together, then it becomes an intimate act by the nature of you indulging in it with someone you love and are close with.

If you don't, it isn't. But neither has anything to do with the act itself.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:06

Then they look down on other people because we're somehow hurting ourselves by not sharing this wonderful intimate gift only with the people we want to be forever and eternally wonderfully intimate with. Completely unaware that the only reason that sex appears to them to be so wonderfully intimate is that they've attached some sort of half worshiping half loathing stigma on to sex, and that the rest of us are perfectly capable of having intimate reactions without dilluding ourselves that sex is the most intimate thing we're capable of.

This caught my attention and I'd like to point something out.

I think a lot of the hostility I see in these discussions comes from this assumption that those who hold to a higher degree of morality are necessarily "looking down" on those who don't.

I know some do. I know many do. But don't go assuming that everybody who believes in this kind of thing is looking down on you or anybody else. Not everybody is as judgemental as you seem to think they are, but by reacting as if they were, you create barriers to communication and establishing common ground.

And please, also stop assuming there's some kind of love/loathing in the way Christians approach the issue of sex. It's painting with the same broad brush.

Neesika

12-09-2007, 17:06

This caught my attention and I'd like to point something out.

I think a lot of the hostility I see in these discussions comes from this assumption that those who hold to a higher degree of morality are necessarily "looking down" on those who don't.

Ok, just to stop you here for a second.

"Those who hold to a higher degree of morality".

So...abstaining from sex is automatically 'more moral' than not? Not believing that sex is sinful, or bad, or something to refrain from is less moral?

Do you even recognise the assumptions you are making? The inherent 'looking down upon' those who have 'lower degrees of morality' while claiming NOT to be looking down...is laughable.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:06

This caught my attention and I'd like to point something out.

I think a lot of the hostility I see in these discussions comes from this assumption that those who hold to a higher degree of morality are necessarily "looking down" on those who don't.

The minute you presume that you have a "higher degree of morality" than I do you are looking down on me.

And any hostility you perceive based on your snarky as hell "holier than thou" attitude that becomes blatantly obvious when you go around refering to yourself as someone who holds a "higher degree of morality" than the rest of us is amply deserved.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 17:06

Possibly, but I would ask this: If I'm not really indulging by "budgeting in" a doughnut or two during my diet, there's implicitly the idea that going beyond that is a bad thing (undermining the diet).

So applying that comparison to this discussion, what, in your opinion, is the harm in going beyond that flexibility?
I'm a goal-oriented person, so I would approach that question in terms of the goal you are trying to reach.

For instance, why are you dieting? My grandfather went on a diet that was aimed primarily at lowering his sodium intake. He also was supposed to cut down on sweets a bit, too, but the main purpose was to cut down on salt. So if he "cheated" and had an extra donut or something, the harm to him and to his efforts at achieving his goal would be relatively minor.

On the other hand, if my diabetic cousin "cheats" when it comes to her sugar intake, it's a much more serious problem.

So the first thing I would need to know is, what are you attempting to achieve with your "sexual diet"?

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:08

And please, also stop assuming there's some kind of love/loathing in the way Christians approach the issue of sex. It's painting with the same broad brush.

Sex is a wonderfully intimate thing when shared with your spouse.

Sex is a sinful act when shared with someone not your spouse.

That seems to be one big hell of a love/hate relationship to me.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:10

And what, in general, IS the nature of that relationship? See, where I sit, romance and sex are closely related. I have romantic feelings exclusively for my wife, and I sleep exclusively with her. However, people are saying that somehow all that's required for intimacy is good conversation.. but there MUST be more to it than that, wouldn't you say? I can have good conversation with anybody... but yet my relationship with my wife is stil lvastly more intimate.

And the point you keep missing over and over and over and over again is that while sex can be an intimate act in an intimate relationship it is the intimacy of that relationship which makes it an intimate act.

There is nothing about sex and JUST about sex that makes it intimate.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:11

Where are you getting the hate component?

the "sex is a sin" part seems to be a pretty good indicator.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 17:11

The nature of your romantic attachment to your wife, I'm assuming.

If you stopped having sex with her, say even just for a week, would that romantic attachment suddenly disappear?

As somebody who lived thousands of miles from their significant other for two entire years, let me just say that intimacy does not have to die out in the absence of sexual contact.

Nobody was more amazed that I to discover that intimacy can actually increase when you are unable to physically touch one another. A lot of the ways I express tenderness and affection are physical (not just sexually, also things like hugging or touching), but when I was so far separated from my partner I had to figure out other ways to let him know my feelings. It made me really think about what I was feeling and how I wanted to express myself. I know this sounds sappy beyond measure, but I learned things about myself in the process, and I think I can be a better (and more intimate!) partner because of that experience.

But man, did I miss snogging...

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:11

The nature of your romantic attachment to your wife, I'm assuming.

And what, in general, IS the nature of that relationship? See, where I sit, romance and sex are closely related. I have romantic feelings exclusively for my wife, and I sleep exclusively with her. However, people are saying that somehow all that's required for intimacy is good conversation.. but there MUST be more to it than that, wouldn't you say? I can have good conversation with anybody... but yet my relationship with my wife is stil lvastly more intimate.

If you stopped having sex with her, say even just for a week, would that romantic attachment suddenly disappear?

No, but let me ask you this: Have you ever been involved in marriage counselling? Either as the counsellor or as the patient? One of the questions that is always asked is: How's the sex life? Because if a couple isn't strengthening their bond that way, it's a sign of trouble.

If your method of renewing or sustaining your intimacy with your wife involves sex, then great...if it involve rock climbing, or fucking other people even...then great. It's really dependent on how your relationship works and on the intimacy you share...not on the specific acts through which that intimacy is expressed.

Again, I can go rock climbing with anybody. Maybe that shows the problem right there, since you seem to suggest that rock climbing is no more or less intimate than sex.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:12

Sex is a wonderfully intimate thing when shared with your spouse.

Sex is a sinful act when shared with someone not your spouse.

That seems to be one big hell of a love/hate relationship to me.

Where are you getting the hate component?

Neesika

12-09-2007, 17:13

Again, I can go rock climbing with anybody. Maybe that shows the problem right there, since you seem to suggest that rock climbing is no more or less intimate than sex.

That's not what I'm suggesting, that's what I'm stating.

Depends on the context. I have had sex with people I had absolutely no intimate bonds with, and I have gone rock climbing with people I was very intimate with, and the experience was a much more bonding one than sex. There is nothing inherently intimate in either activity, once again...it's what YOU bring to it.

Neesika

12-09-2007, 17:14

So then your contention is that free and open sexual relations with anybody is at a higher level of morality than sex only with a spouse? Allow me to roll my eyes.

Why must it be a 'better than' proposition with you?

See above. I can hold an opinion on the relative degrees of morality without forming a judgement on the person who holds them.

Can you comprehend that? Or are you so ingrained into judging people that you can't separate the two?I always love it when the most judgmental person in the room complains about being judged.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:15

The minute you presume that you have a "higher degree of morality" than I do you are looking down on me.

And any hostility you perceive based on your snarky as hell "holier than thou" attitude that becomes blatantly obvious when you go around refering to yourself as someone who holds a "higher degree of morality" than the rest of us is amply deserved.

So then your contention is that free and open sexual relations with anybody is at a higher level of morality than sex only with a spouse?

I can believe that my level of morality is higher than yours without turning it into a character judgement. Maybe you're a more judgemental person than I am and can't see it that way, but there it is.

Ok, just to stop you here for a second.

"Those who hold to a higher degree of morality".

So...abstaining from sex is automatically 'more moral' than not? Not believing that sex is sinful, or bad, or something to refrain from is less moral?

Do you even recognise the assumptions you are making? The inherent 'looking down upon' those who have 'lower degrees of morality' while claiming NOT to be looking down...is laughable.

See above. I can hold an opinion on the relative degrees of morality without forming a judgement on the person who holds them.

Can you comprehend that? Or are you so ingrained into judging people that you can't separate the two?

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:15

the "sex is a sin" part seems to be a pretty good indicator.

Still not seeing it. You're going to have to spell it out.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:16

So then your contention is that free and open sexual relations with anybody is at a higher level of morality than sex only with a spouse?

Straw man once again. Are you incapable of actually debating the positions you're up against without making up your own?

Please point out to me where I said that free and open sexual relations with anybody is a higher level of morality? In fact, show me where I ever said that free and open sexual relations with anybody was ever advisable.

And while we're on the topic of you finding things I said, please show me where I brought morality into the topic at all.

Sex is an amoral act (note, not "immoral", amoral). It has no moral weight in and of itself. Someone who has free and open sexual relations, provided everybody knows this and nobody gets hurt, is no more or less moral than someone who believe in sex only with a spouse, and never before that spouse.

There is no moral weight in sticking your penis in someone. It is an amoral act taken by itself.

I can believe that my level of morality is higher than yours

Before we go further down your path of BS, lemme ask you this. By what basis do you judge your morality higher than mine?

Upper Botswavia

12-09-2007, 17:16

A sin is willful disobedience to God. If you're an atheist of if your religion doesn't define premarital sex as disobedience to God, then from your perspective, it is not.

That is the theological definition of sin. Another definition (one that is much closer to mine) is "A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate." (from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sin)

But fair enough, let's use yours... and that means the answer to the original question in this thread is simply "Sex before marriage is only a sin if you believe it to be" which is a good answer for almost any question about sin.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 17:16

So then your contention is that free and open sexual relations with anybody is at a higher level of morality than sex only with a spouse?

I think that you're the only person on this thread who is currently insisting that one's moral status can be defined by one's sex life.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:17

Still not seeing it. You're going to have to spell it out.

aww, can't you use your superior morality to figure it out?

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:21

I'm a goal-oriented person, so I would approach that question in terms of the goal you are trying to reach.

For instance, why are you dieting? My grandfather went on a diet that was aimed primarily at lowering his sodium intake. He also was supposed to cut down on sweets a bit, too, but the main purpose was to cut down on salt. So if he "cheated" and had an extra donut or something, the harm to him and to his efforts at achieving his goal would be relatively minor.

On the other hand, if my diabetic cousin "cheats" when it comes to her sugar intake, it's a much more serious problem.

So the first thing I would need to know is, what are you attempting to achieve with your "sexual diet"?

That's a fair question.

I would say there are several goals, including (on the assumption that I were a bachelor):

1)Obedience to God's Commandments which exist for my own benefit in the first place. (The reasoning certainly includes these reasons as well as some I don't even know about)
2)Achieving and maintaining a greater level of intimacy with my future wife by reserving that particular form of expression of love for her alone.
3)Avoiding the risk of STDs (as opposed to simply minimizing them with a paper thin piece of latex)
4)Avoiding a pregnancy I'm not prepared to help handle.

Longhaul

12-09-2007, 17:21

think a lot of the hostility I see in these discussions comes from this assumption that those who hold to a higher degree of morality are necessarily "looking down" on those who don't.

I know some do. I know many do. But don't go assuming that everybody who believes in this kind of thing is looking down on you or anybody else. Not everybody is as judgemental as you seem to think they are, but by reacting as if they were, you create barriers to communication and establishing common ground.

I can hold an opinion on the relative degrees of morality without forming a judgement on the person who holds them.

Can you comprehend that? Or are you so ingrained into judging people that you can't separate the two?
That sounds nonsensical to me, but perhaps I am simply interpreting it incorrectly.

How can you hold to the belief that you are not forming judgements on people at the same time as believing that you hold a "higher degree of morality"?

As for the OP, it is my opinion that the concept of sin is dependent on religious mores. I therefore do not believe that having sex before marriage is sinful, for the same reasons that I do not believe that couples should have to be married at all. Morals have nothing to do with it.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:22

aww, can't you use your superior morality to figure it out?

Ok so this is where you reveal yourself. I asked you a question, a simple and honest one, and when I don't get your answer you resort to snarky comments. That tells me two things:

1)You're not interested in an actual dialogue, you just want to attack.
2)You can't answer the question and this is your way of deflecting it.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:23

I think that you're the only person on this thread who is currently insisting that one's moral status can be defined by one's sex life.

So it would seem. Although their answer sure seems to indicate the opposite.

Peepelonia

12-09-2007, 17:23

I think that you're the only person on this thread who is currently insisting that one's moral status can be defined by one's sex life.

Umm indeed, even the thought of sex between consenting adults, any consenting adults of any sex, and any type of sex, the key word here is consenting, being somehow immoral, seems plain stupid to me.

Sekosiili

12-09-2007, 17:25

What a long topic, I think I read up to page four or so. I think sex before marriage is a sin but let's not forget that everybody makes sin all the time, they just do it in different forms and some might do more than others.

When I was a teenager my mom gave me a pamphet of True love awaits campaign but I couldn't sign it because I couldn't be sure that I could abstain so it's better not to swear than to break a promise. Also I was thinking it's not a burning matter because I had zits and was often smelled sweaty so I saw myself as hideously ugly (and the boys in school boosted this belief - thanks a lot you buggers). In a nutshell I thought no one could ever find me attractive, at least in many years so I wouldn't have to worry about sex. Then I was 18 and a half and I met this guy in an rpg chatroom, we were playing and then he wanted to see my picture and he told me I was pretty. No male person had ever said that to me. Soon he started flirting with me and wanted to come over, just to attend this summer festival that was happening in my town. We never ended up going to the festival, instead we practiced kissing, very passionate kissing that nearly made me cum this one time. We slept in the same bed but I had told him that we would do that only on the condition that he wouldn't try anything funny and he said he wouldn't touch me against my wishes. So we played nice, didn't go too far. He stayed for three days and I totally fell in love with him. I think he was in love too. Later during that same summer he came over again and we were sleeping in the same bed again. He was getting to know my parents (they had been away the previous time) and getting along well, he had also shown me pictures of engagement rings and once we were rp'ing that he was a vampire and made me a vampire too and then slipped a ring in my finger, this was just in writing but it felt like we were spiritually engaged already. I was thinking he's a good man. So the last night we were together, I let him have my virginity, we tried all sorts of stuff before that to preserve it but it just wasn't enough (although the thing itself didn't feel like anything compared to that passionate kissing, it was a bit of a disappointment). When my mom found out we had done it without a condom and after telling her that we wouldn't do stuff like that under her roof, she was mad and didn't let me go see him. Also we had to stop using our Internet connection for the rest of the month because it was on dial up and I had made a big bill with all the roleplaying. So mom bought me a cellphone so that I could stay in touch with him and we were cybering all the time. Total 300 text messages in two weeks or so. Also I was very possessive and if he didn't reply often enough then I felt angry. Also sometimes he promised to call and didn't. I started finding more and more instances when he "betrayed" me. Then I started looking for his friends online to check if he has any skeletons in his closet and when he found out, he was stunned. I started acting out more and more to prove him that I need him and eventually I was sent to a mental hospital. I was obsessed about the thought of marrying him even though he didn't want that anymore, I felt like I would be betraying my future spouse in advance unless HE was my future spouse. He kept messaging with me although he refused to call and our messages were mostly cybering, and once he said he would come over and fuck me from behind and I was scared all day - but he never arrived. It took me a long time to figure out that he didn't want me anymore and we would never be together because he didn't have the same Christian necessity to stick with one partner for life, he had had four others before me. Finally I talked to a priest at the hospital who told me that nothing irreversible has happened, that God isn't mad at me and stuff. Then I felt better. I don't remember when I finally stopped messaging with that guy.

The bottom line is that starting your sex life is a huge step with lots of emotions involved (at least for girls) and it's easy to get hurt if you want different things than what your partner does. I think God wants to protect people from getting hurt physically, emotionally and socially. You learn from each person you sleep with but it also leaves scars and your future experiences will be affected by that stuff. You can never trust as open-heartedly as you trusted before you were betrayed and love requires trust. If you're always suspicious about wether your partner is gonna stop loving you and leave then you can't fully relax and be yourself.

Nowadays people are having a divorce very easily, they don't have the same sort of commitment as people used to have in the past. Burning love only lasts for a moment, the most passionate phase times out in 3 to 4 years and after that you will have to wait for a different kind of affection to develop. But the modern trend is to break up at the first sign of hardship and thus a lot of people are already worn out when entering the relationship.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 17:25

That's a fair question.

I would say there are several goals, including (on the assumption that I were a bachelor):

1)Obedience to God's Commandments which exist for my own benefit in the first place. (The reasoning certainly includes these reasons as well as some I don't even know about)
2)Achieving and maintaining a greater level of intimacy with my future wife by reserving that particular form of expression of love for her alone.
3)Avoiding the risk of STDs (as opposed to simply minimizing them with a paper thin piece of latex)
4)Avoiding a pregnancy I'm not prepared to help handle.
Well, in view of #1, then the harm done if you cheat on your "sexual diet" will be fairly large (if I'm understanding your religious beliefs correctly).

When it comes to #2, if you are unable to maintain your desired level of intimacy with your wife while also "cheating" on your sexual diet, then obviously this also will cause considerable harm.

#3 is problematic due to wording. You aren't actually avoiding a risk, you're simply minimizing it. You still risk contracting an STD even if you are monogamous. (And I'm not insulting your wife's honor here, either...there are STDs that could be contracted and transmitted even if neither of you is sexually unfaithful!)

#4 is subjective, much like #1 and #2. If you would be unprepared to help with a pregnancy that occurred out of wedlock, then--since you are male--your best option at this point is to not engage in any behaviors that may lead to such a pregnancy.

Short version: your personal goals require that you follow a particular "diet."

A person who does not share your goals will not necessarily benefit from the same diet. Indeed, they may be harmed by it! This is just like how I would not be healthy if I were on the same diet as my cousin, and she would not be healthy if she were on mine. Neither one of us is morally inferior for selecting the diet that best suits our individual needs.

I'm not remotely interested in telling you how to run your own sex life. What I object to is blanket statements about sex and intimacy that are simply untrue. What sex is for you and your wife is your business, but you should be aware that sex may not be the same for others. If you want to better appreciate your fellow humans, and if you want to better prepare your children to be members of the human world, then I think (OPINION!) it will be better for you to see people how they really are.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:26

So it would seem. Although their answer sure seems to indicate the opposite.

please find me one person active in this thread who has said a single thing about morality and sex, other than you.

Find me one person who has placed any moral weight on sex what so ever, other than you.

Find one example when someone has placed a moral judgement on another person because of their sexual activities, other than you.

Nobody other than you has "indicated" anything of the sort. You went in with your own preconceived notions and went through extraordinary leaps of what I hesitate to define as logic to justify your position when it was in no way warranted.

The only person who has laid any moral judgement here is you

Bottle

12-09-2007, 17:27

So it would seem. Although their answer sure seems to indicate the opposite.
How so? (Not being snarky here, I'm just wondering if I missed something important.)

Can you quote some of the passages you are referring to?

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:29

1)You're not interested in an actual dialogue, you just want to attack.

Sorry, that's just my inferior morality talking I guess. I know we can't all be as superior as you with your great moral value which strongly supercedes my own based on your decision to...have sex with one person.

2)You can't answer the question and this is your way of deflecting it.

Uh huh. Sure. I've given my answer multiple times. You either are either willfully avoiding readaing it, or incapable of understanding it. Either way, my repetition will serve nothing, since if you have refused, or are incapable, of gaining comprehention on it by now, I doubt anything will change.

Upper Botswavia

12-09-2007, 17:30

In this case, saving oneself for marriage means taking the most intimate thing two people can share and reserving it only for your spouse and for none other. They deserve that of you. Otherwise, when you do someday get married after having indulged yourself with however many girls before, then your wife has to live with the knowledge that there are other women out there who have been just as physically intimate with her husband as she is. She deserves better. (That goes both ways, of course.)

Frankly, speaking as a woman, I am not interested in virgins. I have slept with men (and women, but that is another story) who were, and prefer men (and women...) with experience. But that may just be me.

Also, I would not count any relationships a man had before marrying me against him. I would be glad that he had been out looking for the right person, that he had not been hiding away or afraid, and that he had, after honest comparison, found that I WAS the best person for him. I would be grateful to other women who had taught him things about life (hopefully good things, but you can grow from bad experiences as well) and hope that he had been good for and to them too.

I could not hope to deserve BETTER than a well rounded, experienced, complete man with a good knowledge of how the world works.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:32

That sounds nonsensical to me, but perhaps I am simply interpreting it incorrectly.

How can you hold to the belief that you are not forming judgements on people at the same time as believing that you hold a "higher degree of morality"?

That's a reasonable question. My answer is this:

Do you believe that Americans should drive only cars assembled in America? If I disagree with you, does that make me a bad person?

No, it means you might think that your opinion on that issue is soehow better than mine, but that (to a reasonable persion) isn't likely to be much of a factor in whether you'd characterize me as a good person or a bad one.

Well believe it or not, it's the same thing here. My moral code would seem to be stricter than that of the average person in this thread. There's a lot we'd probably agree on, in that I assume we all agree that it's wrong to commit incest, to cheat on a S.O., to act sexually toward children, to have sex with animals, etc. But we do disagree on premarital sex. I say it's wrong, generally others in thid thread say it's not wrong. Therefore, my moral code is stricter. (Unless there's an example you know of where mine is more liberal t han someone else's.) It's a code that's at a higher level of strictness and it is defined by obedience to God's Commandments. It's a higher morality.

And that's all I'm saying. That's not a basis for a character judgement. Can you see that? My closest friends are mostly non Mormons or any other flavor of Christianity. They have a looser moral code. That doesn't in any way hamper our friendship because they know I don't look down on them just as they don't look down on me for the differences in our beliefs.

Does that make sense?

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:32

Well believe it or not, it's the same thing here. My moral code would seem to be stricter than that of the average person in this thread. There's a lot we'd probably agree on, in that I assume we all agree that it's wrong to commit incest, to cheat on a S.O., to act sexually toward children, to have sex with animals, etc. But we do disagree on premarital sex. I say it's wrong, generally others in thid thread say it's not wrong. Therefore, my moral code is stricter. (Unless there's an example you know of where mine is more liberal t han someone else's.) It's a code that's at a higher level of strictness and it is defined by obedience to God's Commandments. It's a higher morality.

Complete and total BS. There is a significant difference between "a moral code that has more strict standards" and "a higher morality" and you know it.

You view sex with people not your spouse as immoral. As such, you view us that have or do engage in premarital or extramarital sex as immoral. That is a moral judgement, and one you have not substantiated in any way other than your version of a theoretical deity said not so.

Well sorry, I find arguments on theoretical deities unpersuasive moral authority.

The fundamental difference of course being that while I do not, and would not ever presume to place a moral judgement on you based on how you conduct your sex life, you seem to be perfectly comfortable placing a moral judgement on me for mine.

Personally I couldn't give a flying fuck how you live your life, but you seem to have objections to how I live mine.

And considering that YOU are the far more judgemental one amongst us, it would appear that between the two of us, yours is certainly seeming less and less like the "higher" morality.

Longhaul

12-09-2007, 17:37

That's a reasonable question. My answer is this:

Do you believe that Americans should drive only cars assembled in America? If I disagree with you, does that make me a bad person?

No, it means you might think that your opinion on that issue is soehow better than mine, but that (to a reasonable persion) isn't likely to be much of a factor in whether you'd characterize me as a good person or a bad one.

Well believe it or not, it's the same thing here. My moral code would seem to be stricter than that of the average person in this thread. There's a lot we'd probably agree on, in that I assume we all agree that it's wrong to commit incest, to cheat on a S.O., to act sexually toward children, to have sex with animals, etc. But we do disagree on premarital sex. I say it's wrong, generally others in thid thread say it's not wrong. Therefore, my moral code is stricter. (Unless there's an example you know of where mine is more liberal t han someone else's.) It's a code that's at a higher level of strictness and it is defined by obedience to God's Commandments. It's a higher morality.

And that's all I'm saying. That's not a basis for a character judgement. Can you see that? My closest friends are mostly non Mormons or any other flavor of Christianity. They have a looser moral code. That doesn't in any way hamper our friendship because they know I don't look down on them just as they don't look down on me for the differences in our beliefs.

Does that make sense?
Thanks for clarifying your stance and yes, it makes a little more sense.

I diasagree with the premise that your basing of a moral code on "God's commandments" makes it somehow "higher" than other codes. Different, yes, but not higher. This is partly because I do not equate "stricter" with "higher". You do, but that's not really relevant, since they're your morals and not mine. Each to their own where it affects no other, and all that.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:38

How so? (Not being snarky here, I'm just wondering if I missed something important.)

Can you quote some of the passages you are referring to?

Well there was this one by NA

The minute you presume that you have a "higher degree of morality" than I do you are looking down on me.

And any hostility you perceive based on your snarky as hell "holier than thou" attitude that becomes blatantly obvious when you go around refering to yourself as someone who holds a "higher degree of morality" than the rest of us is amply deserved.

No so much because he or she is expressly stating it, but seems to be implying it (Or, I concede, could be suggesting that neither is higher than the other, although that's not expressely stated either.) by accusing me of being snarky for making a simple statement (which I elaborated on in my last post.)

Now, I'd be prepared to concede that I misunderstood the point there, if I could get a concession like that out of NA in return.

This is me not holding my breath.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:39

No so much because he or she is expressly stating it, but seems to be implying it (Or, I concede, could be suggesting that neither is higher than the other, although that's not expressely stated either.) by accusing me of being snarky for making a simple statement (which I elaborated on in my last post.)

Now, I'd be prepared to concede that I misunderstood the point there, if I could get a concession like that out of NA in return.

This is me not holding my breath.

If you had bothered to read further, you would have seen that i stated specifically that sex is an amoral act, and that sex in and of itself has no moral weight what so ever. Your sexual activities and my sexual activites do not in any way inherently affect our morality, since sex is an amoral act in and of itself (provided adult consent).

I explicitly said that. Your sexual activities, taken by themselves, make you no more and no less moral than mine.

Your comfort in laying down moral judgement does, however, make me quite suspicious of any claims that you exercise a "higher" morality, but that has nothing to do with whom we stick our respective penises into.

Bottle

12-09-2007, 17:39

Well there was this one by NA

No so much because he or she is expressly stating it, but seems to be implying it (Or, I concede, could be suggesting that neither is higher than the other, although that's not expressely stated either.) by accusing me of being snarky for making a simple statement (which I elaborated on in my last post.)

I don't see anything in that post which would lead one to assume NA was insisting that one's moral status can be defined by one's sex life. Indeed, when put in the context of the other stuff he's said, it seems very obvious that what pisses him off is when people assume that their personal sexual philosophy is the moral one and everybody else is immoral.

Now, I'd be prepared to concede that I misunderstood the point there, if I could get a concession like that out of NA in return.

This is me not holding my breath.
I agree that you shouldn't hold your breath on that, because I don't really see where NA was wrong in assessing your position that you believe your sexual practices/beliefs give you the moral highground.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:40

Complete and total BS. There is a significant difference between "a moral code that has more strict standards" and "a higher morality" and you know it.

I disagree. Am I allowed to do that? Can I have a different opinion than you and not be a complete turd? I'm just curious, because you do seem to like to judge.

You view sex with people not your spouse as immoral. As such, you view us that have or do engage in premarital or extramarital sex as immoral. That is a moral judgement, and one you have not substantiated in any way other than your version of a theoretical deity said not so.

You're making a false assumption. I don't view you as moral or immoral. I don't take it to that level because I'm not being judgemental. To judge someone based on a single trait like their beliefs on morality would be idiotic.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:40

You're making a false assumption. I don't view you as moral or immoral. I don't take it to that level because I'm not being judgemental. To judge someone based on a single trait like their beliefs on morality would be idiotic.

Well, ok, I'll give you that, now let me rephrase. Do you judge those who engage in premarital sex with consenting adults to be performing an immoral act, yes or no?

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:41

Thanks for clarifying your stance and yes, it makes a little more sense.

I diasagree with the premise that your basing of a moral code on "God's commandments" makes it somehow "higher" than other codes. Different, yes, but not higher. This is partly because I do not equate "stricter" with "higher". You do, but that's not really relevant, since they're your morals and not mine. Each to their own where it affects no other, and all that.

Indeed, and that's why at the end of the day since we do have different beliefs on that, we must agree to disagree, which is perfectly fine.

Dempublicents1

12-09-2007, 17:43

Personally, it is the level of commitment that matters to me. Getting married didn't change my commitment to my husband, or his to me. It was simply a public and "official" recognition of that commitment. If you believe in a deity, you likely think that said deity already knows what is in your heart - what commitments you have made - and whether or not you and your partner are right for each other. Why then should that deity be tied to ceremony?

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:43

And considering that YOU are the far more judgemental one amongst us, it would appear that between the two of us, yours is certainly seeming less and less like the "higher" morality.

Who here have I judged as a "bad person?"

And don't continue to repeat the idiotic idea that because I see my moral code as higher than yours that somehow it must translate into a character judgement about you. That's stupid and indicative of a closed and judgemental mind.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:45

I agree that you shouldn't hold your breath on that, because I don't really see where NA was wrong in assessing your position that you believe your sexual practices/beliefs give you the moral highground.

I do believe that, but NA keeps insiting that somehow it translates into a total character judgement on you and everybody else on here, which is simply not true.

But then again, in a way I don't blame him/her for making that assumption since it does seem to be rampant around here.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:45

Who here have I judged as a "bad person?"

when did I say you ever did that? shifting the goalposts is indicative of someone who can't handle the argument he has been given.

If you believe that premarital sex is an immoral act, then you believe that anyone who engages in premarital sex has committed an immoral act. That is a moral judgement, by definition.

You are certainly capable of viewing someone as committing an immoral act but still being an overall good person, that's quite possible. But by deciding that I, in sleeping with someone who is not my wife, has committed an immoral act, you have formed a moral judgement about me.

You can dress it up as much as you want and try to make it seem that you're not really judging me, but you are. You may refrain from outright stating "you are a bad person for doing it", but it's pretty clear that you view me as having committed a bad act.

And that is most certainly a judgement against me. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with judging in certain contexts. Hitler was a bad man, we can agree to this. Raping someone is bad, we can agree to this. But you place a moral judgement on my actions which harm...nobody. You consider my actions immoral even though I do only what others consent for me to do. I force nobody, I harm nobody, I lie to nobody, I cheat on nobody. Yet I have, in your eyes, committed an immoral act, not because of any direct, objective, observable harm that I have caused, but because of your entirely subjective, entirely unproven beliefs.

And that's pretty damned judgemental of you.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 17:47

I do believe that, but NA keeps insiting that somehow it translates into a total character judgement on you and everybody else on here, which is simply not true.

In fairness, I did make an error in saying you judge someone as "immoral" rather than "committing an immoral act", it was not meant to imply that you create an overal character judgement on the basis of a single act. It was a typo. I'm not sure how one typo means I "keep insisting" and again, feel free to show me where else I did this, because you seem to be really good at claiming to know what people said, but not so good on actually finding when they said that. But either way, I'm perfectly willing to concede that you do not appear to form a basis for a view on the entirety of ones character based on committing what you perceive as one type of immoral act.

It's the fact that you believe it to be an immoral act and feel comfortable rendering judgement on someone for committing an act that harms nobody and was consented to based purely on your subjective beliefs is what makes me question any claim to "higher" morality.

Cynapsia

12-09-2007, 17:50

Only if you're a Christian. And there are several aspects of the Christian religion that I do not personally agree with.

It would be worth noting that there is at least once instance of sex without marriage in the Bible, at 2 Samuel 11: 2-5.

2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then [a] she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant."

Also, the word used to refer to sexual immorality in the New Testament is translated from the original Greek "Porneia", which specifically refers to sex with prostitutes. In this respect, whilst the Bible certainly promotes marriage, there is one reading that says sex without marriage isn't explicitly banned, only sex with prostitutes.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:57

when did I say you ever did that? shifting the goalposts is indicative of someone who can't handle the argument he has been given.

You kind of addressed this in your following post (If I understood correctly) so I'll reply to that directly.

If you believe that premarital sex is an immoral act, then you believe that anyone who engages in premarital sex has committed an immoral act. That is a moral judgement, by definition.

You are certainly capable of viewing someone as committing an immoral act but still being an overall good person, that's quite possible. But by deciding that I, in sleeping with someone who is not my wife, has committed an immoral act, you have formed a moral judgement about me.

You can dress it up as much as you want and try to make it seem that you're not really judging me, but you are. You may refrain from outright stating "you are a bad person for doing it", but it's pretty clear that you view me as having committed a bad act.

And that is most certainly a judgement against me. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with judging in certain contexts. Hitler was a bad man, we can agree to this. Raping someone is bad, we can agree to this. But you place a moral judgement on my actions which harm...nobody. You consider my actions immoral even though I do only what others consent for me to do. I force nobody, I harm nobody, I lie to nobody, I cheat on nobody. Yet I have, in your eyes, committed an immoral act, not because of any direct, objective, observable harm that I have caused, but because of your entirely subjective, entirely unproven beliefs.

And that's pretty damned judgemental of you.

No, I make a judgement call on an ACT, not the person committing it. That's the diference.

In fairness, I did make an error in saying you judge someone as "immoral" rather than "committing an immoral act", it was not meant to imply that you create an overal character judgement on the basis of a single act. It was a typo. I'm perfectly willing to concede that you do not form a basis for a view on the entirety of ones character based on committing what you perceive as one type of immoral act.

Fair enough, let's leave it at that.

It's the fact that you believe it to be an immoral act and feel comfortable rendering judgement on someone for committing an act that harms nobody and was consented to based purely on your subjective beliefs is what makes me question any claim to "higher" morality.

Like I said, the focus is on the ACT, not on the person.

See, it's not about separating a judgement about the person's actions from judgements about the person. It's about not judging the person AT ALL.

I think you hold to a lower moral code than I do. My opinion ends there. It really does. I don't know you or anything else about you. You might be the most wonderful person I've ever spoken with. You might be a total jerk. I don't know and I don't care as far as it applies to this discussion. I neither like you nor dislike you based upon what you believe in as it pertains to premarital sex.

Remember earlier when I said my closest friends don't happen to share my beliefs? It's not that I love them IN SPITE of what they believe... It's that I love them. Period. Their beliefs don't factor in.

Does that make sense?

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 17:59

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 18:01

No, I make a judgement call on an ACT, not the person committing it. That's the diference.

Yeah yeah, hate the sinner and not the sin, and all. Still didn't address my point, and in fact, you do a good job skirting around it.

In your opinion, premarital sex is an immoral act. I have committed premarital sex. Ergo, in your opinion, I have committed an immoral act, yes or no?

And if I have committed an immoral act, I am, if not immoral, at least less moral than I would have been had I not, yes or no?

That's really the point. You can argue about how you judge the act, not the person, but the act does not exist in isolation. It is an impossible fallacy to suggest that you can judge someone's acts without judging them. If I commit the act you deem bad, I am deemed to have committed a bad act.

and that's the point. One simply can not seperate the two constructs, despite your rather...humorous suggestion that you can. If I commit an act deemed immoral, than I have committed an immoral act. I am thus "less moral" than I would have been had I not.

So you judge me as being "less moral" for an act that harms...NOBODY. You judge my moral worth as being, if not immoral, than "less moral" for having committed an act, without any showing of any harm that act causes.

And being so overtly judgemental seems to not be a very moral act to me, so I question your statement that you posess a higher morality, despite your insistance that somehow you can judge an act bad, without that being a reflection on someone who commits that act.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 18:11

Yeah yeah, hate the sinner and not the sin, and all. Still didn't address my point, and in fact, you do a good job skirting around it.

No, I did address it. Sorry if you can't grasp it.

Seriously. We're going in circles now.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 18:11

No, I did address it. Sorry if you can't grasp it.

Seriously. We're going in circles now.

so in other words, you have no argument to oppose the idea that your judgement is that I am a less moral person that I would be. Fair enough, at least you have no contention to my position.

Multiland

12-09-2007, 18:29

See here: http://forum.catholic.org/

Dempublicents1

12-09-2007, 18:56

so in other words, you have no argument to oppose the idea that your judgement is that I am a less moral person that I would be. Fair enough, at least you have no contention to my position.

I can't speak for NB, but wouldn't this depend on whether or not he thinks his moral code should be adopted by other people?

I hold myself to a stricter moral code than I hold others to, specifically because I believe I can only expect others to refrain from harm. For instance, I think sex should be restricted to a committed relationship and I thus hold myself to that restriction. I do not, however, expect others to accept that restriction nor do I think they are doing anything wrong when they follow their own morals on sexuality.

There are some acts that I think are immoral for everyone, but there are other acts that would break my personal moral code, whether they would break others' or not.

Does that make sense?

Dakini

12-09-2007, 19:42

1)STDs cease to be an issue. If every person abstained from extramarital sex, STDs would be a thing of the past.
Except the people who are born with STDs.

2)The rate of unwanted pregnancies would plummet. Find the stats on unwanted pregnancies in marriage and those outside of marriage. Not remove the ones outside of marriage. What you're left with will be but a tiny fraction.
Except that something like 50% of abortions are preformed on women who are already married.

3)Prostitution and all issues surrounding it would vanish.
How is this either good or bad?

In this case, saving oneself for marriage means taking the most intimate thing two people can share and reserving it only for your spouse and for none other. They deserve that of you. Otherwise, when you do someday get married after having indulged yourself with however many girls before, then your wife has to live with the knowledge that there are other women out there who have been just as physically intimate with her husband as she is. She deserves better.
Yeah, your new spouse deserves a couple years of sex without orgasms because neither of you have a clue what you're doing and possibly don't know how to discuss improvements in a tactful manner.

Make the wedding night truly special.
Yeah, 30 seconds of awkward sex will be really special.

Some people do still value self-control, and no, it's not for its own sake although even if it were, that's still not a bad thing. Mastering control over oneself makes a person stronger.
There are other ways to have self control apart from abstaining altogether until marriage. One can, say, just not fuck everything that moves.

Dakini

12-09-2007, 19:48

Hasn't it occurred to you that there might well be more to living in the world than simply hanging out for a lifespan? Again, I'm not trying to be nasty I'm asking genuinely if you've ever looked at it that way.
I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but:

Has it ever occured to you that a lifetime might be all we have?

FakeNationState

12-09-2007, 19:58

You wanna save yerself for the right person, fine, I won't stop you.

Me on the other hand, I wouldn't buy a pair of shoes without trying them on first, nor would I buy a car without taking it for a test drive...

Guess what, I wouldn't date someone who wouldn't show their offerings and qualities either.

then again, if that's your cup of tea, be my guest.
I won't bitch about your desicions, stay the heck out of my desicions regarding consentual sex among adults ;)

Dakini

12-09-2007, 20:29

Well there's the problem. You've taken an experience that strengthens the bond between two people both emotionally and mentally, it is the method by which people reproduce, and you're saying it's not inherently intimate? You've devalued the whole thing to the point where it's no wonder you'd endorse just tossing it out there.
Sex isn't the thing that creates the biggest bonds in a relationship. If anything, I think that time spent together doing things that may or may not involve sex, or even doing a whole lot of nothing together does that. It's may be the easiest way to reproduce, but that's not why we (as a species) usually do it.

Soviestan

12-09-2007, 20:42

nothing is a sin if you don't believe in God.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 20:44

Except the people who are born with STDs.

And how many of those would there be, in this hypothetical world?

Except that something like 50% of abortions are preformed on women who are already married.

I doubt that very much. Could you perhaps point me to where you found that?

How is this either good or bad?

I leave that to individual readers to decide.

Yeah, your new spouse deserves a couple years of sex without orgasms because neither of you have a clue what you're doing and possibly don't know how to discuss improvements in a tactful manner.

This actually made me laugh out loud. By that logic maybe we should add a class to senior level high school students teaching them exactly how to have sex complete w/practical exams so no one need ever suffer the hardship of inexperienced sex with a lover.

(Actually, that could be the basis for a SNL sketch.)

Yeah, 30 seconds of awkward sex will be really special.

Why not? Isn't it about doing it together?

There are other ways to have self control apart from abstaining altogether until marriage. One can, say, just not fuck everything that moves.
[/quote]

Some people would endorse that...

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but:

Has it ever occured to you that a lifetime might be all we have?
[/quote]

Sure it has. I've concluded differently.

But if that were the case, how would I have harmed myself by adhering to such a code?

Sex isn't the thing that creates the biggest bonds in a relationship. If anything, I think that time spent together doing things that may or may not involve sex, or even doing a whole lot of nothing together does that. It's may be the easiest way to reproduce, but that's not why we (as a species) usually do it.

That's exactly right, it's NOT the only reason we do it, but everything else you mentioned I could do with my friends, or my family. Sex is how you strengthen your bond with your spouse in a way that isn't for anybody else.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 20:46

Sex is how you strengthen your bond with your spouse in a way that isn't for anybody else.

For you, sure. If that's how you view sex, feel free to treat sex in that way. Your problem is you expect that everyone should view sex the same way you do.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 20:49

I doubt that very much. Could you perhaps point me to where you found that?

In more than half of the countries studied, married women obtain a larger proportion of abortions than unmarried women

Source (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2506899.html)

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 20:50

For you, sure. If that's how you view sex, feel free to treat sex in that way. Your problem is you expect that everyone should view sex the same way you do.

Really? Show me where I said so.

Soviestan

12-09-2007, 20:53

And how many of those would there be, in this hypothetical world?

it is not as uncommon as you might think
I doubt that very much. Could you perhaps point me to where you found that?
google is your friend.

Why not? Isn't it about doing it together?

Are you a women?
[/quote]

Some people would endorse that...

not anyone here?
[/quote]

That's exactly right, it's NOT the only reason we do it, but everything else you mentioned I could do with my friends, or my family. Sex is how you strengthen your bond with your spouse in a way that isn't for anybody else.

I thought you do that through communication?

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 20:55

Source (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2506899.html)

Mhm.

According to your link:

United States:

Married: 16.2% Unmarried: 83.8%

Now before we go any further, I want it noted for the record that I said "unwanted pregnancies" not abortions. So maybe that statistic is irrelevant anyway.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 20:57

it is not as uncommon as you might think

Then explain how someone can be born with an STD in a world where every relationship is monogamous and thus STD aren't transmitted.

google is your friend.

I didn't make the claim.

Are you a women?

Nope. Do I need to be?
not anyone here?
[/quote]

.

I thought you do that through communication?

I've answered this already. RTFF.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 20:57

Mhm.

According to your link:

United States:

since when have we limited our discussion to the United States?

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 20:59

Then explain how someone can be born with an STD in a world where every relationship is monogamous and thus STD aren't transmitted.

Because STDs already exist now, and even if every relationship were to suddenly become monogamous, those with STDs would still have them.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 21:02

Really? Show me where I said so.

every time you talked about your "higher morality". You view abstaining until marriage as an objective moral good, as such, anyone who does not adhere to your standards commits a moral bad.

You believe your position is one that should be aspired to as a moral good, and that people should aspire towards moral goods. Ergo, you believe that people should aspire to behave like you do.

Which is the difference between us, I would never presume to tell you that they way you manage your sex life is bad, you would.

Soviestan

12-09-2007, 21:04

Then explain how someone can be born with an STD in a world where every relationship is monogamous and thus STD aren't transmitted.

Every relationship isn't monogamous, not even close. It never has been this way and never will most likely. We don't live in a perfect world, sorry.

I've answered this already. RTFF.
not to me. ruff.ruff.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 21:06

since when have we limited our discussion to the United States?

A few pages back when Bottle and I discussed women's access to contraception worldwide and I pointed out that that frame of reference was too wide to discuss the concept of sin.

This is the last time I repeat myself for you. From now on I'll just quote myself. If that still doesn't work, then I'll conclude that you're simply ignoring what I'm saying and cease to bother doing your research for you.

Because STDs already exist now, and even if every relationship were to suddenly become monogamous, those with STDs would still have them.

sigh :rolleyes:

And how many of those would there be, in this hypothetical world?

As much as I hate to reward poor reading comprehension I'll reply even further anyway. In your version of the example, STD gone in 1 generation.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 21:08

Every relationship isn't monogamous, not even close. It never has been this way and never will most likely. We don't live in a perfect world, sorry.

sigh (again) :rolleyes:

And how many of those would there be, in this hypothetical world?

not to me. ruff.ruff.

I dont' owe it to you to repeat myself, sorry.

Soviestan

12-09-2007, 21:09

I dont' owe it to you to repeat myself, sorry.

But it would make my life easier. ruff.

btw, dealing in hypotheticals is silly because they almost never are plausible.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 21:09

As much as I hate to reward poor reading comprehension I'll reply even further anyway. In your version of the example, STD gone in 1 generation.

ooooh, I'm sorry, you wanted me to discuss a hypothetical reality in which no person had ever breached a monogamous relationship ever?

First off I don't deal in hypotheticals too bizarre to be reality. So sorry if I don't entertain your nonsensical notion of "what if humanity was entirely different".

Secondly, here's a little thought for you, just a teeny tiny one, please don't hurt yourself with it. If the only way for an "sexually transmitted disease" to spread was from sexual contact with another person....how'd the first person get it?

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 21:14

Soviestan

12-09-2007, 21:16

What makes this so damn scary is at the very bottom of it is Neo B's lurking implied position of "the world would just be better off if everyone was like me."

God the attrocities that have been carried out under such a belief.

Should be noted though, the world really would be better off if everyone was like me. Mainly because I am awesome.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 21:17

ooooh, I'm sorry, you wanted me to discuss a hypothetical reality in which no person had ever breached a monogamous relationship ever?

First off I don't deal in hypotheticals too bizarre to be reality. So sorry if I don't entertain your nonsensical notion of "what if humanity was entirely different".

Secondly, here's a little thought for you, just a teeny tiny one, please don't hurt yourself with it. If the only way for an "sexually transmitted disease" to spread was from sexual contact with another person....how'd the first person get it?

You have a real problem, you know that?

I don't care where you got that chip on your shoulder. I really don't, but I'm done humoring your foolish "debate" tactics. You made it clear a long time ago that you're not the least little bit interested in having a real dialogue. A couple times there you almost got into a reasonable track and I was happy to reply, but this is idiotic.

If you don't want to talk hypothetical then don't. Talk about whatever you want, but don't try to save face when you screwed up by trying to put it back on me. I made a hypothetical example, you failed to recognize it and now you got caught in your carelessness. Suck it up and build a little credibility by facing it.

I don't know who it was that pissed you off or hurt you or whatever it was that made you so hostile to someone who holds to a different set of beliefs than you, but it wasn't me, and it wasn't anybody I associate with so take your attitude and cram it.

You've accused me of judging you, I didn't. You accused me of expecting you to believe what I do, I don't. Never did. You don't believe that? I don't care. But I'm done going in circles with you. I've made my position abundantly clear, and if you are HONESTLY interested in understanding then there's plenty of material to see what it is in my posts.

But I don't think you are. I think you just want to fight. I think you want some kind of sense of self-validation by attacking somebody who doesn't share your point of view. If you REALLY want to continue the conversation then I dare you to TG me with it. I want to see how you are when there's no audience to put on a show for.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 21:18

What makes this so damn scary is at the very bottom of it is Neo B's lurking implied position of "the world would just be better off if everyone was like me."

God the attrocities that have been carried out under such a belief.

If you only knew how utterly asinine that looks from where I sit.

Neesika

12-09-2007, 21:21

*snip of stomping of feet and cries of 'no fair!'*
That was a amusing, but pointless. You were asked a question. How did the first person to get an STD...get it? The point being...you aren't going to guarantee an end to STDs just because everyone on Earth suddenly begins behaving the way you want them to. If you really don't want to answer the question, just say so, succinctly. Throwing a little tantrum is counterproductive.

Soviestan

12-09-2007, 21:21

If you only knew how utterly asinine that looks from where I sit.

is it true you believe that God talked to a guy and gave him gold tablets but had to take them back before anyone else saw them?

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 21:24

You have a real problem, you know that?

I have several problems, one of which is self righteous dicks who presume to tell other people what they should and should not do with consenting adults.

That's a BIG problem I have.

I don't care where you got that chip on your shoulder. I really don't, but I'm done humoring your foolish "debate" tactics. You made it clear a long time ago that you're not the least little bit interested in having a real dialogue. A couple times there you almost got into a reasonable track and I was happy to reply, but this is idiotic.

I'm not the one posting some foaming out the mouth rant here. That's all you buddy.

If you don't want to talk hypothetical then don't. Talk about whatever you want, but don't try to save face when you screwed up by trying to put it back on me. I made a hypothetical example, you failed to recognize it and now you got caught in your carelessness. Suck it up and build a little credibility by facing it.

Oh, I saw your hypothetical, I just refuse to recognize the existance of any hypothetical that would fundamentally alter human nature in such a way as to render any practical merit to the discussion non existant. Congratulations, you made a hypothetical example.

Unfortunatly it was a worthless example that has absolutly no baring on reality. As such I don't really feel the need to address what would happen in your little made up world that has not, is not, and never will exist.

What would happen? I have no fucking clue. Why? Because it's an impossible position.

I don't know who it was that pissed you off or hurt you or whatever it was that made you so hostile to someone who holds to a different set of beliefs than you, but it wasn't me, and it wasn't anybody I associate with so take your attitude and cram it.

You want to know who made me so hostile to religion? self righteous dicks who presume to tell other people what they should and should not do with consenting adults. In other words...people exactly like you.

You've accused me of judging you, I didn't. You accused me of expecting you to believe what I do, I don't. Never did. You don't believe that? I don't care. But I'm done going in circles with you. I've made my position abundantly clear, and if you are HONESTLY interested in understanding then there's plenty of material to see what it is in my posts.

That's just it, you HAVE made your position abundantly clear. THe problem is, your position isn't even remotely what you claim it is. You say you don't judge, yet you say my actions are immoral. you claim that you don't expect people to do what you do, but you assign a "greater morality" to your actions than mine. Any attempt to somehow weasle out of it by claiming that you're not really judging, your just judging my ACTS, as if somehow an act were seperable from the person committing it, only makes you one thing.

A self righteous dick who presume to tell other people what they should and should not do with consenting adults.

But I don't think you are. I think you just want to fight. I think you want some kind of sense of self-validation by attacking somebody who doesn't share your point of view.
Yeah, I mean it's obvious that I'm putting on a show for an audience when I post long winded rants on a message board about how I have been so wronged.

Oh, wait, that would be you.

If you REALLY want to continue the conversation then I dare you to TG me with it. I want to see how you are when there's no audience to put on a show for.

Nah, I prefer your statements to be out here in public where everyone else can see how nonsensical they are.

Such a very angry and hostile rant you have here by the way. Hardly the behavior one should engage in if he has "higher morality"

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 21:25

If you only knew how utterly asinine that looks from where I sit.

I'm sure other people like you accused of doing the same found it amusing. Doesn't make it wrong though.

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 21:26

That was a amusing, but pointless. You were asked a question. How did the first person to get an STD...get it? The point being...you aren't going to guarantee an end to STDs just because everyone on Earth suddenly begins behaving the way you want them to. If you really don't want to answer the question, just say so, succinctly. Throwing a little tantrum is counterproductive.

That' sexactly the sort of answer I'd expect from somebody who's already made up hi/her mind just like NA.

Why didn't I respond to that? Because I thought you guys dind't need the obvious spelled out. You want it, here:

Because in a hypothetical scenario, there is no need to define patient 0.

Although I note that when I asked that someone explain how a person could be born with an STD in a world where pure monogamy existed, nobody answered.

Apparently only I am held to that standard. I will take that as a compliment because it implies to me that on some level you realize how full of crap they are and don't really expect them to answer.

Oh, and, it's not a tantrum, it's called laying the cards on the table. But if characterizing me that way is what you feel you have to do to validate yourself, then by all means carry on.

is it true you believe that God talked to a guy and gave him gold tablets but had to take them back before anyone else saw them?

:rolleyes:

Does that kind of tactic work for you often?

Neo Bretonnia

12-09-2007, 21:28

*snip*

Put up or shut up. I've issued you a challenge. I want to see what you have to say when you aren't strutting in front of an audience.

(Pssst. The "I know you are but what am I" argument usually stops being clever after about 2nd grade.)

To everybody: Show me where I said something to the effect of: "You should do things my way." Otherwise, knock off the accusations.

Soviestan

12-09-2007, 21:29

That' sexactly
fruedian slip perhaps?
:rolleyes:

Does that kind of tactic work for you often?
It's not a "tactic." It's what we call a "question", which you failed to answer btw.

Neo Art

12-09-2007, 21:32

Although I note that when I asked that someone explain how a person could be born with an STD in a world where pure monogamy existed, nobody answered.

Patient 0 catches a virus through contaminated exposure to another species carrying said virus. Patient 0 then proceeds to enter into a monogamous relationship, infecting his partner, and also impregnating her.

Impregnated partner procedes to give birth to infected child. Infected patient 0 dies to virus, partner remaries, infects new partner.

Infected child of patient 0 becomes a drug user, shares needles, infects 3 more people, who proceed to infect their monogamous partners, and passing on to their children.

The reason nobody answered you is, I suppose, that the answer was so BLATANTLY obvious that we figured you didn't need such a thing pointed out to you.

Apparently we were wrong.

Either way, there you go. Multiple people infected, no monogamy breached. Holy crap, it would seem that patient 0 is not irrelevant at all, is he?

Oh, but of course this wouldn't happen in your hypothetical world if the monkeys weren't such promiscuous sluts. Those dirty dirty monkeys

NationStates Jolt Archive

Is Sex before marriage really a sin?