morals...........

[SuziAngel]

Is not sexual activity a behaviour? Or do you mean public behaviour?

 

 

 

Yes, I meant public behaviour. I didn't think I'd have to be that specific, sorry about that.

 

 

 

Do you think every behaviour is down to personal preference though? If so, why do we have laws? Personal preferences can be detrimental. Or are you talking about private behaviour this time?

 

 

 

You've kinda answered your own question there. Not all behaviour can be down to personal preference because of the laws that have to be abided by. I agree, personal preferences can be detrimental and that applies to both public and private behaviour. Obviously there are certain things that go on in private that are not acceptable. I don't really know what you're expecting me to say here.

 

 

 

Goddess is on form today. :D

[assassin_696]

insane, I actually altered my original critique of your point after i'd re-read it, but you beat me to it with your counter :P It might make slightly more sense now.

 

 

 

I think most of your points are fair enough and we can agree to disagree. Like I added on to my other post, ultimately it's up to you. I'll address a couple though:

 

 

 

Emotional langauge doesn't make it irrelevant to the point, you're going off track here.

 

 

 

I don't understand. I said he was correct in saying that it was a conservative statement. I then said that he added a bunch of unnecessary terms to make me look bad, which he did. What's your point? Just because something is conservative doesn't make it wrong.

 

 

 

Course not, just a difference of opinion mate. But it's hard to remain completely unbiased when you're arguing based on one side of the political spectrum

 

 

 

That all boyfriends who sleep with girls before marriage then cheat on them.

 

 

 

I didn't say that. I said that if someone's boyfriend were to sleep, then cheat, they would regret sleeping with them. I didn't say everybody did this. That's why I said it was taking a gamble. because you just don't know.

 

 

 

Yeah, but the same would be ultimately true for even having a relationship with a guy who cheats on you. You'd still feel like **** even if there was no sexual element. I suppose the trick is to find a guy who isn't that stupid.

 

 

 

I tell you what's taking a gamble, not knowing what your future life partners attitude to sex is. I can't see how that's healthy for a long term relationship.

 

 

 

See above. You can discuss sexual attitudes before having sex. Of course, having sex might change these attitudes but I don't think people are going to go from wanting it to hating it. I don't think I've ever heard of someone hating sex with the exception of wives whose husbands are emotionally distant.

 

 

 

Again, that's true, but here's where the difference of opinion lies. I don't think i'd want to marry someone without sharing that kind of intimacy with them, sex isn't sacred to me, it's special yeah, and I suppose you shouldn't throw it around with anybody (although I might change), I just don't think it's that special.

[RayOxide]

I wnt 2 rd th pst i but cannot i can;t help mmmmee plzzzz!11111!!!!!!!eleven!!1111exclamationpoint!111 :cry:

[Guest]

I wnt 2 rd th pst i but cannot i can;t help mmmmee plzzzz!11111!!!!!!!eleven!!1111exclamationpoint!111 :cry:

 

 

 

Please leave Off Topic and Go back to the General Boards. Seriously, your posts are getting annoying and incredibly spammy. I put up with it for long enough without making a comment and now its just purely annoying.

 

 

 

Anyway back on topic. I think that the OP views are right and wrong. Coming from her side of the things, I would say that we need to realise that her being of faith - obviously she (I hope shes a she [thats what I'm assuming sorry if its not the case]) believes in a higher being and an afterlife, is right and wrong in her views of sin and is probably just coming across wrong in how she's making her point. I can understand how she says that all sin is equal - because in the Christian faith (I'm going to come from a Christian beliefs perspective here), God looks at sin all equal because if there was a difference then Jesus dieing on the cross wouldn't be necessary as dieing for all sin wouldn't be the case, that's where I can agree that all sin is equal in that respects. But obviously any "man and his dog" can realise that all sin isn't equal on the face of this earth and that appropriate punishment should be dealt for each individual crime or sin.

 

 

 

Its just when put into different perspectives and situations that sin has to be looked at in different ways. Equal in a Christians beliefs of entering eternal life, but very differently for different circumstances while on earth for all people under our Human appointed laws, regulations and judgments.

[Satenza]

Obviously there are certain things that go on in private that are not acceptable.

 

 

 

Such as?

[RayOxide]

I wnt 2 rd th pst i but cannot i can;t help mmmmee plzzzz!11111!!!!!!!eleven!!1111exclamationpoint!111 :cry:

 

 

 

Please leave Off Topic and Go back to the General Boards. Seriously, your posts are getting annoying and incredibly spammy. I put up with it for long enough without making a comment and now its just purely annoying.

 

 

 

I was being serious, don't be angry. I actually want someone that can understand it better than me to rewrite it -.-

[SuziAngel]

Such as?

 

 

 

I'm talking about obvious stuff like paedophilia, rape, murder...etc

[Aresgodowar]

wow...6 pages arguing over premerital sex...maby someone should just start a new thread...

[Lenin64]

everything he says is wrong in that post is all caused by two things, which are pretty much hand-in-hand, so kinda one thing; capitalism and freedom. Everyone being on the same level and controlling everything will help to prevent all sin.

[Guest]

everything he says is wrong in that post is all caused by two things, which are pretty much hand-in-hand, so kinda one thing; capitalism and freedom. Everyone being on the same level and controlling everything will help to prevent all sin.

 

 

 

Assuming that wasn't a joke (which it may well of been - so sorry for not catching on) haven't we learnt from history how well Communism turns out. Which is what your alluding to.

[Kashi]

I want to go back to talking about pre-marital sex for a moment, 'cause I had another comment. :o

 

 

 

I'm still a virgin, but if the right guy comes along I don't mean to stay that way.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean that I'm going to throw myself at anyone with a (sexual organ), though.

 

The point I wanted to make was, having pre-marital sex doesn't automatically mean you're

 

a (promiscuous person). I think some people missed that part. You can have sex before

 

marriage and still have it be a meaningful expression of your feelings with someone you love.

 

 

 

On the other hand, I've seen married people who have sex maybe once a year and positively

 

hate each other. Is that really better?

 

 

 

Which is the worse situation, sex between a teenage couple who adore each other and want

 

to make each other happy, or sex between two married people who can't stand each other

 

anymore and therefore attach no emotional meaning to sex?

 

 

 

:oops:

 

 

 

Now I'm all embarassed ...

 

For some reason ...

[Zealot]

I want to go back to talking about pre-marital sex for a moment, 'cause I had another comment. :o

 

 

 

I'm still a virgin, but if the right guy comes along I don't mean to stay that way.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean that I'm going to throw myself at anyone with a (sexual organ), though.

 

The point I wanted to make was, having pre-marital sex doesn't automatically mean you're

 

a (promiscuous person). I think some people missed that part. You can have sex before

 

marriage and still have it be a meaningful expression of your feelings with someone you love.

 

 

 

On the other hand, I've seen married people who have sex maybe once a year and positively

 

hate each other. Is that really better?

 

 

 

Which is the worse situation, sex between a teenage couple who adore each other and want

 

to make each other happy, or sex between two married people who can't stand each other

 

anymore and therefore attach no emotional meaning to sex?

 

 

 

:oops:

 

 

 

Now I'm all embarassed ...

 

For some reason ...

 

 

 

I kinda understand what you mean... Though I don't agree. Mostly, I think that the assumption that all marriages end in failure is a bad assumption to make. I know many married couples who are quite happy together and have been so for many, many years. Yes, when a marriage is on the rocks, that is a bad thing and in a real sense sex in such a relationship is a bad thing. But I believe that it is also the case that sex in anything but a completely committed relationship (which such a marriage is not any more) is a bad thing. I think that it tends to drive a wedge between people when they aren't completely committed to one another.

 

 

 

'Least that's my experience with it.

 

 

 

By the way, I would highly suggest waiting until you are married if at all possible. Sex complicates everything once you start having it. If nothing else, it complicates things.

[IGoddessI]

:shock: If my husband gave me sex once a month yet alone a year I'd divorce him :lol:

[Zonorhc]

:shock: If my husband gave me sex once a month yet alone a year I'd divorce him :lol:

 

... It's a two hour flight. Marry me, female.

 

 

 

=D

 

 

 

everything he says is wrong in that post is all caused by two things, which are pretty much hand-in-hand, so kinda one thing; capitalism and freedom.

 

Please explain the link? Capitalism doesn't cause people to have vices. Freedom doesn't cause people to have vices. Hell, if anything, repressing freedoms causes people to assert themselves to fulfill those vices more - see prohibition in the US, and the repression of the peasant class in Soviet Russia, ca.1920s.

 

 

 

Everyone being on the same level and controlling everything will help to prevent all sin.

 

Will it? The administration trying to control everything and keeping everyone on the same level caused the suffering peasant class to resist and deny their livestock to the Bolshevik (well, the Communist Party) requisition corps. An entire generation of Russians went without meat as a result of this attempted control.* Could it not be considered a "sin" to deprive children of an essential element of diet, against their will and without their knowledge?

 

 

 

 

 

*David Christian, Power, privilege and the challenge of modernity (1986, multiple publishers), page reference unavailable.

[____]

Sex complicates everything once you start having it. If nothing else, it complicates things.

That's [cabbage] - it'll only be a complication if you let it. And I'd at least hope you're talking from experience before claiming that it does :uhh: If you are - then you chose the wrong time and the wrong person under the wrong circumstances. Basically you just screwed up.

[assassin_696]

everything he says is wrong in that post is all caused by two things, which are pretty much hand-in-hand, so kinda one thing; capitalism and freedom.

 

Please explain the link? Capitalism doesn't cause people to have vices. Freedom doesn't cause people to have vices. Hell, if anything, repressing freedoms causes people to assert themselves to fulfill those vices more - see prohibition in the US, and the repression of the peasant class in Soviet Russia, ca.1920s.

 

 

 

Everyone being on the same level and controlling everything will help to prevent all sin.

 

Will it? The administration trying to control everything and keeping everyone on the same level caused the suffering peasant class to resist and deny their livestock to the Bolshevik (well, the Communist Party) requisition corps. An entire generation of Russians went without meat as a result of this attempted control.* Could it not be considered a "sin" to deprive children of an essential element of diet, against their will and without their knowledge?

 

 

 

 

 

*David Christian, Power, privilege and the challenge of modernity (1986, multiple publishers), page reference unavailable.

 

 

 

It's alright, he's going through a communism fandom stage. It'll pass.

[IGoddessI]

Sex complicates everything once you start having it.

 

 

 

My sex life is bloody great and I don't feel it complicates anything, only puts me in a better mood :lol:

 

 

 

I feel sorry for you though, as it seems it's taken the opposite effect for you. Maybe you should up your bedroom moves :P

[Kashi]

Okay, this has become a big enough thing that I think it deserves its own thread.

 

 

 

And so I shall make one accordingly.

[fenrir321]

Definition of what is moral: anything that creates, preserves or fixes.

 

Definition of what is IMmoral: anything that destroys or causes damage to something.

 

 

 

Drugs: immoral- destroys the body

 

Lying: immoral- destroys trust and relationships

 

Fighting: immoral- destroys the other's and your own body

 

 

 

However, the list keeps going on for so much that people will make exceptions to suit their needs, that's what's wrong with humanity. :shame:

[Zonorhc]

You bumped this to present a fallacious set of definitions of what is moral and what is not?

[wakka102]

You're point of view is from a religious aspect. My only true moral is that anybody can do anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt others without consent. If someone wants to die then they have the right to die. If someone wants to have lots of sex they have the right to do so. I don't find anything wrong with it unless it's harming another person who did not consent to it. I'm not much of a religious person as you might be able to tell.

 

But think of it this way, if god didn't want to you enjoy some of these things called "sin" then why did he make them in the first place? Why did it make sex so enjoyable that it is one of the main things that we think about (whether you'll admit that or not is up to you) yet it is looked down upon when people want to do something that is so beautiful and natural? These are just some of the things I think about sometimes.

[Satenza]

everything he says is wrong in that post is all caused by two things, which are pretty much hand-in-hand, so kinda one thing; capitalism and freedom. Everyone being on the same level and controlling everything will help to prevent all sin.

 

 

 

Mhm. I agree, since everyone makes the rules everyone says whats sin and what isn't. So nothing would ever be sinning since there is no ultimate and definitive list of sins take the last thousands and thousands of years where differrent religions and philosophies and people have contested with each other. The only way all sins could be prevented is through there being no sins at all.

 

 

 

Unless again you think "Capitalism and freedom cause everyone to have a subjective idea of sinning!". Basically all i ever see in communists arguments is "This this and this are all due to capitalism here is no proof on the matter case closed". And whats even more laughable is that Marx actually called his dialectic a scientific method. Haha.

 

 

 

Edit: And Wakka, pick up John Stuart Mills "On Liberty" that basically outlines everything you beleive in, in more depth and shows the understandings behind why thats the best system in which to live both socially, economically and utlising epistemology. He [bleep]ing rocks.

[Myridden]

(posting after reading the first 4 pages of the thread)

 

 

 

ugh..I have such a bad headache. religion is so confusing their are sins for almost everything. I dont have much to say except what Nadril said in the first page...

[MrTeaSpoon]

Morals is what as a human you know is right and is wrong. You don't even need to think too much. Just do what feels like the right thing to do.

 

 

 

If you start thinking too much, religion gets irrational morals in your head. Like sex after marriage, that's irrational.

[Zealot]

But think of it this way, if god didn't want to you enjoy some of these things called "sin" then why did he make them in the first place? Why did it make sex so enjoyable that it is one of the main things that we think about (whether you'll admit that or not is up to you) yet it is looked down upon when people want to do something that is so beautiful and natural? These are just some of the things I think about sometimes.

 

 

 

Think about it this way:

 

 

 

Assume that there is a God, and that HE is completely Good. What that means is that in all ways he conforms to a perfect code of moral behavior in all aspects... Courage, purity, wisdom, patience, kindness, justice... and so on. This perfect morality is known and understood to us, HIS creatures as agape' or charity... That is valuing others regardless of externals such as wealth or lack thereof, influence, or lack thereof, and so on.

 

 

 

Now imagine that for some unknown reason this God allowed the possiblity that HIS creatures may not achieve complete goodness. In other words, we may be cowardly or foolhearty, lacking for purity or so enamored with it that it gets in the way of relationships, too foolish or too reliant on our own intellect, and so on... That is all that any moral shortcoming is is a lack of achieving perfection in some aspect of life. Since it is the case that all human beings fail to achieve moral perfection, it has come to pass that we are no longer sure exactly what that would look like so we are a bit confused. However, since we mostly agree that there are some things which are not morally perfect, such as murder or theft, it is reasonable in light of a belief in a perfectly moral being that there is a perfect moral code.

 

 

 

That is also why religion is at the heart of this debate. Because it is necessary to establish a moral code beyond just a few things like murder or theft.

 

 

 

I will point out however that Christianity is somewhat different from other religions because what it teaches is that I am dead and that Christ lives through me. To the extent that this statement is true I am morally perfect because HE is morally perfect. And it is the case that Christians tend to be better people after becoming such then they were before, giving empirical evidence that this is a reasonable hypothesis.