Jump to content

Pre-marital sex--


Kashi

Recommended Posts

Nah, you're just saying that for the introvert geek factor on this forum

 

 

 

I have never dated someone who has not worn glasses and smart hehe.

 

 

 

I have a pic of my partner and I on Delerias forum. My hawt nerd <3:

 

I don;t wear glasses (yet, I'll probably have to eventually-both parents do) and I am quite smart. :D

whalenuke.png

Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

angel2w.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 318
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What if she was hawt.

 

Hawt and rich,i would consider 8-)

 

 

 

But what if she were so stupid she injures hereself trying to read a book? I wouldn;t marry someobdy like that, no matter how rich or hot she is...

 

Anyway i was just joking...the last thing on my mind is getting married :? i never even dreamed about it. :-s

Stephleref.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost feel obligated to reply. Suddenly I'm alright instead of a deluded fundamental christian.

 

I personally cannot accept as some do that the bible is automatically right because it says so. That is a circular argument, and abhorrent to me. So while a lot of the stuff in it makes sense, I would rather find other reasons for it.

 

We can assume that the bible (and this goes for any holy book) was written for a reason. Something that big does not just come about through idle doodles. There are then two possibilities for its reason for existing.

 

The first is that it was divinely inspired, and that there is a god exactly as described. I'm afraid I find this hard to accept, for many reasons.

 

I'm aware that this might be off-topic but here goes:

 

It's not really a circular argument. The Bible isn't right because it says so, it's right because it's God's words. Of course you have to believe in God for it to make any sense. If you don't believe in God then nothing can be his words, but if you do believe in God it's not impossible that he wanted to communicate with his creation. And therefore told/inspire people to write down his will (and stuff) in a book also know as the Bible.

 

 

 

The second is that a group of people recorded their history, legends and beliefs in a manner such that they could be tranferred throughout that society, and understood by that society. This appears more likely to me.

 

Which leads on to this - the moral codes set out in the bible must therefore be the moral codes of this group of people. These moral codes developed (evolved if you like - evolution is not just genetic) for a reason, and must have made the tribe more successful. After all, if they were bad for the group we wouldn't be following them! By this argument, god is a metaphor, a reason to follow the moral codes. If you accept this, there is no need to beleive in a god, as you can follow the moral codes for the simple reason that they are good for society.

 

Now let us assume that, despite that argument, god does exist. The argument is no less logical, no less worthwhile. If the moral codes are in fact derived from god, the end result is the same.

 

Now, I personally am of the belief that god does exist. This allows me to assume that the moral codes are able to change over time. What is good for you yesterday may not be good for you tommorrow. Those moral codes should still serve the purpose of being good for society.

 

 

I believe in absolute moral, which means it derives from something absolute and that thing is God. God can't change his attributes, which means that if God says "killing is wrong" (immoral) 5000 years ago it would still be true today.

 

Let's assume that these moral codes were constructed by a group of people and can change over time. I'm not sure if I understand it correctly but what if Hitler had won the WWII and became the ruler of the world. Would nazism be the right moral codes?

 

I think that everyone should have a moral code to aspire to, whether inspired by religious dogma or logic. If that were the case, and people kept to it (impossible I know), the world would be a better place. But you cannot assume that your moral code or reasons for it are the only ones.

 

 

If I didn't believe/assume that the Bible is correct, God's words and so on, then why would I care whether people were having premarital sex or not?

 

I hope that made sense to everyone. It certainly cleared a few things up in my mind. Thinking about this in a logical manner certainly has made me slightly less hostile towards the religious. My hostility stems from a church youth group. People who believe that schools purposefully lie to us about evolution, and that the earth really was made 6000 years ago in six days, and that all evidence to the contrary is god testing us. I broke with the group after realising their inability and unwillingness to back up their assertions in an argument. I somehow came to believe that all religious people are like this.

 

We should try to just look at each other as a human beings and not christians, atheists, black or white etc. Sounds a bit clicḫ̩̉̉ but it's important.

untitledyw7.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost feel obligated to reply. Suddenly I'm alright instead of a deluded fundamental christian.

 

I personally cannot accept as some do that the bible is automatically right because it says so. That is a circular argument, and abhorrent to me. So while a lot of the stuff in it makes sense, I would rather find other reasons for it.

 

We can assume that the bible (and this goes for any holy book) was written for a reason. Something that big does not just come about through idle doodles. There are then two possibilities for its reason for existing.

 

The first is that it was divinely inspired, and that there is a god exactly as described. I'm afraid I find this hard to accept, for many reasons.

 

I'm aware that this might be off-topic but here goes:

 

 

 

It's not really a circular argument. The Bible isn't right because it says so, it's right because it's God's words. Of course you have to believe in God for it to make any sense. If you don't believe in God then nothing can be his words, but if you do believe in God it's not impossible that he wanted to communicate with his creation. And therefore told/inspire people to write down his will (and stuff) in a book also know as the Bible.

 

 

 

To beleive in the Bible you must believe that the Christian God exists first for it to even be possible that it's his inspired writings, and you get the idea and attributes of the Christian God from the Bible. It's clearly circular.

 

 

 

We should try to just look at each other as a human beings and not christians, atheists, black or white etc. Sounds a bit clicḫ̩̉̉ but it's important.

 

 

 

Doesn't God judge humans on whether they are christian or not? And isn't God perfection? Obviously therefore it has to be perfect to judge people on their religious groups. So i don't see why you are not for judging based on whatever religion they follow or don't follow. Afterall, thats what segregates one man from hell and the other from heaven.

Signature3.gif

With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To beleive in the Bible you must believe that the Christian God exists first for it to even be possible that it's his inspired writings, and you get the idea and attributes of the Christian God from the Bible. It's clearly circular.

 

 

I don't really want to have a debate about circular reasoning on this thread. I'll reply with this: http://www.needhim.org/1/bible/bible4.shtml

 

 

Doesn't God judge humans on whether they are christian or not? And isn't God perfection? Obviously therefore it has to be perfect to judge people on their religious groups. So i don't see why you are not for judging based on whatever religion they follow or don't follow. Afterall, thats what segregates one man from hell and the other from heaven.

 

I don't have a say in whether you go to heaven or hell. God will judge people I'll try not to.

untitledyw7.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in absolute moral, which means it derives from something absolute and that thing is God. God can't change his attributes, which means that if God says "killing is wrong" (immoral) 5000 years ago it would still be true today.

 

 

 

So I take it you have nothing against incest, wanton genocide, homophobia and forcibly unprotected sex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sex in the sense of "intercourse between one person and another" is thrown around like feces in a monkey cage. Lots of people do it for recreation, sexual release, to prove something to friends or yourself (or even a weird dad), a lack of decent video games to occupy the time, or because porn just ain't cutting it any more. In the sense of sex being "conceptual intercourse between two people who love eac other very much" (aka "Making love"), it's alot more rare. There's only one good reason to do that and that is when involves love.

 

That being said, I see no reason to do something of this nature with someone you TRULY HONESTLY care about. The whole "premarital sex is bad" thing obviously started from christian beliefs that sex was immoral because of the pleasure it created and the problems that came along with it. This was then blown out of proportion. I think people forget that sex is a gift. God (or whatever deity you believe/don't believe in) didn't HAVE to make it feel good. I would suppose he made it feel good not just so the baby-making experience would be a good one, but also as a way for people to seal connections with their significant other. I think he hoped that we would decide to have sex with people we hope might one day become our spouses and made it an important part in relationships. Eventually, with any couple, sex becomes an issue, whether it's an abundance or lack of it. You can have a wonderful relationship with someone and feel completely compatible with them until you finally have sex with them and realize "they don't satisfy me sexually....". So what happens if you wait untill marriage to find that out? What do you do then? What if you can't settle it then? You cheat, normally. Then it's a whole new set of problems, almost always leading to divorce. I don't think that's what is ment to happen. I feel it's ok to have sex before hand, to get that experience needed FOR marriage. Plus, everyone needs to get off. Blue balls suck.

 

However, throwing sex around with random people at random times is a bit sad. It's like that kid who ended up becoming a drug dealer because of one time that his friends gave him some drug to try and he wanted to be cool so he did it. I understand the need "get off" and that sometimes Handgela just isn't working anymore, but when you fool around day in and day out like it's some sort of race to the trophy, it's annoying. This, I suppose is where God (or whatever deity you believe/don't believe in) steps in and gives you herpes, a baby, or something that kicks you in the [wagon]. I suppose every person needs some sort of clarity and voyage to the all-truth and constant sex (like any other drug) hinders that journey.

 

I guess that's how I see it from a spiritual stance. \'

Who's cup of warm of lemonade is this? It's not my'n. It must be ur'in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To beleive in the Bible you must believe that the Christian God exists first for it to even be possible that it's his inspired writings, and you get the idea and attributes of the Christian God from the Bible. It's clearly circular.

 

 

I don't really want to have a debate about circular reasoning on this thread. I'll reply with this: http://www.needhim.org/1/bible/bible4.shtml

 

 

 

Thats still circular reasoning, and i quote the last paragraph "This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound, logical outcome of these facts". All the facts they establish come from the Bible, and even if they establish facts like "Jesus was crucified" that doesn't logically conclude to his ressurection. That whole things seems very much like stretching beliefs into apparent facts. The only way for a christian to avoid circular reasoning ie. "I beleive in the Christian God because the Bible is true, and i believe in the Bible because the christian God is true" is by relying on other evidence to support the specific idea of God such as personal experiences of seeing Jesus telling you the christian God is correct or something. Which can not be proven, or may not be real and only ever counts as a proof to that person and sometimes to other followers of the religion already and no one else.

Signature3.gif

With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it should matter if both of the parents are willing to take care of the child.

 

This seems to have been written under the pretext that there is definetly going to be a child, or they are not using protection. If that is not what you meant, you should say something like, "If both parties are prepared and willing to take the risk of having a child and raising it together".

whalenuke.png

Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

angel2w.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in absolute moral, which means it derives from something absolute and that thing is God. God can't change his attributes, which means that if God says "killing is wrong" (immoral) 5000 years ago it would still be true today.

 

Let's assume that these moral codes were constructed by a group of people and can change over time. I'm not sure if I understand it correctly but what if Hitler had won the WWII and became the ruler of the world. Would nazism be the right moral codes?

 

 

 

I would contend that the morals we currently have as a society are derived from the Bible, and by extension the group of people who wrote the Bible. That is a group of people who were more successful than the neighbouring groups, with a more successful culture, possible as a result of their moral codes. It is an old saying that history is written by the victor, but true nonetheless. I'm afraid that had the Nazis won WW2, and we had all been brought up with their ideology, the Nazism would appear to be the right ideology to those people. Of course, it is likely (hopefully) that the Nazi ideology is flawed, and would not have survived long, as it would cause the destruction of the society that followed it.

 

 

 

What I am trying to say is that morality is very much an attribute of a particular society. Those brought up in that society will, by and large share the beliefs of that society.

 

 

 

If I didn't believe/assume that the Bible is correct, God's words and so on, then why would I care whether people were having premarital sex or not?

 

 

 

Because the morals set out in the Bible are successful ones, otherwise they wouldn't have survived this long. A successful code of morals is one that is good for society and the people within it. Why the neccessity to invoke God? Are you saying that if there wasn't the promise of heaven for being good you would not behave properly?

 

 

 

If you apply evolutionary principles to societies and cultures you can come to some interesting conclusions. My view of the Bible is as a particularly successful method of propagating a successful ideology. It its most basic terms it appeals to people's selfishness to cause them to act for the good of the society.

 

Unfortunately the Bible also contains things that, while good for society when written, are harmful now. Particular the assertion of uniqueness, that it is the only correct account. Unfortunately this is pretty common in religion.

 

 

 

 

 

As for the circularity issue, Satenza appears to have pretty much countered your arguments on that. However, I will add this. The source you presented asserted that once the historical facts stated in the bible are recognised, then the rest can be taken as true. This is unfortunately not the case. There are parts of the Bible that are clearly not true (particularly Genisis). So those parts on which we have no evidence, the parts that form the cornerstone of christianity (resurection), could be either true or false. Since they go against everything that can be observed and measured, it is a fairly safe bet that they are false.

I have to get practically naked when I'm cooking bacon.

I may be immature, but that made me laugh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a very good decision to not have sex before marriage.

 

 

 

 

 

I think that sex today is very over rated, if you do it you will get a horrible disease? hah! Sex shouldn't be a big deal.

 

 

 

I think that embracing sex and sexuality is a good thing for anyone to do, at the same time peopel should be considerate and tollerant of other people's choices.

 

 

 

Ps, me and you kashi, anytime :-$

fudgy999 is mean :-( throw rocks at him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe in absolute moral, which means it derives from something absolute and that thing is God. God can't change his attributes, which means that if God says "killing is wrong" (immoral) 5000 years ago it would still be true today.

 

 

 

What if the same moral needs to be enforced in different ways under different circumstances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

they said if you had pre-marital sex what is there to look forward to on the wedding night?

 

 

 

This may have been said/quoted before but 14 pages? anyhoo...

 

 

 

Answer: A bloody good time if both parties know what they are doing, a bloody disappointing time if they don't.

Why is 'common sense' so named, when there is so little of it about?

Welcome to puberty, we've been expecting you.

newsighq9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sex in the sense of "intercourse between one person and another" is thrown around like feces in a monkey cage. Lots of people do it for recreation, sexual release, to prove something to friends or yourself (or even a weird dad), a lack of decent video games to occupy the time, or because porn just ain't cutting it any more. In the sense of sex being "conceptual intercourse between two people who love eac other very much" (aka "Making love"), it's alot more rare. There's only one good reason to do that and that is when involves love.

 

That being said, I see no reason to do something of this nature with someone you TRULY HONESTLY care about. The whole "premarital sex is bad" thing obviously started from christian beliefs that sex was immoral because of the pleasure it created and the problems that came along with it. This was then blown out of proportion. I think people forget that sex is a gift. God (or whatever deity you believe/don't believe in) didn't HAVE to make it feel good. I would suppose he made it feel good not just so the baby-making experience would be a good one, but also as a way for people to seal connections with their significant other. I think he hoped that we would decide to have sex with people we hope might one day become our spouses and made it an important part in relationships. Eventually, with any couple, sex becomes an issue, whether it's an abundance or lack of it. You can have a wonderful relationship with someone and feel completely compatible with them until you finally have sex with them and realize "they don't satisfy me sexually....". So what happens if you wait untill marriage to find that out? What do you do then? What if you can't settle it then? You cheat, normally. Then it's a whole new set of problems, almost always leading to divorce. I don't think that's what is ment to happen. I feel it's ok to have sex before hand, to get that experience needed FOR marriage. Plus, everyone needs to get off. Blue balls suck.

 

However, throwing sex around with random people at random times is a bit sad. It's like that kid who ended up becoming a drug dealer because of one time that his friends gave him some drug to try and he wanted to be cool so he did it. I understand the need "get off" and that sometimes Handgela just isn't working anymore, but when you fool around day in and day out like it's some sort of race to the trophy, it's annoying. This, I suppose is where God (or whatever deity you believe/don't believe in) steps in and gives you herpes, a baby, or something that kicks you in the [wagon]. I suppose every person needs some sort of clarity and voyage to the all-truth and constant sex (like any other drug) hinders that journey.

 

I guess that's how I see it from a spiritual stance. \'

 

 

 

God or no god, I just have to say that this is the most intelligent, well rounded and most reasonably stated position on any issue in any forum that it has ever been my pleasure to read. (I'll let you off for the spelling mistakes just this once :lol: )

Why is 'common sense' so named, when there is so little of it about?

Welcome to puberty, we've been expecting you.

newsighq9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To beleive in the Bible you must believe that the Christian God exists first for it to even be possible that it's his inspired writings, and you get the idea and attributes of the Christian God from the Bible. It's clearly circular.

 

 

I don't really want to have a debate about circular reasoning on this thread. I'll reply with this: http://www.needhim.org/1/bible/bible4.shtml

 

 

 

Thats still circular reasoning, and i quote the last paragraph "This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound, logical outcome of these facts". All the facts they establish come from the Bible, and even if they establish facts like "Jesus was crucified" that doesn't logically conclude to his ressurection. That whole things seems very much like stretching beliefs into apparent facts. The only way for a christian to avoid circular reasoning ie. "I beleive in the Christian God because the Bible is true, and i believe in the Bible because the christian God is true" is by relying on other evidence to support the specific idea of God such as personal experiences of seeing Jesus telling you the christian God is correct or something. Which can not be proven, or may not be real and only ever counts as a proof to that person and sometimes to other followers of the religion already and no one else.

 

 

 

It is not circular. We establish a basic belief (God exists), from which all other truths can logically flow. Everybody has beliefs that cannot be proven true that are the basis from which all other beliefs flow.

 

 

 

For example, the belief that "my senses are reliable", or "I can reason my way towards truth" is a basic belief that (almost) everybody holds. And (almost) every other belief we have stems from our senses/reason. Are all of your beliefs/arguments circular in that your senses/reason define them? According to your logic, I guess they are.

summerpngwy6.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are parts of the Bible that are clearly not true (particularly Genisis). So those parts on which we have no evidence, the parts that form the cornerstone of christianity (resurection), could be either true or false. Since they go against everything that can be observed and measured, it is a fairly safe bet that they are false.

 

 

 

This is a regressive argument. The standard from which morality derives is the same by which religious individuals ascertain the moral absoluteness of God.

 

 

 

If it is logically incorrect to say that Christians cannot place faith in a God (we'll get to the existence of that God in a second) because his/her/its workings are invisible to our observation, then morality should not exist either. Morality is predicated on an intangible belief in collective welfare, enveloping such concepts as compassion that are not readily discernible outside of their physical manifestations, which themselves lack a definiteness (subterfuge in human behavior is impossible to detect - which is to say, people can falsely present themselves as compassionate and selectively exploit a moral standard, which undermines the omniscience and relevance of the moral system).

 

(This essentially echoes insane's thought)

 

 

 

To finally address the root of this issue - I think it's a bit illogical to propose that the Bible's stance on pre-marital sexuality is necessarily harmful to society at large. I'm referring to this bit:

 

Unfortunately the Bible also contains things that, while good for society when written, are harmful now.

 

(This is assuming you're imparting on us your brilliantly didactic repertoire regarding contemporary religion to prove a point about the thread. If we're in a Christians vs. rationalists debate then I respectfully withdraw the following statements)

 

 

 

I am not a Christian by birth or by practice, but I am not sure it is emphasized in the Bible that the moral code of Christianity should be forcibly placed on everyone (though people have long abused the name of religion for such destructive endeavors as the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, conversions of Native Americans). Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

Which leads us to the question of enforcement. Was it right for sixteenth century fathers to beat their daughters for gallivanting around with the boys in the town? Where does the authority lie on such issues? Some would say God, others would it's an individual choice, no interference needed.

 

 

 

Imposition of a moral code in my mind is repulsive because it contradicts the very nature of morality. However, I don't feel that is what our Christian advocates are saying. It seems that they personally find pre-marital sex to be incorrect based on their values, not that this is a value which should be accepted universally.

 

 

 

On the contrary, it seems, Evrae, that you are trying to convince them that their moral code is wrong - that it is only accepted because "evolutionary principle" has given their moral code a broad support base. It seems, Evrae, that you are encroaching the precipice of moral disaster, just as the worst missionaries of history did.

 

 

 

I guess, really, what's your issue with them finding it wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.