Why is fornication bad?

[repentandbelieve]

How can you know it is not going to harm anyone? There is potential for harm and it has nothing to do with women being property.

We're not fully cabable of knowing if having sex is going to cause harm or not because we can't see the big picture.

Who is the only One that is able to see the big picture? You already know who it is Elman. The Alpha Omega does, He knows the beginning to the end.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I don't see a relationship between morality and vacationing abroad.

I don't see a relationship between morality and sex. To me, sex that is consensual and does not break a trust is not a moral issue.

It's hard for me to relate to your analogy because I don't abstain from having sex, or traveling abroad, because of what might happen. In fact, I've enjoyed doing both at the same time.

I don't abstain from having sex because of what might happen either. But you use that as a reason not to have unmarried sex.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Does your mind tell you that it is OK to lie or steal as long as nobody gets harmed ?

So physical harm is the only kind you know about?

 

[repentandbelieve]

In what way are you thinking of it harming someone? To some degree, we need the freedom to make poor choices and learn what to do; harm because we don't like the relationship we're in is something most go through and ending premarital sex won't change that. Physical harm can be protected against by practising safe sex. For any sort of emotional harm, you'd need to be able to show that people who have sex outside of marriage are less happy/mentally stable than those who wait until marriage, no?

This is the thing. A simple rule that says "anything is right as long as no one gets harmed" simply won't do.

The reason it won't work is because people do not know (nor or they capable of knowing) if what they do will cause harm or not. We like to think and pretend we know, and we can be fooled into believing that we know, but in reality we don't.know because we aren't capable pf knowing.

This is another very important truth we need to accept. And it's very humililating.

 

[sparklecat]

That's the thing. A simple rule that says "anything is right is long as no one gets harmed" simply won't do.

The reason it won't work is because people do not know (nor or they capable of knowing) if what we do will cause harm or not. We like to think we know, and we fool ourselves into believing that we know, but in reality we don't.know because we can't know.

By that standard, we couldn't say anything is ok because there's generally some way a person could be harmed.

 

[repentandbelieve]

So physical harm is the only kind you know about?

I think that you are finally starting to see the point. There so many types of harm, and the effects of harm is so far reaching, that we can't always know if having sex is going to cause harm or not.

 

[repentandbelieve]

By that standard, we couldn't say anything is ok because there's generally some way a person could be harmed.

I don't know if I would use the term "generally," But can you give some sort of anaolgy of what you are saying?

 

[sparklecat]

I don't know if I would use the term "generally," But can you give some sort of anaolgy of what you are saying?

Sure.


Don't have sex; you might regret it later or suffer emotional harm.
Don't trust people; they might hurt you.
Don't go outside; you might get hit by a bus.
Don't use a gas stove; you might forget to turn it off and die from the carbon monoxide.
Don't have a child; they might be born with some terrible disease.
Don't play hockey; you could be killed.


You have to take proper precautions and otherwise live you life without constantly worrying about what bad things might happen, IMO.

 

[repentandbelieve]

Sure.


Don't have sex; you might regret it later or suffer emotional harm.
Don't trust people; they might hurt you.
Don't go outside; you might get hit by a bus.
Don't use a gas stove; you might forget to turn it off and die from the carbon monoxide.
Don't have a child; they might be born with some terrible disease.
Don't play hockey; you could be killed.


You have to take proper precautions and otherwise live you life without constantly worrying about what bad things might happen, IMO.

Thanks for the reply.

Experiencing practical everyday real life lessons are really the best way to learn anything aren't they? Even the Christian feels like he is "winging it" sometimes.

I've concluded that We cannot life being afraid of what might happen. the decision making process should be governed by priciple rather than consequences.


believe it or not I've done everything on the list you 've given. I've had sex, trusted people, gone outside, used a gas stove, had children and played hockey. All and all, I dont regret doing any of them. Ironically, the only thing on the list that I've done that caused harm to someone else are some of sexual relationships that I've had.

 

[nvxplorer]

I think that you are finally starting to see the point. There so many types of harm, and the effects of harm is so far reaching, that we can't always know if having sex is going to cause harm or not.

Not all harm is far reaching. I work in the printing industry. Paper cuts are a common harm. They can reach from the base of my palm to the tips of my fingers. Not very far reaching at all.

We can never know much of anything, but I don't need to know the future in crossing the street safely. My experience with crossing the street has taught me how to complete the task without giving it a second thought. Having sex is no different.

 

[repentandbelieve]

I'm still waiting for an answer faster_jackrabbit.

You absolutely agree that people should be able to do whatever they feel like doing as long no one gets harmed. So once more, my question to you is...

Does your mind tell you that it is OK to lie or steal as long as nobody gets harmed ?

 

[nvxplorer]

I'm still waiting for an answer faster_jackrabbit.

You absolutely agree that people should be able to do whatever they feel like doing as long no one gets harmed. So once more, my question to you is...

Does your mind tell you that it is OK to lie or steal as long as nobody gets harmed ?

It is sometimes necessary to lie in order to prevent harm. In these cases, the reaction of another is known beforehand. Preventing a bad reaction is the impetus for the lie.

When stealing, we must assume that the owner of property intends to maintain ownership of said property. As such, stealing would cause harm. If an owner of property does not care whether someone takes it, then he is in fact ceding ownership for the taking. In this scenario, the taking of property would not be stealing, but would be transferring title with the owner's approval.

 

[repentandbelieve]

It is sometimes necessary to lie in order to prevent harm. In these cases, the reaction of another is known beforehand. Preventing a bad reaction is the impetus for the lie.

When stealing, we must assume that the owner of property intends to maintain ownership of said property. As such, stealing would cause harm. If an owner of property does not care whether someone takes it, then he is in fact ceding ownership for the taking. In this scenario, the taking of property would not be stealing, but would be transferring title with the owner's approval.

That sounds like an awfully vague way of going through life, so unclear and open ended. People would need a crystal ball in order to live their lives according.

 

[nvxplorer]

That sounds like an awfully vague way of going through life, so unclear and open ended. People would need a crystal ball in order to live their lives according.

Very confusing. Your reply seems irrelevant to my post.

I mentioned nothing about "going through life," so I'm not clear as to how you inferred that.

I replied to your post concerning harm, and lying or stealing. To sum up, I'm stating that, in certain cases, lying is preferable to the truth in order to prevent harm. With regard to stealing, by definition, stealing is always harmful. Therefore, there can be no stealing "without harm," as you suggest. (A possible scenario exists where someone may think he has stolen, when in fact the owner of property isn't concerned with his ownership. In such a case, the thief may experience guilt, thus he may victimize himself. Any harm in these instances would be dependent on the thief's psyche and personal morality, so we can't say whether the thought of having stolen is right or wrong.)

 

[repentandbelieve]

So physical harm is the only kind you know about?

Can't you come up with a better answer than that. Come on, I recognize the move. Answer the question istead of avoiding it by asking one.

 

[repentandbelieve]

Not all harm is far reaching. I work in the printing industry. Paper cuts are a common harm. They can reach from the base of my palm to the tips of my fingers. Not very far reaching at all.

We can never know much of anything, but I don't need to know the future in crossing the street safely. My experience with crossing the street has taught me how to complete the task without giving it a second thought. Having sex is no different.

My experience with sex has taught me how to have a complete sex life. But I sure can't say that I can do it without giving it a second thought.

Do you believe that people should learn to have sex without giving it second thought.?

Sex is not as simple as crossing the street. Sex involves morality.

 

[nvxplorer]

My experience with sex has taught me how to have a complete sex life. But I sure can't say that I can do it without giving it a second thought.

You misinterpret my meaning in "without a second thought." We look before crossing the street. We do think before crossing the street, and act accordingly. We don't, however, give a second thought to whether crossing the street can be accomplished safely. Through experience, we know that crossing the street is a perfectly safe activity. That's the connection to sex that I'm making.

Do you believe that people should learn to have sex without giving it second thought.?

About its safety? Yes. One should know how to practice safe sex, and like crossing the street, such practice should be engaged without second thought.

Sex is not as simple as crossing the street. Sex involves morality.

It may involve morality for you. It does not for me. (Of course, I don't rape or molest children. All my sexual encounters have been with consensting adults, so morality is irrelevant.)

 

[repentandbelieve]

It may involve morality for you. It does not for me. (Of course, I don't rape or molest children. All my sexual encounters have been with consensting adults, so morality is irrelevant.)

Everything that is subject to the rules of right conduct involves morality. And the more we start talking about the principals of morality the deeper we get into ethics.

We've already established that Sex is to be conducted safely and consentualy. Therefore it must be subject to some sort of rules.

If safety and consent do not fall under the rules of right conduct what kind of rules do they fall under?

Safety and consent are most certainly rules of right conduct. Therefore sex, regardless if anyone chooses to believe it or not, involves morality.

 

[JGG]

We've already established that Sex is to be conducted safely and consentualy. Therefore it must be subject to some sort of rules.

Might I suggest need for preservation of self, and respect of autonomy?

If safety and consent do not fall under the rules of right conduct what kind of rules do they fall under?

Might I suggest need for preservation of self, and respect of autonomy?

Safety and consent are most certainly rules of right conduct. Therefore sex, regardless if anyone chooses to believe it or not, involves morality.

I would call it ethical social interaction rather than morality.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I'm still waiting for an answer faster_jackrabbit.

You absolutely agree that people should be able to do whatever they feel like doing as long no one gets harmed. So once more, my question to you is...

Does your mind tell you that it is OK to lie or steal as long as nobody gets harmed ?

You seem to be hung up on physical harm. As someone pointed out, non-physical harm is inherent in lying and stealing. How can you steal from someone and not harm them?

So the question is meaningless because it is not possible to steal without harming someone. If there is no harm, it isn't really stealing.