Why isnt isnt it ok to sin?

[Resha Caner]

You said sin is harmful. Are you changing your mind now?

I've also said I think Kansas City has a good chance to return to the baseball playoffs this year. Are you going to insist I prove that as another diversion from the actual conversation?

I explained in post #95 that you're on a tangent.

If you read post #97 you will see I said no such thing.

If you want to attempt to prove that sex outside of marriage never causes harm, feel free to proceed. I'm not interested in all the dissembling and accusations.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you want to attempt to prove that sex outside of marriage never causes harm, feel free to proceed..

Exactly what are you talking about here? Are you asking about the specific case I was referring to? Or are you asking me to address all such relationships. And to what extent are you speaking of when you say "harm"? Are you referring to the people involved? Or are you attempting to include outsiders many of whom may deserve to be harmed? Remember; when Martin Luther King fought segregation in the 1960's, there were plenty of racists who were harmed when he succeeded in getting blacks their citizenship rights. Not all harm is bad. So to what extent are you asking me to prove?

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

Exactly what are you talking about here? Are you asking about the specific case I was referring to? Or are you asking me to address all such relationships. And to what extent are you speaking of when you say "harm"? Are you referring to the people involved? Or are you attempting to include outsiders many of whom may deserve to be harmed? Remember; when Martin Luther King fought segregation in the 1960's, there were plenty of racists who were harmed when he succeeded in getting blacks their citizenship rights. Not all harm is bad. So to what extent are you asking me to prove?

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I was responding to your seeming desire to prove something to me. So, honestly, I'm not interested. I say that because I don't want to mislead you into wasting your time. I don't see what you hope to gain.

Further, I'm not interested in anecdotes. Anecdotes only serve to establish what is possible. I'm perfectly aware it is possible 2 people could enter into a lifelong committed relationship without a marriage certificate. That's why the law accounts for "common law marriage". Anecdotes, however, don't address the statistics for how many of those relationships will break up or in some other way cause "harm".

Neither am I interested in the relationship customs of the Mosuo (or whatever other culture you might drag up that functions without marriage). Why? Because it relates directly to the point I have been trying to make. I realize I can't stop sex outside marriage. So, even though I don't like it, I acknowledge it's going to happen. However, I expect those who intend to pursue such things in an unrepentant manner to live outside my community. The Mosuo are outside my community.

And that's where the issue of "harm" enters. It doesn't really matter how I would define harm because no one having sex outside marriage is going to seek my help unless they think they've been harmed. If that occurs, my position is that person has no right to demand my help (through tax-supported health care, child care, or whatever). I might have compassion on someone and decide to help them, but they can't demand help.

The only condition under which someone living in my community can expect help from me due to a damaging sexual relationship is if they are living by the rules my community has established. In my community one of the rules is that they must be married.

If you still think you have something to prove to me, you'll have to proceed under those conditions.

 

[BL2KTN]

So you're saying that two individuals who are thinking of choosing one another as the only person they will have sex with for the rest of their lives should not have sex before making that decision.

That's like deciding you're going to only go to one restaurant for the rest of your life, but refusing to eat there until you make the decision. On what planet is making a lifelong decision based on ignorance a good idea?

 

[Resha Caner]

So you're saying that two individuals who are thinking of choosing one another as the only person they will have sex with for the rest of their lives should not have sex before making that decision.

That's like deciding you're going to only go to one restaurant for the rest of your life, but refusing to eat there until you make the decision. On what planet is making a lifelong decision based on ignorance a good idea?

I am not surprised your view on the matter differs from mine. Yet to say my view of marriage is based on ignoranance is in itself an ignorant statement as I do not recall that we've ever discussed the matter. Therefore, you can't possibly know what my views are. All I will say is that rating the value of my future spouse as a sex toy was not on the list of things to consider. Neither was discussion of sex with future spouses a forbidden topic.

 

[Dave-W]

If I'm a Christian and I'm saved why is sinning bad why shouldn't I sin or why can't I sin

This question is a little like asking "Why is it not ok to break the law?"

If one is truly born again, they will not want to sin. It is part of true repentance. (turning away from sin)

 

[ananda]

I define "sin" as anything contrary to the selfless natural order/laws found in the Universe, or the Dhamma/Dharma in Buddhist terms. Trying to fight against the natural order produces pain, suffering, disease, and all things negative.

So you agree that things like sex outside marriage aren't sins? No one else has to pay for that.

IMO, I think in this aspect, one "sinful" part of this act is the selfish desire for personal satisfaction, with little or no thought or regard for the welfare of offspring produced from such a temporary union.

 

[Dave-W]

So you agree that things like sex outside marriage aren't sins? No one else has to pay for that.

"Sins" are not primarily about what hurts us. But about what falls short of God's will and intent.

Sexual union is restricted BY GOD to the marriage covenant.
Whether going outside that hurts anyone or not is irrelevant. It is deemed off-limits by God.

 

[lori milne]

"Sins" are not primarily about what hurts us. But about what falls short of God's will and intent. Sexual union is restricted BY GOD to the marriage covenant. Whether going outside that hurts anyone or not is irrelevant. It is deemed off-limits by God.

AMEN

 

[Skavau]

"Sins" are not primarily about what hurts us. But about what falls short of God's will and intent.

Sexual union is restricted BY GOD to the marriage covenant.
Whether going outside that hurts anyone or not is irrelevant. It is deemed off-limits by God.

This is arbitrary.

What's the point in prohibiting victimless acts and punishing people for partaking them?

 

[Dave-W]

This is arbitrary.

So?

What's the point in prohibiting victimless acts and punishing people for partaking them?

You will have to ask HIM.

The way I see it; since He made it all, He can run it any way He wants to.

 

[BL2KTN]

I am not surprised your view on the matter differs from mine. Yet to say my view of marriage is based on ignoranance is in itself an ignorant statement as I do not recall that we've ever discussed the matter. Therefore, you can't possibly know what my views are. All I will say is that rating the value of my future spouse as a sex toy was not on the list of things to consider. Neither was discussion of sex with future spouses a forbidden topic.

I didn't say your position is based on ignorance. What I am saying is that your position teaches commitment based on ignorance. Marriage is a social contract that usually represents a monogamous commitment to one sexual partner. To not know whether one is compatible whatsoever sexually with another individual prior to committing sexually for life is ridiculously stupid. My position's foundation is based on the idea of long term well-being, whereas your's is based on Bronze Age human property dogma. Maybe it's time for an update.

 

[Resha Caner]

My position's foundation is based on the idea of long term well-being, whereas your's is based on Bronze Age human property dogma. Maybe it's time for an update.

I guess you missed the point that you don't know my position. But, just to be clear, given you've already swept me into the "Bronze Age" box (with an apparent assumption everyone in the Bronze Age treated marriage the same and they were all wrong), I'm not interested. I'm not keen on conversations that begin with an attempted insult and then expect me to explain how I differ from what you detest. It's a "guilty until proven innocent" approach in which I'll not participate.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I was responding to your seeming desire to prove something to me. So, honestly, I'm not interested. I say that because I don't want to mislead you into wasting your time. I don't see what you hope to gain.

Further, I'm not interested in anecdotes. Anecdotes only serve to establish what is possible. I'm perfectly aware it is possible 2 people could enter into a lifelong committed relationship without a marriage certificate. That's why the law accounts for "common law marriage". Anecdotes, however, don't address the statistics for how many of those relationships will break up or in some other way cause "harm".

Neither am I interested in the relationship customs of the Mosuo (or whatever other culture you might drag up that functions without marriage). Why? Because it relates directly to the point I have been trying to make. I realize I can't stop sex outside marriage. So, even though I don't like it, I acknowledge it's going to happen. However, I expect those who intend to pursue such things in an unrepentant manner to live outside my community. The Mosuo are outside my community.

And that's where the issue of "harm" enters. It doesn't really matter how I would define harm because no one having sex outside marriage is going to seek my help unless they think they've been harmed. If that occurs, my position is that person has no right to demand my help (through tax-supported health care, child care, or whatever). I might have compassion on someone and decide to help them, but they can't demand help.

The only condition under which someone living in my community can expect help from me due to a damaging sexual relationship is if they are living by the rules my community has established. In my community one of the rules is that they must be married.

If you still think you have something to prove to me, you'll have to proceed under those conditions.

I don’t know what community you live in, but as far as I am concerned; marriage or any type of relationship should not be subsidized by any community; but that’s a different subject.

I was only disagreeing with you when you made the claim that sin destroys, harms, and violates. If you define sin as “a transgression against God’s law”; nobody should make such a blanket statement unless they are prepared to defend it.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Sexual union is restricted BY GOD to the marriage covenant.
Whether going outside that hurts anyone or not is irrelevant. It is deemed off-limits by God.

How do you define a marriage covenant? Is it when your idea of God says you are married? When the state says you are married? When a person claims his non-existence God says they are married? when 2 people agree to an exclusive relationship? or is it something else

Ken

 

[ananda]

How do you define a marriage covenant? Is it when your idea of God says you are married? When the state says you are married? When a person claims his non-existence God says they are married? when 2 people agree to an exclusive relationship? or is it something else

Ken

The ritual has become more important than its purpose. People now forget the purpose, thinking that the ritual is an end to itself.

 

[Ken-1122]

The ritual has become more important than its purpose. People now forget the purpose, thinking that the ritual is an end to itself.

If the ritual is required in order to have sex, that is what I am discussing; not the purpose. So how do you define the ritual?

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

I was only disagreeing with you when you made the claim that sin destroys, harms, and violates. If you define sin as “a transgression against God’s law”; nobody should make such a blanket statement unless they are prepared to defend it.

I don't like doing people's homework for them. As much as some may want the Bible to be organized like an encyclopedia, it's not. One cannot pull a single verse and say, "This is the definition." To insist on a definition with no scriptural support at all is just sloppy. Your statement is part of what makes up sin (per 1 John 3:4). I explained to you where my part of the definition came from (Romans 6:23). Even those 2 verses are not the totality of it. As noted by Skavau the type of definition you gave, by itself, makes sin arbitrary. You make think it wrong, but to imply the prohibition against premarital sex is arbitrary would be disingenuous.

When I suggested that maybe what you were trying to do was argue that premarital sex is not a sin, it was not meant as a challenge. I was trying to be nice and get us off this silly argument about definitions. You're not going to change my mind, so it's a pointless argument. However you want to phrase it, you think sin an outdated, inappropriate, misinformed (whatever word you want to choose) concept.

I get that, but I don't agree.

 

[ananda]

If the ritual is required in order to have sex, that is what I am discussing; not the purpose. So how do you define the ritual?

Ken

The ritual is the marriage ceremony, and IMO many Christians have lost sight of why marriage is Biblically required for sex (to protect the offspring), and instead focus on the need to have a ritual in order to gain permission to engage in sex.

 

[Resha Caner]

The ritual is the marriage ceremony, and IMO many Christians have lost sight of why marriage is Biblically required for sex (to protect the offspring), and instead focus on the need to have a ritual in order to gain permission to engage in sex.

Protecting offspring is one purpose of marriage, maybe the primary one, but not the only one. With that said, I would agree many have lost sight of the purpose of the marriage ceremony ... and the purpose of marriage itself - even some Christians.