Why isnt isnt it ok to sin?

[BL2KTN]

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.

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.

You've already given your position in regards to marriage and premarital sex (the topic of conversation between the two of us). So are you simply trying to find a way not to discuss the topic with me by pretending I don't know your position and am falsely accusing you?

 

[Paradoxum]

That's your argument? If you use people when you play tennis, then yes, that's bad. I don't use people when I play tennis. I enjoy the game with them. Beyond that, this is a horrible analogy.

That wasn't my argument.

My point was that you can enjoy sex with someone, like you can enjoy tennis with someone.

Having sex for fun (outside of a relationship) is no more manipulation than tennis outside a relationship.

Why do you think non-relationship sex is manipulation, but not non-relationship tennis (I'm assuming)?

What utter nonsense. Law does have it's place.

I know, but I didn't think free license meant no law. If free license means no law, then it would be silly for you to imply that I believe in free license (no law).

Or did you think I was against all laws?

OK, you're not spoiled. Now you've gotten what you wanted.

Are you telling the truth? Is lying a sin? Are you trying to manipulate me?

 

[Paradoxum]

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.

I've had no offspring from sex... so no problem.

"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.

In what way is God any different from a dictator making arbitrary rules? Why is it relevant what God says?

There's nothing wrong with going against the arbitrary rules of a dictator.

I care what is moral, not what some guy with a big throne thinks.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why do you think non-relationship sex is manipulation, but not non-relationship tennis (I'm assuming)?

I'm not aware of an asexual species that engages in sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. I'm not aware of any human infants who have learned to raise themselves. They need a caregiver. You are attempting to appropriate the pleasure of sex while suppressing both the procreative and caregiving aspects.

Tennis is not a good analogy for sex. I never said every interaction with another living creature creates an emotional relationship. But some interactions do, and sex is one of those. It's sad that some have learned to kill that feature of their humanity.

Or did you think I was against all laws?

It's hard to tell. One of our conversations went something like:

Para: I see no need for a marriage contract.
Caner: That's a great idea. Let's get rid of all contracts.
Para: Yep.
Caner: Cool. I want your property.
Para: Oh. I didn't realize you meant all contracts.
Caner: D'oh!

Are you telling the truth? Is lying a sin? Are you trying to manipulate me?

Are you saying you don't believe me? Hmm. If you're going to accuse me of being unfair when I say you're spoiled, and accuse me of lying when I say you're not spoiled, I think we have created a nice example of the phrase "Catch-22".

Why don't you believe me? Could it be the words are not enough? That maybe you've gathered an impression of me such that you notice when my words are inconsistent with that impression?

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

So in other words..... you like to make a lot of noise that you can't back up! Okay; I'll keep that in mind next time I see another one of your responses.

Peace
Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Again! 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

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not aware of an asexual species that engages in sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. I'm not aware of any human infants who have learned to raise themselves. They need a caregiver. You are attempting to appropriate the pleasure of sex while suppressing both the procreative and caregiving aspects.

I don't think the sole purpose for sex is procreation. Anyway, purpose is completely irrelevant to morality. You don't have to use something for it's intended purpose.

Why would sex without procreative and care-giving aspects be immoral?

Tennis is not a good analogy for sex. I never said every interaction with another living creature creates an emotional relationship. But some interactions do, and sex is one of those. It's sad that some have learned to kill that feature of their humanity.

Your changing what the issue is, or you didn't make it clear at first. You claimed (off the top of my head) that non-relationship sex is manipulation because it uses the other person for pleasure. I said that it's no more using someone than in tennis.

In what way does sex creating feelings come into this? And what is your new adjusted argument?

It's hard to tell. One of our conversations went something like:

Para: I see no need for a marriage contract.
Caner: That's a great idea. Let's get rid of all contracts.
Para: Yep.
Caner: Cool. I want your property.
Para: Oh. I didn't realize you meant all contracts.
Caner: D'oh!

Went I said 'Yep' I was being sarcastic, because your reply was silly.

Are you saying you don't believe me? Hmm. If you're going to accuse me of being unfair when I say you're spoiled, and accuse me of lying when I say you're not spoiled, I think we have created a nice example of the phrase "Catch-22".

Why don't you believe me? Could it be the words are not enough? That maybe you've gathered an impression of me such that you notice when my words are inconsistent with that impression?

My doubt over your truthfulness is justified. Me being justified doubting you doesn't mean that you doubting me is justified (in this particular instance).

 

[ananda]

I've had no offspring from sex... so no problem.

.. and if contraceptives fail?

 

[ananda]

Again! 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

IMO, when 2 people agree, but I'm not speaking from an orthodox Christian perspective.

 

[Resha Caner]

So in other words..... you like to make a lot of noise that you can't back up! Okay; I'll keep that in mind next time I see another one of your responses.

Back up what?

 

[Ken-1122]

Back up what?

That sin causes harm.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

IMO, when 2 people agree, but I'm not speaking from an orthodox Christian perspective.

Thank-you for answering my question

Ken

 

[Jess90]

Man you are all beating this topic into the ground and just going around and around in circles. The bottom line is as Christians and believers of what the Bible teaches sin is not ok even though everyone does it everyday. That includes sex that is not engaged in marriage. It says it straight out in the Bible and as believers that is what we believe in. As non believers like some posting on this thread they don't believe in God and in turn don't agree that the Word of God is sacred. So there minds are made up that sex outside of marriage is harmless because the world says it doesn't harm the people engaging in it if they are two consenting adults. So really this could go on and on forever with people saying practically the same thing that has already been said in this thread over and over and nothing will come of it.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't think the sole purpose for sex is procreation. Anyway, purpose is completely irrelevant to morality. You don't have to use something for it's intended purpose.

Why would sex without procreative and care-giving aspects be immoral?

I'll remind you again we're not discussing the morality of the situation. We're discussing the harm. You asked why it would cause harm. I said the emotion of it is being manipulated. You asked why I considered it manipulation. I answered that it is manipulation because it involves suppressing the natural purposes connected to sex. As such, I haven't changed the argument. Rather it seems you're losing track of the chain of questions you've asked.

Now it's your turn. You say sex serves purposes other than procreation and the bonding of caregivers. What would those other purposes be?

 

[Resha Caner]

That sin causes harm.

Are you expecting me to comment on every sin ever committed, or just the one being discussed in this thread?

 

[Ken-1122]

Man you are all beating this topic into the ground and just going around and around in circles. The bottom line is as Christians and believers of what the Bible teaches sin is not ok even though everyone does it everyday. That includes sex that is not engaged in marriage. It says it straight out in the Bible and as believers that is what we believe in. As non believers like some posting on this thread they don't believe in God and in turn don't agree that the Word of God is sacred. So there minds are made up that sex outside of marriage is harmless because the world says it doesn't harm the people engaging in it if they are two consenting adults. So really this could go on and on forever with people saying practically the same thing that has already been said in this thread over and over and nothing will come of it.

If a person says;
"I believe what you are doing is wrong because the bible says it is wrong, and I believe what the bible says"
That is perfectly fine! I can respect that because he is expressing his opinion and keeping it in the context of what the Bible says. If on the other hand, the person says;
By definition; what you are doing is wrong! And he doesn't keep this opinion in the context of his religious beliefs, or how his religion defines things; then he will be asked to back it up.

Ken

 

[Skavau]

So?

The institution of arbitrary rules in themselves should be considered an issue.

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.

This invites caprice and theological absurdity. God could, under your non-standards institute murder and you'd be entirely in approval of it.

In any cash you've effectively conceded the point: There's nothing intrinsically wrong with ignoring arbitrary rules. There's nothing intrinsically moral about imposing a value without justification. Morality has nothing to do with your worldview, only power.

 

[Jess90]

If a person says;
"I believe what you are doing is wrong because the bible says it is wrong, and I believe what the bible says"
That is perfectly fine! I can respect that because he is expressing his opinion and keeping it in the context of what the Bible says. If on the other hand, the person says;
By definition; what you are doing is wrong! And he doesn't keep this opinion in the context of his religious beliefs, or how his religion defines things; then he will be asked to back it up.

Ken

Well if the person is a Believer of the Word of God then they should know that the Bible says sex outside is marriage is a sin and is harmful to the people involved. It may not physically harm(unless it is forced) the participants involved, but emotional it is harmful and I really think that is what the Bible is talking about. Any sin keeps you away from the Glory of God and like I said for a Christian being far way from God can be emotionally harmful. So having sex outside of marriage which according to the Bible is a sin and that can lead to becoming distanced from God then that can bring on emotional harm.

 

[Ken-1122]

Any sin keeps you away from the Glory of God and like I said for a Christian being far way from God can be emotionally harmful. So having sex outside of marriage which according to the Bible is a sin and that can lead to becoming distanced from God then that can bring on emotional harm.

For a Christian, that makes perfect sense. To a non Christian it would not. Now you wouldn't make such a claim to a non Christiaan would you?
Also; do you agree with Netzarim that marriage is defined as two people agreeing to an exclusive relationship? Or do you have another definition of what constitutes marriage?

Ken

 

[Jess90]

Basically what I believe marriage is that two people make a covenant before God to live together in Holy Matrimony through bad times and good times. I understand that the divorce rate is very high in the United States right now and some couples divorce over physical and emotional abuse or adultery which is also a sin. I think if these things are going on in a Christian Marriage then the couple really need some intense Christian Therapy and prayer. If that does not settle the situation than and one or the other still is sinning against God is the relationship still or ever was a Christian relationship in the first place. I don't really know the 100% correct answer to that though.