Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Resha said: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.
Resha said: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.
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.
What utter nonsense. Law does have it's place.
OK, you're not spoiled. Now you've gotten what you wanted.
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.
"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.
Why do you think non-relationship sex is manipulation, but not non-relationship tennis (I'm assuming)?
Or did you think I was against all laws?
Are you telling the truth? Is lying a sin? Are you trying to manipulate me?
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.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.
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.
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.
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 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?
IMO, when 2 people agree, but I'm not speaking from an orthodox Christian perspective.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
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.
IMO, when 2 people agree, but I'm not speaking from an orthodox Christian perspective.
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?
That sin causes harm.
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.
The institution of arbitrary rules in themselves should be considered an issue.DaveW=Ohev said:
This invites caprice and theological absurdity. God could, under your non-standards institute murder and you'd be entirely in approval of it.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.
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.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
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?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?