If you see unmarried sex as manipulation, if you see unmarried sex as suppressing the natural purposes connected to sex (whatever that means) thats fine. But you shouldnt assume everybodys views on sex is the same as your view on sex, and you shouldnt make false statements about sex because you assume everybodys views are.
Sex feels good. Sex relieves a natural urge. Some people have sex because they enjoy having sex. And when these people engage in consensual sex, it would be foolish to claim they are being manipulated, or harmed.
If you're not going to answer my questions (post #155), this is going to become a one-sided conversation.
[#1]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.
[#2]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.
The reason I was asking those questions is because there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I basically fall under scenario #1 above, and I was trying to figure out why you think I am saying something else.
So, first of all, I never said premarital sex is, by definition, wrong. I said sin was, by definition, harmful (and that is why the prohibition is put in place - see note). The first is a moral statement, and the second is a physical statement. I've tried to make this distinction several times, and I can point out the posts where I did so if you don't believe me.
Note: The logical argument against what I said would be that you are not aware of premarital sex causing harm. As such, you don't think it should be prohibited, which means you don't think it should be listed as a sin. Since I disagree, I thought you were asking me to demonstrate apart from the Bible that it causes harm. You can ask that question, but don't then accuse me of not backing up what I said or departing from my religious position. It would be you who is asking me to depart from that position.
Second, when you asked why I thought that, I replied my primary reason is the Bible. I can point you to that post as well.
Third, from the very beginning I have been saying that even though I think premarital sex is sinful, harmful, (and yes, I also think it is immoral), I don't try to enforce that belief on anyone unless they are trying to force an obligation on me (for healthcare, protection, etc.). Again, I can point you to those posts if you wish.
Lutherans subscribe to what is called a "two kingdoms" theology. It's not quite right to say it this way, but it basically means only people within the church are subject to church morality. The only reason the church responds to unbelievers is for "defense" so to speak. If unbelievers physically assault church members, lay a financial obligation on them to pay for abortions, etc. then we have a right to respond. But we realize unbelievers have different moral standards.
With that said, when we engage unbelievers we may say what our morals are (as I have), but in our opinion that is of little gain. Unless an unbeliever becomes a believer, it doesn't really matter. The purpose of the Church toward unbelievers is to preach the Gospel: Jesus is the Christ.
