Unmarried sexual relations

What you should be asking is where in Hell you got the idea that's possible outside of marriage.

 

(1) "Intimacy between strangers" is commonly known as one-night stands; and I have previously stated (if you have read this entire thread) that there is no doubt that this is wrong. (Moreover, "intimacy"--i.e. emotional closeness--is actually impossible in that context. Casual sex is possible; but true intimacy is not.)

(2) To proclaim, moralistically, that the two people in question just "aren't close enough to commit to each other for life" is to grossly oversimplify the matter. Perhaps the two people cannot even support each other--let alone any third person who might come into the family. (What, for instance, if both are college students--a complicating factor that simply did not exist in the first century?)

(3) Your apparent horror at "the children that comes [sic] from that union" simply ignores the fact that I have been speaking--consistently--about responsible sexual relations (meaning sexual union coupled with birth-control measures).

 

You are talking human rationalization and that does not trump reality...which is that sex out of marriage is a sin and against God. Human rationalization does not deter the destructive consequences large scale immorality brings on a society.

 

That is simply untrue. Marriage is just one form of commitment.

Your statement contains its own refutation. Everything you cite can and does happen inside marriages. Marriages involve financial and emotional entanglements. You even note that breaking up can be like divorce -- which of course demonstrates that marriages can be ended fairly easily, so calling it somehow more of a commitment really isn't accurate.

And nothing about being married changes that equation. The key is the RELATIONSHIP, whatever form it takes.

As I said, if you want to talk about casual sex versus sex within a relationship, I would probably agree with you. But there is nothing magical about marriage. Plenty of people rush into marriage or get married for the wrong reasons, just like plenty of people rush into co-habitation or decide to live together for the wrong reasons. When they do, they face the same choices: end the relationship, or not. The fact that one couple is married and another couple isn't has no effect on the underlying dynamic.

 

(1) "[L]arge[-]scale immorality" is a conclusion; it begs the question. (Have you ever heard of the a priori fallacy?)

(2) It also begs the question to proclaim, triumphantly, that sex outside of marriage "is a sin against God." (It would really be much better if you would rationally discuss the points that I have made.)

(3 I am unaware of any "destructive consequences" from sexual relations between two unmarried (and STD-free) adults within the context of a loving relationship--and not merely a one-night stand.

 

Look, if you want to have sex before you are fully committed into a legally binding relationship...you can do that. It is not illegal. The simple fact that you don't see the damage this attitude has created within our society means that the damage is "normal" and that's all you know or you haven't had life experience.

The simple fact is...you want sexual gratification with someone you aren't willing to marry and you are willing to risk having a kid in that union. That is selfish. Immoral actions are inherently selfish. It is what it is and interpretative stretches doesn't change it.

 

Only someone bereft of logic and rational thought claims to know de facto - what God's plan is.

 

If one has respect for the Bible, and for God....then they know God through God's word. That is why it is exists.

All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be entirely equipped for every good work. Timothy 3:16-17

 

(1) I lack just over two weeks of being 71 years of age; so you probably ought not lecture me on (supposedly) not having had sufficient "life experience."

(2) I believe that the "damage" created in American society has to do with the normalization of casual sex (or, as the '60s generation proclaimed: "If it feels good, do it"--which is emphatically not my attitude).

(3) Given the ease with which one may achieve a divorce nowadays, it is very difficult to see how a piece of paper might equate to being "fully committed into a legally binding relationship."

(4) Other societies--including (but not limited to) European societies--do not seem to be disintegrating due to a lack of Puritanism.

(5) Your comment that sexual union must equate to one's " risk[ing] having a kid" seems to assume that neither party is responsible enough to use birth control.

But this begs the question: What is your response to those who do use birth control?

Also: What would you say to women who are beyond childbearing age?

I sincerely hope that you will answer these final two points, at least.

 

Life experience isn't dictated by age.

A "loving relationship" and "casual sex" is becoming one and the same. In my life experience which seems to be validated by the stats associated with a significant proportion of American families these days, I've known women with several kids who have multiple fathers. These women felt they were in a "loving relationship" as each child was accidently conceived.

Secular values push sex as a part of getting to know someone while in a loving relationship. Truely knowing a person can take over a year of spending time together. Acting married early, getting emotionally and physically intertwined before red flags show up is a risk, primarily for women.

Easy marriage and easy divorce is another morality issue that hurts people close to the situation.
If marriage is taken seriously, the years prior to tying the knot is spent making sure your love interest is the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. Premarriage sex moves things along too quickly for that process to work correctly.

I'm not familiar with other societies...I have only life experience with US. So I can't comment on that.

My youngest was conceived when I was using birth control. He was my gift from God you might say. Fyi...dont put your faith spermicides. Even when used properly, apparently there is a 20% chance of conceiving. All in the fine print.

Birth control is dependant on people using it properly, every time . They must "stop the mood" to get it in place. They must trust that their partner faithfully took the pill, the same time, every night without forgetting.

Now that we have easy access to birth control, we have more kids born out of Wedlock then when we didn't. So I would say the evidence shows birth control is not the problem or the answer of why the state of our families are worse then in past.

The more you have sex, the higher chance of a time you will forget the birth control, you will fail to use it because the moment is too intense or it simply fails.

See above.

I don't have much to say about that except don't try to rework a secular interpretation into the Bible to make everything feel righteous. A Christian woman/man will still take the Bible seriously. A secular woman or man will not.

 

Not necessarily.

Typically, however, those who are older have had more life experiences. (It is most unusual for, say, a twentysomething to have had greater life experiences than someone 70 or 80.)

Then allow me to elucidate, please.

I would equate "casual sex" to a one-night stand: the (60s-based) "if it feels good, do it" ethic.

Well, my wife and I dated for just over two months. And we are very happily married.

I have not lived in other societies, either. But that does not mean that I simply cannot read about them--and their successes (or failures) with different matters.

I am certainly no expert on this matter. But it is my understanding that condoms, when used properly, are 99 percent effective; and that The Pill is 99.99 percent effective.

If that is the case, then the two, when used in conjunction, would be 99.9999 percent effective--in other words, they would work in 999,999 out of a million cases.

Is this really a serious observation--or just an a priori argument?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. (After it, therefore because of it.)

In case you are not aware, it is a logical fallacy.

In the first century (or even earlier, if the Old Testament is taken into account), people typically died very early. In fact, a first-century person reaching the age of 40 would have been considered a very old person.

So there was really no need for exceptions to be made for post-menopausal women, as they practically were nonexistent then.

To understand the Bible in these terms is hardly the same as failing to "take the Bible seriously."

 

This is fallacious gibberish on steroids.

1) The claim that all of the Bible is God's inspired word is demonstrably false.
2) Quoting a Bible verse - as evidence of the truth of that Bible verse - is circular nonsense.

 

I disagree and believe the Bible as truth inspired by God and valid through the ages. When I was an atheist I didn't put much stock in Biblical verses either. If you have aminocity towards it, then you won't understand it.

 

Whether the Bible contains "truth" is really not the central question.

The question, really, is whether that "truth" applies to all "ages," as you have asserted; or whether circumstances may alter cases.

As for inspiration, the Greek word for it is theopneustos--literally, "God breathed"--but I really would not place too much emphasis on the literal meaning. It seems to suggest the so-called dictation theory of inspiration.

And if God actually dictated the Bible--word for word--then it is strange, indeed, that He writes in a very different style when He uses Paul, as opposed to when He uses Peter; or when He uses Mark, as opposed to when He uses John.

 

It has nothing to do with animosity. The fact of the matter is that one Bible says one thing while another says something else. Even within the same Bible one part says one thing and another contradicts it.

So even if one did believe the whole Bible was inspired truth - which truth would one accept ?

 

Do you do the required animal sacrifices?

 

Question 1 is not sexist and were it so, it would not matter at all.
So I ask the 4 questions again.

 

Not birth control and the opposition is setting children down in class to explain the birds and bees.
A lot of parents believe they have roles in education. For instance language. Parents teach children language. Today a lot of parents play the teaching role even to the conclusion of the 12th grade.

 

You won't find those in the new testament.

 

Sure you will. When the Jesus character cured the guy of leprosy he told him to go do the required animal sacrifices. So everytime you recover from an illness or injury you should sacrifice some pigeons and sheep.

 

I found this. Where did you find him telling them to sacrifice animals?

Did Jesus cure leprosy?
Instantly he was cured of his leprosy. Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them". In Mark and Luke instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news.

Christ cleansing a leper by Jean-Marie Melchior Doze, 1864.
Jesus cleansing a leper is one of the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels, namely in Matthew 8:1–4, Mark 1:40–45 and Luke 5:12–16.[1][2][3]

Contents

• 1Biblical narrative
• 2Leviticus 13
• 3See also
• 4References

Biblical narrative[edit]
According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus Christ came down from the mountainside after the Sermon on the Mount, large multitudes followed him. A man full of leprosy came and knelt before Him and inquired him saying, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean?" Mark and Luke do not connect the verse to the Sermon.

Jesus Christ reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Instantly he was cured of his leprosy. Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the giftMoses commanded, as a testimony to them".

In Mark and Luke instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to Him from everywhere.

 

Don't you remember the black magic animal sacrifices required when people are cured of leprosy? It is some weird stuff and that is what the Jesus character told the guy to do.

It is in Leviticus chapter 14. It is too long to copy and paste so you can read it at this link = https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+14&version=TLB

So Jesus believed in witchcraft.

 

You mean Moses, not Jesus. Bear in mind they did not have a Center for Disease control then nor a Democrat base to charge taxes and make fraud promises to the public.

 

Your animocity is showing

Nope, no Bible believing Christian sacrifices animals. Jesus was the ultimate sacrificial lamb and the fulfillment of a promise made within the old testament of a Savior. We have the option to believe it or not.

 

The Jesus character was just a witch.