Unmarried sexual relations

It still feels like an unnatural gesture to me especially with the Catholic twist on it with trans substantiation. Note also that it's a command to do an otherwise unnecessary gesture rather than something that emerges organically like lifestyle choices and helping others selflessly.

 

Care to look at the divorce rates in this country.

 

Yes, they are less among committed Christians. Are you arguing it is best if kids begin life where there is no parental commitment?

 

I think it is best if they have two parents who loveveach other and make a conscious decision to have children. Unfortunatly it is those committed Christians that have made every effort to oppose birth control, and sex education.

 

The battle and war against artificial birth control was lost in 1930 in the Anglican Church. There's no going back. The Catholic Church has a wee, tiny voice against artificial birth control which 99.9% of parishioners ignore, and 100% of non-Catholics ignore. No other church has any voice at all in this. The Mormons like having lots of children, but are not prohibited from using artificial birth control.

But from an irreligious, areligious, or nonreligious perspective, marriage and monogamy are best for family stability and child rearing, and stable families are best for a stable society, and a stable society is best for a stable nation.

 

Like abortion? Or is that now good for kids?

 

Yeah, I sort of have a problem with this one.

 

Kids don't get aborted. And the same stupid religious groups that could have prevented abortions by advocating for sex education and access to birth control are now trying to pretend to some ridiculous moral ground that they long ago abandoned in their fevered desire to control people's behaviors.

 

If only that were true.

Hey Sherlock, that 'ridiculous moral ground' was around long before Christianity, see the Hippocratic Oath.

"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion."

All human life is valuable, even fetus CourtJester.

 

Your opinion unsupported by evidence. And you forgot to explain why the same groups that claim abortion is anathema are the same groups that have made abortions necessary by opposing birth control, sex education, and the morning after pill.

And this pretend conservative view that all human life is valuable is held by the same conservatives who support the death penalty and support war and oppose universal healthcare. So don't even try that phony moral high ground nonsense on me.

 

(1) Most conservatives do not oppose birth control. (2) In theory, most conservatives also do not oppose sex education. What some may oppose, however, is the values-free variety. (3) the "morning after pill" is not the same thing, at all, as mere birth control; it amounts to an abortion. (4) I am rather ambivalent about capital punishment; however, in any case, it is not meted out to the innocent--unlike abortions. (5) Some wars deserve supporting, as the alternative--i.e. simply allowing a power-hungry dictator to run roughshod over one country after another--is even worse. (WWII is a good example.) (6) I would oppose UHC simply because it means that one person is required to pay for another person's healthcare--and that is simply not morally right, in my opinion. (In other words, it is a form of socialism.)

Some people, of course, eagerly embrace socialism; so I really should not expect them to have a very high regard for conservative positions--as regarding anything.

 

Wow, how stupid is conflating socialism with moral issues.

 

Not really, since Roe v Wade the age of viability of an unborn baby has gone downward. Is it your view that the Hippocratic Oath didn't condemn abortion?

The morning after pill is an abortificant. What has made abortions 'necessary' is people with the sexual mores of an alleycat, leaving behind a trail of abortions, bastard children, divorce, etc.

Wow, no difference between an innocent baby and Charles Manson, huh?

 

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

BJ's count, by Lewis Black.

 

Of course the Hippocratic Oath says absolutly nothing about abortion unless you really are dumb enough to believe a fetus was considered a person when the oath was written.

And your statement that anyone getting a divorce has the morals of an alleycat is disgusting.

 

Well, you are the one brought up UHC (sometimes known as "single-payer" healthcare insurance, or "Medicare for all.")

I was simply responding to your post.

 

Conflating single payer health insurance with socialism is somehow your response to the point I was making that Republicans claiming they are motivated by a deep concern about human life is a total joke since the absolutly only time they pretend to care is on the issue of abortion. Funny they pretend to care about human life before the birth but after they could care less.

 

Sex outside of marriage is against Christian theology. Most of the arguments in this OP are based on secular issues - such as sex often results in pregnancy, or sex with another mans wife can enrage the other man.

Christians are supposed to live in a holy manner, which is a manner compatible with God's commandments. God created humanity to be male and female, and to pair in heterosexual and monogamous relationships (the 2 become one). The Old and New Testaments state sexual immorality (adultery, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality) is a sin.

 

But nobody Christian or not is under any obligation to put up with a man in a clerical collar wagging his finger.

Meaning he is in no position to lecture and judge me. My sex life is a personal struggle.

 

Christianity is voluntary. Nobody is forced to follow its rules.

But Christians are not required to accept an incorrigible person within their church. The New Testament is clear that if a Christian is misbehaving then his fellow Christians are to counsel him as to the error of his ways, if he refuses repeated efforts and is deliberately sinful, then he can be expelled from the local group (the "church").

If you don't like Christianity, then don't be a Christian. Its that simple.

 

When God sat down with you for tea and told you what his plan for sex was, did you two discuss any other interesting topics ?

 

Single-payer healthcare insurance is a form of socialism (albeit democratic socialism).

Why would you even deny this?

 

Note: Even if you actually do deny this--which would be the very apotheosis of disingenuousness, I believe--it would appear that you cannot deny the points that I have made concerning the other matters.

 

I find it...well, rather interesting...that you have omitted the modifier "always": as in, is unmarried sex always wrong.

Certainly, sex with another man's wife--adultery (which is moichea in the Greek--not porneia) is morally wrong; for it involves a third party. Even if it is never discovered, it still breaks a very important bond.

In both Old and New Testament times, there were no reliable means of birth control. Therefore, nonmarital sex was, indeed, a sin. No argument there.

By the way, in Old Testament times, the eating of certain meats was banned (e.g. the eating of animals that did not both "chew the cud" and "have split hooves," as well as seafood that did not have both fins and scales).

Do you believe that we are still under these dietary rules today (even though Jesus says otherwise, in Mark 7:17-19)?

Oh, one other thing: How, exactly, do you associate porneia (which, according to the lexicons, describes something very ugly) with lovemaking between a longtime boyfriend and girlfriend?

 

Sex outside of marriage is a sin. That's a complete statement. No modifier needed.

Almost all of your arguement is secular, not theological.

"Sin" is not secular, sin is a transgression against God. The availability of birth control does not change an act from being sinful to not being a sin.

In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts) it was decided that salvation did not require obeying the Mosaic Law. Peter came to the same conclusion before the Council with his dream of a sheet of various animals (Acts 10 and 11). Dietary rules do not apply to Christians.

Its not just about "porneia", its also over the fact that God created male and female and they were to pair and the 2 become as 1 and to have children. Becoming as 1 means a life long commitment to each other and to having children, thats the model for marriage in Western society and in Judaism. Divorce is also a sin, even though Moses allowed it in very special circumstances (adultery or sexual misconduct) because God recognized that people were too weak to keep that law.