Unmarried sexual relations

If you got it, flaunt it..

 

Probably because of course it is nonsense. But then the ignorant tend to think anything the government is involved in is socialism. You know like the military, the national highway system, fluoridated water, Social Security, etc,etc.


so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
   
   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
     synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
     
     
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

 

Just a few thoughts. viz.:

(1) Yes, sin is, absolutely, " a transgression against God." Truer words were never spoken (or, more precisely, written).

To claim that the availability of birth control methods changes nothing, however, is to suggest that birth control is unimportant to the discussion--in other words, that God would have demanded abstinence pre-marriage, even if this were never the case.

Do you truly believe that?

(2) You appear to believe that God metes out rules that are purely arbitrary--in other words, nothing more than taboos--whereas I do not. (In fact, I do not believe in taboos, at all. There must be some there, there--or else I have no belief in the matter at hand.)

But I simply do not believe that the New Testament relies upon taboos.

(3) In Matthew 5:32, Jesus does, indeed, seem to take a dim view of divorce.

Notice, however, that he speaks only of a man putting away his wife--not the other way around. That is because women did not work then (unless it was as prostitutes); so they were not inclined to put away their husbands (as their only source of income).

(4) Do you really believe that it is necessary for a couple to "have children," in order for a marriage to be legitimate? I am 70 years of age, and have never yet sired a child--nor do I intend to do so. (Both my late wife and my current wife have had hysterectomies--which would render that impossible, in any case.)

Like I said: Just a few thoughts.

 

Well, this author disagrees with you: https://eand.co/yes-america-needs-a-healthy-dose-of-socialism-30f14902685c

He calls for "a healthy dose of 'socialism'" in America.

Here is what he further says:

"Whether it employs doctors directly, like in Britain’s NHS, whether it gives people healthcare funds, and lets them choose, like in Switzerland, or whether it manages a system of private and public providers, like in France," government must involve itself in "providing the basics of life."

And that would amount to "a healthy dose" of socialism, according to the author.

 

Is there any concievable reason to think he has any expertise?

 

Its not really what I believe, its what is in the Bible and what Christian dogma states.

In that context, sex is not an isolated activity whose sinfulness is based solely on one consequence (pregnancy). Sex is an intimate act that contributes to binding a man and a woman together into a family, the 2 become one and leave their parents to form a new family. Even in the secular world, its clear that sexual activity has deep emotional consequences.

Many of the "rules" are not arbitrary but have real world (secular) relevance. And they should be relevant because God created the world, and created mankind to live in the world, so mankinds "operating manual" is not arbitrary but describes the best way for a person to live successfully in the world humans were created to inhabit.

For example, much of the Mosaic Law has real world implications. For a large group of people living in close proximity, disease was a serious issue, and the rules on handling diseases make perfect sense (such as quarantine a person with certain symptoms until a set amount of time has passed). Or not to eat shellfish, which in a hot desert climate will spoil very rapidly. Or regular thorough cleaning of the home which helps keep out rodents which spread disease and also ruin precious food.

The rules on marriage (Jews only marry Jews) has secular and religious implications. It keeps the Jewish people (the people of the Covenant) from being absorbed into other cultures, it preserves the Jewish identity, it preserves the wealth of the Jewish people.

As discussed, sex only between married couples has secular and religious implications.

The benefit of some rules is not as obvious from a secular perspective. But for the Christian, it goes back to the initial statement - God has outlined how a person should best live in the world God created, and so the Christian (or Jew) obeys those rules.

Thats a little more difficult to explain because it has to be taken in the context of the time. In Jesus day, the big issue was divorce, it was as big an issue then as abortion is today. The Pharisees taught that a man could put away his wife, which is contrary to Gods wishes, but like so much that happened there were political and personal reasons for the Pharisees to deviate from Gods wishes. Jesus was saying that they were wrong, that with the exception of sexual immorality, if a man "divorces" his wife and the ex-wife remarries, the man causes the ex-wife and her new partner to commit adultery - because she is in Gods eyes still married to the first man.

Matthew 5:33-37 (on oaths) relates to this marriage issue as well. Its not an accident that Jesus comments on oaths immediately after talking about divorce.

The major purpose of family is children, but its not required. Its certainly not required for salvation. There have always been people who could not conceive due to medical issue or accident or environmental issues, or even just circumstance (could not get married). There were barren women in the New and Old Testaments. Michal was David's first wife, she was childless all her life. Abraham and Sarah, Jacob and Rachel, the parents of Samson, the parents of John the Baptist, all childless couples until divine intervention.

And in Pauls writings its clear that marriage and family are created for children, but neither marriage nor children are required for salvation. Paul deliberately avoids marriage and family (which he called distractions to his work) so he could devote all his attention to spreading the Gospel.

 

Please cite the part of the Bible that says this.

 

Would you prefer that I quote others?

Or would you just breezily dismiss them also?

 

"[D]ogma"should assiduously be avoided. (See the a priori fallacy.)

And your interpretation of "the Bible" is one seen through fundamentalist eyes. (You appear unable--or, at least, unwilling--to consider it through any other eyes.)

No, sex is really not an "isolated activity"; which is precisely why I do not support one-night stands.

It is, indeed, "an intimate act."

But in an age of birth control, this does not have to lead to a strong possibility of pregnancy. (Are you one of those people who believes that sexual activity is primarily about creating children--and only secondarily about physical and/or emotional enjoyment?)

I agree that God has not created arbitrary rules for humankind.

But you appear to think that he has--even though you deny it.

Agreed.

To say that "God has outlined" the matter is, I think, to say that your (fundamentalist) interpretation is the only type of interpretation that carries any weight.

That is not precisely correct.

Although the majority of Pharisees (under the tutelage of Hillel the Elder) were rather liberal in their views as concerning divorce and remarriage, another group (under the tutelage of Shammai) took a very different stance.

 

If you have someone with any concievable credibility be my guest.

 

What, exactly, would meet your definition of "any conceivable credibility"?

 

Your questions were excellent and this was one of the very few conversations which led me to some new thinking. And now you have to get personal and insulting.

The context of this OP and this conversation between you and me is Christian theology (which is dogma, fundamental principles, foundational tenets). Not my personal beliefs, not secular beliefs, but standard and accepted Christian theology.

If you want to return to an open conversation, go for it.

 

I am unaware of just how I (supposedly) got "personal and insulting."

I accept no "dogma" as concerning Christian theology--or as concerning anything else, for that matter. All needs to be substantiated, if I am to believe it.

(By the way, "accepted Christian theology" is precisely what I am challenging; so to appeal to "accepted Christian theology" is really to beg the question.)

To reiterate, I do not know just how you might believe that I have insulted you. But if you truly think that I have done so, then I apologize.

 

Rereading your post, I overreacted. I truly appreciate your response.

 

sexual morality lessons from a religion that found it completely moral to own sex slaves...that doesn't carry any weight

 

I think sex should be for married/committed couples. Speaking from experience, sleeping around and having multiple sexual partners is not in anyway shape or form healthy.

People are free to do as they wish and my opinion is one that I now practice and feel better for it. What I really disagree with is the encouragement of sex being just another act and the watering down of the meaning.

 

What worries me : in so many discussions like this, people resort to biblical references, as though the Bible is some magical oracle whose wisdom comes directly from God. In effect, this is ‘Worhipping the Bible ‘ because God himself is rather silent and ineffectual. All the books in the Bible were written by people, not gods, in other ages in other cultures in other languages. (I am an honours graduate in biblical theology and NT Greek)

 

and that's your opinion and you're entitled to it others would disagree as their experiences may not be as negative.

many people see sex as just a physical act and nothing more, that there is no deeper meaning it's just sex...if someone's is uncomfortable with it don't do it...if they're okay with it, carry on....

 

This is exactly the point of my post - that the Bible was written by man not God. Even if there may have been some folks that had some "inspiration" along the way - we have no way of knowing whether or not what is written today corresponds to what was written originally.

The idea that the Bible is "inerrant" is way beyond demonstrably false.

My worry is similar - if not the same - as yours. Much evil in the world has come about on the basis of some human claiming "God says so" as if they have defacto proof of this claim - as if God sat down with them for tea and shared her thoughts.

I go further than "Worshiping the Bible".. I call it "Speaking for God" - putting words in God's mouth. The "unforgivable sin" IMO.

Getting back to inerrancy - go to page 7 of this link and you will find Deuteronomy 32:43 from 3 different bibles. MT, LXX and QDeut http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf

The LXX and QDeut are roughly 1000 years earlier than the MT which was written roughly 700-900 AD. The MT translation completely omits references to other divinities.

Where does this leave us ? Either the QDeut/LXX were added to something originally written or what was originally written was systematically eliminated from the original text. Either way it is "pious fraud" - altering the text to make the text fit in better with the dogma of the day. One version must be wrong = the Bible is not inerrant.

The question to those who want to "worship the Bible" is then ... Which one ?

When you look at a Modern Translation of this passage things get even more convoluted. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32&version=NIV

In all three of the older versions of the text read "and he will cleanse his peoples land" and the meaning is crystal clear - something on the level of divine genocide.

The substitution of the phrase "make atonement for his land" for "cleanse his peoples land" removes and/or obfuscates the original meaning.
.

 

Yes I used to think it was just sex too until I noticed all of the negative effects. I would strongly argue that sex is never 'just sex', there is always psychological harm. Whether you are seeking attention, developing feelings which aren't reciprocated, feeling vulnerable etc. Also, it may be just sex to one person but is it for the other? Tinder opened my eyes and I noticed that none of the girls I saw were happy or stable.

 

Lack of stability and sadness is just the normal human condition. Attributing this only to "sex" is silly.

 

I didn't actually say that it was the only factor. Lack of stability and sadness often leads one to worthless sex just for that temporary high. A bit like smoking a joint will give you temporary relief but won't make the problem go away.

 

Perhaps not but that is what you inferred. While I am sure there are some who engage in what you describe as "worthless sex", lack of stability and sadness are the normal factors that drive people to have sex.

 

And that to me is deeply unhealthy but we all have our opinions! What works for me doesn’t necessarily work for everyone else.

 

I agree that those having sex on the basis of instability and sadness are engaging in something that is psychologically unhealthy. I just do not think this phenomenon represents the norm.