PDA

View Full Version : Religious folks, is there something inherently wrong with sex?



JAGERBOY
12-25-2009, 09:29 AM
I had to shorten the title.

What I really meant was, is there somethign inherently wrong with having sex if you aren't married? Or having sex with multiple partners? I know bad things CAN happen, like unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STD's. However, I'm talking about the act in and of itself.

So assume that someone had sex with multiple partners for their entire life and never got married. They never got anyone women pregnant and never caught or spread any STD's. What is inherently wrong with that?

Maestro
12-25-2009, 09:38 AM
I had to shorten the title.

What I really meant was, is there somethign inherently wrong with having sex if you aren't married? Or having sex with multiple partners? I know bad things CAN happen, like unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STD's. However, I'm talking about the act in and of itself.

So assume that someone had sex with multiple partners for their entire life and never got married. They never got anyone women pregnant and never caught or spread any STD's. What is inherently wrong with that?

you don't argue against religion. It is, because it is.

to do so is blasphemy, and a one way ticket to hell.

Christianyouth
12-25-2009, 09:57 AM
I had to shorten the title.

What I really meant was, is there somethign inherently wrong with having sex if you aren't married? Or having sex with multiple partners? I know bad things CAN happen, like unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STD's. However, I'm talking about the act in and of itself.

So assume that someone had sex with multiple partners for their entire life and never got married. They never got anyone women pregnant and never caught or spread any STD's. What is inherently wrong with that?

The dominant Christian view is that things are right or wrong based on how they fulfill the command to love God with our whole heart and our neighbor as ourselves. So sins like dishonoring your parents violate the principle of loving our fellow humans, and sins like idolatry(worshiping false God's or representing God through man-made means) violate the principle of loving God. Now sex outside of marriage is condemned, so I think that in some way it must violate our love for our neighbor or our love for God.

I'm not sure yet, but I think that premarital sex harms the woman in some way, or rather sex with multiple men does. I don't have research on that though, and I can't defend that, it's just an observation from my experience.

Could you think in anyway in which having sex outside of marriage does harm to fellow humans, like psychologically?

Bahai.Lifter
12-25-2009, 09:58 AM
So assume that someone had sex with multiple partners for their entire life and never got married. They never got anyone women pregnant and never caught or spread any STD's. What is inherently wrong with that?

Are you talking about from a material standpoint, or a spiritual one?

Assuming you're referring to the spiritual aspect. All of our actions in this life have spiritual consequences, good or bad. For example, if we are honest, kind, tactful, selfless, merciful, benevolent, these things are good for our souls. But, if we lie, cheat, steal, slander, hate, and so on, this negatively affects our souls.

So, assuming there is a soul, there are ways for it to progress, and ways for it to decline. Moderation leads to progress, and lack of moderation leads to decline.

There is nothing inherently wrong with sex, because we have certain drives which are there for a reason. For example, it isn't wrong to have a drive to eat (it's essential, in fact). However, if we are gluttonous, and want to eat at an $4.99 Chinese buffet twelve times a day, then that will not help us -- it will only harm us because it isn't moderate.

So we need to observe moderation in all things. Moderation leads to happiness, contentment, and health; lack of moderation is destructive.

Sex is also a drive, but it likewise requires moderation. Apart from the physical consequences of promiscuity (AIDs, STDs, broken families, psychiatric disorders, destroyed lives, etc.) there can be spiritual consequences as well. So God, being our All-Wise Father in Heaven, tells us that the appropriate place for sex is marriage. Apart from having kids, it brings the husband and wife spiritually and physically closer. This is the healthy use of sex from the religious standpoint.

A person who is promiscuous is not necessarily a "bad person," just as someone who overeats isn't a bad person. However, for his own good, and those around him, it would be better to observe moderation in all things. We have the choice to go whichever direction we want, but there's a lot of evidence that lack of moderation leads to unhappiness in the end (e.g., famous actors and rock stars that are depressed or commit suicide -- even though they have all the material things they could ask for: drugs, alcohol, girls, homes, cars, etc.). There is a lot of evidence that people who observe moderation, however, are more content. The saints are a good example of people who observed moderation throughout their lives.

Sex is not a bad thing but like anything else in life, we need to control it. Just like bodybuilders -- unlike the rest of the population -- feel the need to control their carb intake and not go overboard with the carbs. It tastes good eating a lot of carbs and is very tempting, but the results are disastrous if we don't observe moderation. Moderation is really key in life. If everyone observed moderation -- of their own volition -- imagine how much better and safer our world would be.

Christianyouth
12-25-2009, 09:59 AM
Excellent points

pikeamus
12-25-2009, 10:08 AM
I might seem unnecessarily flippant here but here goes...


snip

I'm not sure yet, but I think that premarital sex harms the woman in some way, or rather sex with multiple men does. I don't have research on that though, and I can't defend that, it's just an observation from my experience.

Could you think in anyway in which having sex outside of marriage does harm to fellow humans, like psychologically?

Lul, wut? Care to back any of that up?


snip

Really over the top there Bahai. A simple "No, there is nothing inherently wrong with sex but, as you note in the OP, there can be unfortunate consequences if one does not manage their desires appropriately" would have done.

Ephedra
12-25-2009, 10:16 AM
I'm living my life having safe sex with multiple partners and everything is great. The women I sleep with know I don't want any attachments so we just remain friends, some of them my best friends. I won't base my life actions of any of the ancient mythologies, I just can't drop to that level.

One day I will probably find "the one" who I will want to have children with and hold as my dear treasure, but until then I'm going to continue livin the dream life theists sinfully jack off to before they go to bed at night.

AKR
12-25-2009, 10:27 AM
The dominant Christian view is that things are right or wrong based on how they fulfill the command to love God with our whole heart and our neighbor as ourselves. So sins like dishonoring your parents violate the principle of loving our fellow humans, and sins like idolatry(worshiping false God's or representing God through man-made means) violate the principle of loving God. Now sex outside of marriage is condemned, so I think that in some way it must violate our love for our neighbor or our love for God.


WTF? What does having premarital sex have to do with violating your love for your neighbor? And I hate that when people are asking why something is a sin, they don't have anything more than "because god says so." The only reason it would violate love for god is because he arbitrarily set up some stupid rule. Why does god say it's wrong in the first place?

Gotta run. Xmas stuff.

Christianyouth
12-25-2009, 10:29 AM
Lul, wut? Care to back any of that up?

It's hard to argue for a statement like that, all I have is my own experience. I'm just saying that premarital sex could be harmful for women. Maybe it would be an obstacle in their future marriage.

Christianyouth
12-25-2009, 10:32 AM
WTF? What does having premarital sex have to do with violating your love for your neighbor? And I hate that when people are asking why something is a sin, they don't have anything more than "because god says so." The only reason it would violate love for god is because he arbitrarily set up some stupid rule. Why does god say it's wrong in the first place?

Gotta run. Xmas stuff.

I'm saying in some way it may end up increasing the levels of unhappiness of people, and so by doing it you would in some way be violating love of neighbor. I'm not saying I know HOW it violates love of neighbor, but with the other 10 commandments you can see how they either violate the love of neighbor or love of God, so it makes me think that this one in some way also violates one of them.

replica_fun
12-25-2009, 10:32 AM
I'm living my life having safe sex with multiple partners and everything is great. The women I sleep with know I don't want any attachments so we just remain friends, some of them my best friends. I won't base my life actions of any of the ancient mythologies, I just can't drop to that level.

One day I will probably find "the one" who I will want to have children with and hold as my dear treasure, but until then I'm going to continue livin the dream life theists sinfully jack off to before they go to bed at night.


Straight to hell. Bronze-age Jebus old men will not be pleased

DangerDan
12-25-2009, 10:43 AM
Basically, there's nothing inherently wrong with it and if the idea of god wasn't around there would be nothing wrong with it.

But because god said it's wrong, it's wrong. Even if it isn't wrong.


Retarded.

mehdi84
12-25-2009, 11:03 AM
I had to shorten the title.

What I really meant was, is there somethign inherently wrong with having sex if you aren't married? Or having sex with multiple partners? I know bad things CAN happen, like unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STD's. However, I'm talking about the act in and of itself.

So assume that someone had sex with multiple partners for their entire life and never got married. They never got anyone women pregnant and never caught or spread any STD's. What is inherently wrong with that?

Is anything inherently wrong? I don't believe it is. I have yet to see proof of such a notion.

Rather, our moral codes are derived and accepted. For Christians, morality is defined via the bible. For Muslims, via the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). For Jews, it is through the Talmud. Other religions, from their own texts perhaps.

There are those who may derive their own moral codes, outside of the realm of religion. These codes may be derived via survival instincts, desires, etc. For example, those who are emboldened to protect their peers may perhaps feel that they are morally obligated to protect them. They may in turn produce an oath to stand by this promise to themselves.

Then there will be those who simply inherit their moral compasses through their parents, idols, cultures, and society. However, somewhere through this chain of inheritance, the moral codes had to have come from somewhere.

Now, to answer you question: not particularly, as it is but one example of the many you could have chosen to argue your point. However, I will follow the advice of my Lord, and as such will only have sex with my lawful wife. There is no need, or desire by me, to find loopholes in order to justify my transgressions.

Vorian
12-25-2009, 11:19 AM
Is anything inherently wrong? I don't believe it is. I have yet to see proof of such a notion.

Rather, our moral codes are derived and accepted. For Christians, morality is defined via the bible. For Muslims, via the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). For Jews, it is through the Talmud. Other religions, from their own texts perhaps.

There are those who may derive their own moral codes, outside of the realm of religion. These codes may be derived via survival instincts, desires, etc. For example, those who are emboldened to protect their peers may perhaps feel that they are morally obligated to protect them. They may in turn produce an oath to stand by this promise to themselves.

Then there will be those who simply inherit their moral compasses through their parents, idols, cultures, and society. However, somewhere through this chain of inheritance, the moral codes had to have come from somewhere.

Now, to answer you question: not particularly. However, I will follow the advice of my Lord, and as such will only have sex with my lawful wife. There is no need, or desire by me, to find loopholes in order to justify my transgressions.

Not sure if srs.

If you are serious, then this is another reason why religion is wrong.

Edit: saw this in your signature: "God has a better plan for my life, than I do, for my own." <-- strong self-confidence

Bahai.Lifter
12-25-2009, 11:20 AM
Excellent points

Thanks, dear friend.



Really over the top there Bahai. A simple "No, there is nothing inherently wrong with sex but, as you note in the OP, there can be unfortunate consequences if one does not manage their desires appropriately" would have done.

Well you know, I have a problem with cliffs. Maybe it's because of something that happened in childhood?!?

http://i40.tinypic.com/2r6nwo7.jpg

mehdi84
12-25-2009, 11:29 AM
Not sure if srs.

If you are serious, then this is another reason why religion is wrong.

Edit: saw this in your signature: "God has a better plan for my life, than I do, for my own." <-- strong self-confidence

Excellent retort, you blew my mind. One day maybe I too can free my mind, and become as intellectually savvy as yourself, and perhaps I'll gain some self-confidence on the way ;)

Vorian
12-25-2009, 11:33 AM
Excellent retort, you blew my mind. One day maybe I too can free my mind, and become as intellectually savvy as yourself, and perhaps I'll gain some self-confidence on the way ;)

Denial is a sign of serious religion-infection. Remember, I am not hating you, I am hating the disease.

mehdi84
12-25-2009, 11:39 AM
Denial is a sign of serious religion-infection. Remember, I am not hating you, I am hating the disease.

I was only poking fun at your non-reply, and hoping you would see it for yourself. However, I too am not hating you, I am hating the disease.

Vorian
12-25-2009, 11:44 AM
I was only poking fun at your non-reply, and hoping you would see it for yourself. However, I too am not hating you, I am hating the disease that resides in your soul.

If God appeared before me, then that "disease in my soul" would vanish instantly. And remember, appearing in physical form before a human takes literally zero effort from a divine being. Yet he doesn't do it.

Or even a single evidence for his existence would do. Srs.

mehdi84
12-25-2009, 11:48 AM
If God appeared before me, then that "disease in my soul" would vanish instantly. And remember, appearing in physical form before a human takes literally zero effort from a divine being. Yet he doesn't do it.

Or even a single evidence for his existence would do. Srs.

That is excellent. Now, if you have an intelligent retort to my original reply to the OP, then I would love to read it. Otherwise, I am done digressing with a troll.

Tiffany Wantsmore
12-25-2009, 11:52 AM
I see absolutely nothing inherently wrong with consensual adult sex. But then I'm not religious, so I should probably stay out of the thread. It just annoys me that such a basic pleasure should be condemned as a sin, when it's really a natural biological urge, and the world's favourite hobby.

Vorian
12-25-2009, 11:53 AM
That is excellent. Now, if you have an intelligent retort to my original reply to the OP, then I would love to read it. Otherwise, I am done digressing with a troll.

Okay I have an intelligent retort to your original reply to the OP.

Premarital sex isn't wrong. Yes, yes primitive barbarians 2000 years ago thought it was, but they were wrong.

BahadurShah
12-25-2009, 12:00 PM
From an Islamic perspective, there's nothing inherently wrong with sex. In fact, when taking place in a lawful manner, it's highly encouraged.

Question for OP: do you think governing of sexual activity by moral code is potentially beneficial to society? Do you think a society that has no social or cultural mores governing sex might ultimately be the worse off for it?

Bahai.Lifter
12-25-2009, 12:07 PM
I see absolutely nothing inherently wrong with consensual adult sex. But then I'm not religious, so I should probably stay out of the thread. It just annoys me that such a basic pleasure should be condemned as a sin, when it's really a natural biological urge, and the world's favourite hobby.

It's not inherently sinful -- that was the point of my post -- it just has its proper place in the religious view, which is in marriage. As in the example I gave, eating isn't wrong, but eating at a $4.99 Chinese buffet twelve times a day is. Religion is all about moderation, which leads to the most happiness.

Tiffany Wantsmore
12-25-2009, 12:13 PM
It's not inherently sinful -- that was the point of my post -- it just has its proper place in the religious view, which is in marriage. As in the example I gave, eating isn't wrong, but eating at a $4.99 Chinese buffet twelve times a day is. Religion is all about moderation, which leads to the most happiness.

It's seen as a sin except in certain circumstances. Even if a couple is deeply in love and faithful to each other, if they're not married t's still "sinful" - that's what's ridiculous.

pikeamus
12-25-2009, 12:14 PM
I see absolutely nothing inherently wrong with consensual adult sex. But then I'm not religious, so I should probably stay out of the thread. It just annoys me that such a basic pleasure should be condemned as a sin, when it's really a natural biological urge, and the world's favourite hobby.

I was hoping you'd post here. Perhaps you'd like to educate ChristianYouth about the fact that women don't necessarily get hurt by enjoying an open sex life.


From an Islamic perspective, there's nothing inherently wrong with sex. In fact, when taking place in a lawful manner, it's highly encouraged.

Question for OP: do you think governing of sexual activity by moral code is potentially beneficial to society? Do you think a society that has no social or cultural mores governing sex might ultimately be the worse off for it?

Way to dodge the question. The OP is specifically about unmarried sex. In answer to your questions (I appreciate that I'm not the OP but I'm a little tipsy and am spoiling for an argument), yes and yes but that doesn't validate the simplistic spproach of the traditional monotheisms towards sex.

Tiffany Wantsmore
12-25-2009, 12:19 PM
I was hoping you'd post here. Perhaps you'd like to educate ChristianYouth about the fact that women don't necessarily get hurt by enjoying an open sex life.

lol thanks, I guess ... what can I say? Sex is fun. In the context of a loving relationship, it does bring a couple closer emotionally too. But you don't have to be married to be in a loving relationship. Even if you're just having it to relieve a physical need, it's still good. That's why people have FWBs.

pikeamus
12-25-2009, 12:38 PM
lol thanks, I guess ... what can I say? Sex is fun. In the context of a loving relationship, it does bring a couple closer emotionally too. But you don't have to be married to be in a loving relationship. Even if you're just having it to relieve a physical need, it's still good. That's why people have FWBs.

It was meant as a compliment, women that are comfortable with their sexuality are inherently more attractive. Actually, that's totally not what I originally meant but it's true regardless.

Tiffany Wantsmore
12-25-2009, 12:46 PM
It was meant as a compliment, women that are comfortable with their sexuality are inherently more attractive. Actually, that's totally not what I originally meant but it's true regardless.

I just wasn't aware that people knew my hedonistic tendencies :)

pikeamus
12-25-2009, 12:51 PM
I just wasn't aware that people knew my hedonistic tendencies :)

Oh, you do have a bit of a rep. :) (I mean that in a good way. ****, I wish I had a it of a rep.)

J-Bol
12-25-2009, 06:47 PM
The dominant Christian view is that things are right or wrong based on how they fulfill the command to love God with our whole heart and our neighbor as ourselves. So sins like dishonoring your parents violate the principle of loving our fellow humans, and sins like idolatry(worshiping false God's or representing God through man-made means) violate the principle of loving God. Now sex outside of marriage is condemned, so I think that in some way it must violate our love for our neighbor or our love for God.

I'm not sure yet, but I think that premarital sex harms the woman in some way, or rather sex with multiple men does. I don't have research on that though, and I can't defend that, it's just an observation from my experience.

Could you think in anyway in which having sex outside of marriage does harm to fellow humans, like psychologically?

Jealousy, rivalry, unknown fathers, unwanted pregnancies, disgust, remorse, etc...

Christianyouth
12-25-2009, 06:56 PM
Jealousy, rivalry, unknown fathers, unwanted pregnancies, disgust, remorse, etc...

Thanks bro. :)

Merry Christmas(to everyone else too)

Weightaholic
12-25-2009, 07:44 PM
Some dude in a dress says "you're married" and all of a sudden, what is sinful and disgusting magically becomes A-OK!

Fire8085
12-25-2009, 07:53 PM
Aw damn, I'm going to hell for having sex with my girlfriend that I've been with for years =/

If I did anal, does that count?

BahadurShah
12-25-2009, 08:04 PM
Way to dodge the question. The OP is specifically about unmarried sex. In answer to your questions (I appreciate that I'm not the OP but I'm a little tipsy and am spoiling for an argument), yes and yes but that doesn't validate the simplistic spproach of the traditional monotheisms towards sex.

Oh, in that case, see mehdi84's post.

To add to that, in addition to what you've conceded, do you think a legal contract between two individuals who engage in a long-term relationship could potentially serve to protect the rights of both of those individuals?

AKR
12-25-2009, 11:49 PM
I'm saying in some way it may end up increasing the levels of unhappiness of people, and so by doing it you would in some way be violating love of neighbor. I'm not saying I know HOW it violates love of neighbor, but with the other 10 commandments you can see how they either violate the love of neighbor or love of God, so it makes me think that this one in some way also violates one of them.


WTF? There is nothing about sex in the ten commandments. Either way, you're just making things up. You have no idea and you admit it. You just make assumptions. "Well, gee, I'm assuming this hurts us in some way but I sure don't know how!" Great answer. :rolleyes:



Is anything inherently wrong? I don't believe it is. I have yet to see proof of such a notion.

Rather, our moral codes are derived and accepted. For Christians, morality is defined via the bible. For Muslims, via the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). For Jews, it is through the Talmud. Other religions, from their own texts perhaps.

There are those who may derive their own moral codes, outside of the realm of religion. These codes may be derived via survival instincts, desires, etc. For example, those who are emboldened to protect their peers may perhaps feel that they are morally obligated to protect them. They may in turn produce an oath to stand by this promise to themselves.

Then there will be those who simply inherit their moral compasses through their parents, idols, cultures, and society. However, somewhere through this chain of inheritance, the moral codes had to have come from somewhere.

Now, to answer you question: not particularly, as it is but one example of the many you could have chosen to argue your point. However, I will follow the advice of my Lord, and as such will only have sex with my lawful wife. There is no need, or desire by me, to find loopholes in order to justify my transgressions.



You could have just said "no."




Some dude in a dress says "you're married" and all of a sudden, what is sinful and disgusting magically becomes A-OK!


lullz.

AKR
12-25-2009, 11:50 PM
Oh, in that case, see mehdi84's post.

To add to that, in addition to what you've conceded, do you think a legal contract between two individuals who engage in a long-term relationship could potentially serve to protect the rights of both of those individuals?


This is a sleazy way of arguing with this "potential" crap.

Do you think that people minding their own f*cking business could potentially be benofficial to society?

BahadurShah
12-26-2009, 12:05 AM
This is a sleazy way of arguing with this "potential" crap.

Do you think that people minding their own f*cking business could potentially be benofficial to society?

Really, why is it sleazy? Please explain.

I think people minding their own business is potentially beneficial to society; however, where people's behavior impacts society, society usually will create mores to regulate said behavior. A society that failed to do this would fail as a society.










(benofficial)

AKR
12-26-2009, 12:11 AM
Really, why is it sleazy? Please explain.


I think it's a lazy way of getting a yes out of someone. All sorts of things have potential, but it doesn't mean they actually will work or even should.



I think people minding their own business is potentially beneficial to society; however, where people's behavior impacts society, society usually will create mores to regulate said behavior. A society that failed to do this would fail as a society.

How does two people having sex impact society in a negative way? How is it anyone elses business? Unless two unmarried people having sex causes earth quakes or explosions in shopping centures, I don't understand how you can justify butting in.





(benofficial)



Should have gone with another "e." No spell check on here. :mad:

Vorian
12-26-2009, 01:37 AM
Jealousy, rivalry, unknown fathers, unwanted pregnancies, disgust, remorse, etc...

Disgust? If you feel disgust during sex then I think you should try doing it with guys. Maybe girls aren't your thing.

lol religion

Eunectes92
12-26-2009, 02:32 AM
Are you talking about from a material standpoint, or a spiritual one?

Assuming you're referring to the spiritual aspect. All of our actions in this life have spiritual consequences, good or bad. For example, if we are honest, kind, tactful, selfless, merciful, benevolent, these things are good for our souls. But, if we lie, cheat, steal, slander, hate, and so on, this negatively affects our souls.

So, assuming there is a soul, there are ways for it to progress, and ways for it to decline. Moderation leads to progress, and lack of moderation leads to decline.

There is nothing inherently wrong with sex, because we have certain drives which are there for a reason. For example, it isn't wrong to have a drive to eat (it's essential, in fact). However, if we are gluttonous, and want to eat at an $4.99 Chinese buffet twelve times a day, then that will not help us -- it will only harm us because it isn't moderate.

So we need to observe moderation in all things. Moderation leads to happiness, contentment, and health; lack of moderation is destructive.

Sex is also a drive, but it likewise requires moderation. Apart from the physical consequences of promiscuity (AIDs, STDs, broken families, psychiatric disorders, destroyed lives, etc.) there can be spiritual consequences as well. So God, being our All-Wise Father in Heaven, tells us that the appropriate place for sex is marriage. Apart from having kids, it brings the husband and wife spiritually and physically closer. This is the healthy use of sex from the religious standpoint.

A person who is promiscuous is not necessarily a "bad person," just as someone who overeats isn't a bad person. However, for his own good, and those around him, it would be better to observe moderation in all things. We have the choice to go whichever direction we want, but there's a lot of evidence that lack of moderation leads to unhappiness in the end (e.g., famous actors and rock stars that are depressed or commit suicide -- even though they have all the material things they could ask for: drugs, alcohol, girls, homes, cars, etc.). There is a lot of evidence that people who observe moderation, however, are more content. The saints are a good example of people who observed moderation throughout their lives.

Sex is not a bad thing but like anything else in life, we need to control it. Just like bodybuilders -- unlike the rest of the population -- feel the need to control their carb intake and not go overboard with the carbs. It tastes good eating a lot of carbs and is very tempting, but the results are disastrous if we don't observe moderation. Moderation is really key in life. If everyone observed moderation -- of their own volition -- imagine how much better and safer our world would be.


So are you saying that sex before marriage, while under moderation is still good?

And i see some good points in your post but one i must disagree with is the analogy you make between eating and sex.

Sex isn't something you need inorder to live. You need to eat in order to live. It's not like you can say.." dont eat until you are married, if you eat before you are married, it is a sin"

So i understand what you mean by keeping things in moderation... don't over eat, don't have sex 200 times a day..etc.

But the analogy is wrong in my opinion. The topic is more about whether sex is a sin when done premaritally.

AKR
12-26-2009, 03:23 AM
Christians always have to stretch the truth and go to extremes in order to make any sense out of their stupid laws. "Durrrr, well if you slept with 500 people, you'd probably get lots of STD's and unwanted babies!" Meanwhile, they ignore the couple that's sterile and/or in a monogamous relationship.

Fire8085
12-26-2009, 03:25 AM
Christians always have to stretch the truth and go to extremes in order to make any sense out of their stupid laws. "Durrrr, well if you slept with 500 people, you'd probably get lots of STD's and unwanted babies!" Meanwhile, they ignore the couple that's sterile and/or in a monogamous relationship.

FANTASTIC post right here. It bugs the hell out of me when I have a slight argument with someone who is religious only for them to point out a complete extreme of something to make their argument hold any weight.

BahadurShah
12-26-2009, 07:28 AM
I think it's a lazy way of getting a yes out of someone. All sorts of things have potential, but it doesn't mean they actually will work or even should.


Not really. The same statements without the word 'potential' work just as well, eg




To add to that, in addition to what you've conceded, do you think a legal contract between two individuals who engage in a long-term relationship could serve to protect the rights of both of those individuals?

Fixed without the word "potential." It's just a method of leading to a point by illustrating rationale that may not have been considered beforehand.



How does two people having sex impact society in a negative way? How is it anyone elses business? Unless two unmarried people having sex causes earth quakes or explosions in shopping centures, I don't understand how you can justify butting in.

That's a really simplistic way of thinking. You can't see how people having sex willy-nilly would negatively impact society?

Also, in your example, you assume every single person in the given society is going to engage in a long-term relationship with one person. That's a little absurd to assume, don't you think? And if there's a social or cultural more that people should follow that model of behavior, how is that really different from religion?

Tiffany Wantsmore
12-26-2009, 08:24 AM
The majority of people do try to settle down into long term relationships. The assumption from the religious side is that anyone who does have sex outside marriage is a ravenous maniac who shags anyone and everyone without care or concern, regardless of age, never uses protection, leaves a trail of unwanted pregnancies in his wake and infects all and sundry with as many STDs as he can. That is also a little absurd. There is a middle ground, which I feel most theists find it difficult to accept/believe.

Lloyd Braun
12-26-2009, 08:28 AM
The majority of people do try to settle down into long term relationships. The assumption from the religious side is that anyone who does have sex outside marriage is a ravenous maniac who shags anyone and everyone without care or concern, regardless of age, never uses protection, leaves a trail of unwanted pregnancies in his wake and infects all and sundry with as many STDs as he can. That is also a little absurd. There is a middle ground, which I feel most theists find it difficult to accept/believe.

No.

Tiffany Wantsmore
12-26-2009, 08:35 AM
Ok, so what's so inherently wrong with two people in a committed relationship having sex, if they're not married? Don't give me all the claptrap about unwanted pregnancies, STDs etc. Give me an actual logical reason.

Lloyd Braun
12-26-2009, 08:37 AM
Ok, so what's so inherently wrong with two people in a committed relationship having sex, if they're not married? Don't give me all the claptrap about unwanted pregnancies, STDs etc. Give me an actual logical reason.

Are you responding to me?

I never said anything about that.

I was merely disagreeing when you said that the "religious side sees everyone who has pre-marital sex as some kind of ravenous lunatic who spreads STD's everywhere."

Tiffany Wantsmore
12-26-2009, 08:38 AM
Not you particularly, anyone with that mindset. Because none of the theists can come up with any practical, logical reason why it's "wrong".

Lloyd Braun
12-26-2009, 08:40 AM
Not you particularly, anyone with that mindset. Because none of the theists can come up with any practical, logical reason why it's "wrong".

The best answer that a theist can tell you why it's wrong is because God deems it so. Every other reason is secondary.

jackal337
12-26-2009, 08:40 AM
I had to shorten the title.

What I really meant was, is there somethign inherently wrong with having sex if you aren't married? Or having sex with multiple partners? I know bad things CAN happen, like unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STD's. However, I'm talking about the act in and of itself.

So assume that someone had sex with multiple partners for their entire life and never got married. They never got anyone women pregnant and never caught or spread any STD's. What is inherently wrong with that?

Depends on what you mean by "wrong".

jf1
12-26-2009, 09:12 AM
sex has been something to be 'ashamed of' since god kicked adam and eve out of the garden;
'they were naked and they were ashamed'.

christianity furthered these ridiculous notions about sex by having their god being born WITHOUT SEX to a virgin and then, having jeeesus be the 'perfect man' and never have sex or masturbate...because that would be sinful!

lets face it, the abrahamic religions are not meant to stimulate free thinking...
:rolleyes:

Scoundrel
12-26-2009, 09:15 AM
sex has been something to be 'ashamed of' since god kicked adam and eve out of the garden;
'they were naked and they were ashamed'.

christianity furthered these ridiculous notions about sex by having their god being born WITHOUT SEX to a virgin and then, having jeeesus be the 'perfect man' and never have sex or masturbate...because that would be sinful!

lets face it, the abrahamic religions are not meant to stimulate free thinking...
:rolleyes:


too bad one of Gods first commandment's to adam and eve was 'be fruitful and multiply'. There was nothing inherently bad with nakedness, before sin (seeing as how we were created in his image)

Enso
12-26-2009, 09:31 AM
If you never get married and are treating your partners with respect, then no. Not really. It's when you use sex in a way that is not respectful towards your partner(s) that problems arise. That is just my opinion though, and that is really all you are going to get anyway..even from those who quote scripture, etc. Just follow your own conscience and be honest enough with yourself to listen to it when it speaks to you.

Sounds to me like someone is afraid of commitment though :p

Vorian
12-26-2009, 09:57 AM
The best answer that a theist can tell you why it's wrong is because God deems it so. Every other reason is secondary.

"God deems it so" <-- this is why religion must be destroyed. You have no free will, a BOOK is controlling your life man!

Bahai.Lifter
12-26-2009, 10:19 AM
So are you saying that sex before marriage, while under moderation is still good?

No. From a religious point of view, no amount of sex outside of marriage is moderate. Chastity involves abstaining from all sexual relations until marriage.




And i see some good points in your post but one i must disagree with is the analogy you make between eating and sex.

Sex isn't something you need inorder to live. You need to eat in order to live. It's not like you can say.." dont eat until you are married, if you eat before you are married, it is a sin"

Yes, sex isn't essential, unlike eating. That is a good point, but I was using both as examples because they are biological drives.



So i understand what you mean by keeping things in moderation... don't over eat, don't have sex 200 times a day..etc.

Again, I was referring to sex outside of marriage (i.e., not moderate or legitimate use of sex impulse) vs. sex between husband and wife (i.e., moderate or legitimate use of sex impulse).



But the analogy is wrong in my opinion. The topic is more about whether sex is a sin when done premaritally.

From a religious standpoint, premarital sex is a sin. Sorry if my post lacked clarity with regards to that.

jf1
12-26-2009, 10:23 AM
too bad one of Gods first commandment's to adam and eve was 'be fruitful and multiply'. There was nothing inherently bad with nakedness, before sin (seeing as how we were created in his image)


too bad that all changed after they ate the apple...
after that nakedness was something to be ashamed of...and still is.
:rolleyes:

Vorian
12-26-2009, 10:46 AM
Bahai.Lifter so you say it's a sin. Why?

jf1
12-26-2009, 10:50 AM
Bahai.Lifter so you say it's a sin. Why?

so sayeth teh babalula!

Weightaholic
12-26-2009, 11:04 AM
too bad that all changed after they ate the apple...
after that nakedness was something to be ashamed of...and still is.
:rolleyes:

Not if you're hot?

Besides, we were all born naked, and dammit, I'm going to go out the way I came in - naked, screaming, and covered in someone elses blood!

Bahai.Lifter
12-26-2009, 11:25 AM
Again, the disclaimer: I'm not saying anyone who has sex outside of marriage is "sinful," because if he doesn't belong to a religion then he doesn't have laws to follow. I'm only sharing the religious point of view.



Bahai.Lifter so you say it's a sin. Why?

The topic is asking for a religious perspective. From a Baha'i perspective, sexual relations before marriage is forbidden. It is a Law, so it's followed. Someone will counter: "So you just follow laws without thinking at all??" Well, if I have used my thinking abilities in the first place in reaching the determination that a Book contains the Laws of God, then it makes sense and is logical for me to follow them.

Apart from the spiritual impact of sex outside of marriage (which must be considered if you're talking about the religious perspective), the material consequences are obvious: increase in risk of AIDs, STDs; and other associated things like depression, broken families, children without parents, etc. But there are, in addition, other negative "side effects" of sex outside of marriage which we can't see perhaps, because they are spiritual and affect the soul -- and, by extension the mind (hence, depression or other disorders may at some point emerge). God sees everything, knows everything; so since He loves us and desires our happiness, He gives Laws which lead to happiness when they are adhered to.

For example, Baha'u'llah says:


Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power. To this beareth witness that which the Pen of Revelation hath revealed. Meditate upon this, O men of insight!


(And if anyone wants to get scientific, I've seen journal articles before to the effect that couples that lived together before marriage had less successful marriages when they finally married, and higher rates of divorce if I remember correctly. No I don't have the journal article off-hand, but maybe someone here can find it? Anyways, we're talking about the spiritual perspective on why it's wrong, not the scientific one. But I'm sure even scientifically we may gain more insights -- with reflection -- into the wisdom behind the Laws of God -- although we will never completely achieve His level of wisdom and insight.)


The Baha'i Faith takes chastity one step further, if you will. Chastity is usually seen as just abstaining from sex until one is married; however, chastity involves much more:

Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith (http://info.bahai.org/guardian-of-the-bahai-faith.html), wrote the following in The Advent of Divine Justice:


Such a chaste and holy life, with its implications of modesty, purity, temperance, decency, and clean-mindedness, involves no less than the exercise of moderation in all that pertains to dress, language, amusements, and all artistic and literary avocations. It demands daily vigilance in the control of one's carnal desires and corrupt inclinations. It calls for the abandonment of a frivolous conduct, with its excessive attachment to trivial and often misdirected pleasures. It requires total abstinence from all alcoholic drinks, from opium, and from similar habit-forming drugs. It condemns the prostitution of art and of literature, the practices of nudism and of companionate marriage, infidelity in marital relationships, and all manner of promiscuity, of easy familiarity, and of sexual vices. It can tolerate no compromise with the theories, the standards, the habits, and the excesses of a decadent age. Nay rather it seeks to demonstrate, through the dynamic force of its example, the pernicious character of such theories, the falsity of such standards, the hollowness of such claims, the perversity of such habits, and the sacrilegious character of such excesses.

Vorian
12-26-2009, 11:50 AM
"risk of AIDs, STDs; and other associated things like depression, broken families, children without parents, etc."

http://king1876.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/condoms-safe-sex.jpg
^^^Counters all of those. Depression? Broken Families? Maybe 0,000001% of premarital sex leads to broken families, so not a good example.
The religious stigma of sex causes more problems than all of the above combined.

Pardon me for the personal question, but do you live by this law?

Bahai.Lifter
12-26-2009, 12:24 PM
Broken families are a huge problem. Just look back on history, before and after the sexual revolution. "Free love" lead to countless kids without a parent; those kids grew up without that support, many probably had bad influences and became a harm to society.

Those were just some of the reasons. Apart from the journal articles I mentioned, I work with a psychiatrist, see many of his patients, so I don't have any doubts that premarital sex can lead to problems.

But those things are just effects of the soul that is harmed. Like I said, if premarital sex was good for the soul and the mind, in religious contexts it would be encouraged. The Creator of the soul probably knows what's best for the soul. Again, you may not believe in your soul, but this thread is dealing with the spiritual perspective so it's appropriate to mention the soul here.

jf1
12-26-2009, 12:27 PM
Broken families are a huge problem. Just look back on history, before and after the sexual revolution. "Free love" lead to countless kids without a parent; those kids grew up without that support, many probably had bad influences and became a harm to society.

Those were just some of the reasons. Apart from the journal articles I mentioned, I work with a psychiatrist, see many of his patients, so I don't have any doubts that premarital sex can lead to problems.

But those things are just effects of the soul that is harmed. Like I said, if premarital sex was good for the soul and the mind, in religious contexts it would be encouraged. The Creator of the soul probably knows what's best for the soul. Again, you may not believe in your soul, but this thread is dealing with the spiritual perspective so it's appropriate to mention the soul here.

will you admit that you would be running naked through the streets at this very moment, casting your seed, had the babalula preached a free sex policy?
:)

Vorian
12-26-2009, 12:31 PM
Broken families are a huge problem. Just look back on history, before and after the sexual revolution. "Free love" lead to countless kids without a parent; those kids grew up without that support, many probably had bad influences and became a harm to society.

Those were just some of the reasons. Apart from the journal articles I mentioned, I work with a psychiatrist, see many of his patients, so I don't have any doubts that premarital sex can lead to problems.

But those things are just effects of the soul that is harmed. Like I said, if premarital sex was good for the soul and the mind, in religious contexts it would be encouraged. The Creator of the soul probably knows what's best for the soul. Again, you may not believe in your soul, but this thread is dealing with the spiritual perspective so it's appropriate to mention the soul here.

I hate blind faith

BahadurShah
12-26-2009, 12:33 PM
Not if you're hot?

Besides, we were all born naked, and dammit, I'm going to go out the way I came in - naked, screaming, and covered in someone elses blood!

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,420 for "naked, screaming, and covered in someone else's blood". (0.24 seconds)

strong cliched witticism

(in before you whine about ad hominems without understanding what ad hominem means)

b.spencer
12-26-2009, 01:25 PM
Broken families are a huge problem. Just look back on history, before and after the sexual revolution. "Free love" lead to countless kids without a parent; those kids grew up without that support, many probably had bad influences and became a harm to society.

Don't you just LOVE suppositions like that . . . why isn't it obvious that children who grow up with only one parent have bad influences and become a harm on society. I have rarely seen such a load of rubbish posted on this board.

While the literature does show some disadvantages in single parent homes, mostly due to socio-economic status, it also shows that the VAST majority of children from single parent homes have no affects lasting into adulthood. They are in no way a "harm to society" and to claim such insults millions of people.

Tiffany Wantsmore
12-26-2009, 01:54 PM
Those were just some of the reasons. Apart from the journal articles I mentioned, I work with a psychiatrist, see many of his patients, so I don't have any doubts that premarital sex can lead to problems.

Weird that apparently none of the atheists on here, most of whom probably enjoy the odd bit of fornication, don't suffer these alleged problems.

I'm not speaking for all atheists, of course. But none has posted in this thread agreeing that they have any problems caused by unmarried sex.

AKR
12-26-2009, 02:24 PM
95% of people have sex before marriage, so it's sorta hard to take people seriously in this thread.

Bahai.Lifter
12-26-2009, 03:32 PM
I hate blind faith

Same here, brah.

Bahai.Lifter
12-26-2009, 03:48 PM
Don't you just LOVE suppositions like that . . . why isn't it obvious that children who grow up with only one parent have bad influences and become a harm on society. I have rarely seen such a load of rubbish posted on this board.

While the literature does show some disadvantages in single parent homes, mostly due to socio-economic status, it also shows that the VAST majority of children from single parent homes have no affects lasting into adulthood. They are in no way a "harm to society" and to claim such insults millions of people.

Many kids were born without any parents (mother and father), that's what I was referring to. (And the breakdown of the family is an undeniable phenomenon.) They could have had a better family life if the parents were committed, but by definition promiscuous relationships lack such commitment and are only for sexual pleasure, and with no higher purpose. The ones without any parents probably do worse off generally (obviously there will be exceptions because some kids are more resilient than others) than those with one or two parents.

If anyone takes offense to these posts for whatever reason, that isn't the intention of them. Premarital sex is forbidden in a religious context, but if you're an atheist and think premarital sex is great that's your opinion which you're entitled to. Again, I'm not calling anyone a "sinner" who has sex outside of marriage (so no need to get offended), because he probably has his own set of values which he follows; and a religious person also has his own set of values he follows.

Bahai.Lifter
12-26-2009, 04:30 PM
95% of people have sex before marriage, so it's sorta hard to take people seriously in this thread.

Even if 100% of people had sex before marriage, that wouldn't prove that it's right. One of the signs associated with the collapse of a society is the high rate, and acceptance of, sexual promiscuity; just look at the fall of the Romans. When the Christian community emerged in the early period, they offered an alternative which was family values, and society began to flourish again at the beginnings of the Christian Dispensation (in b4 the inquisition and crusades, because I'm referring to the early period of the religion). The forces of irreligion can affect everyone, both theist and atheist. When religion weakens, traditional morals weaken. From the posts on this forum, it seems safe to say that the majority of atheists here -- if not all of them -- believe that premarital sex is moral.

AKR
12-26-2009, 05:04 PM
Even if 100% of people had sex before marriage, that wouldn't prove that it's right.

It would prove that everyone speaking out against premarital sex was full of crap.




One of the signs associated with the collapse of a society is the high rate, and acceptance of, sexual promiscuity; just look at the fall of the Romans.

Ok, first off, premarital sex =/ promiscuity. Second, correlation =/ causation.




When the Christian community emerged in the early period, they offered an alternative which was family values, and society began to flourish again at the beginnings of the Christian Dispensation (in b4 the inquisition and crusades, because I'm referring to the early period of the religion).

So, even though people with these "family values" ended up rampaging in the crusades, that's not relevant? You can say that promiscuity caused the fall of Rome but you deny that family values leads to crusades, even though it doesn't make any more sense to use the stupid argument of correlation for one but not the other.



The forces of irreligion can affect everyone, both theist and atheist. When religion weakens, traditional morals weaken. From the posts on this forum, it seems safe to say that the majority of atheists here -- if not all of them -- believe that premarital sex is moral.


Please tell me how my gf and I having sex in a monogamous relationship is going to cause the fall of society.

Let's see your studies showing that premarital sex (not even promiscuity) directly causes the destruction of society and define "destruction" as well, because I might think what you call "destruction" to be something good. Until you do that, I'm just going to ignore your long winded posts.

Bahai.Lifter
12-26-2009, 06:22 PM
It would prove that everyone speaking out against premarital sex was full of crap.

But it wouldn't prove that premarital sex is right.



Ok, first off, premarital sex =/ promiscuity. Second, correlation =/ causation.

Dysfunctional families or lack of family (which can be the result of premarital sex) is obviously a detriment to children. You should read up on psychiatric disorders, because problems in this context (dysfunctinal families/lack of family) can lead to mental disorders or other problems. Yes, "correlation =/ causation," but experts (e.g., psychiatrists) have enough experience to say that certain disorders commonly arise from these circumstances. Also, I work at a psychiatrist's office and I see these kinds of cases firsthand.




So, even though people with these "family values" ended up rampaging in the crusades, that's not relevant? You can say that promiscuity caused the fall of Rome but you deny that family values leads to crusades, even though it doesn't make any more sense to use the stupid argument of correlation for one but not the other.

Every religion has its golden age, then decline. Because religion is progressive. Around the time Christianity started to decline, Islam had begun. Islam was the next religion. Similarly, Islam began to decline in the 1800s (and even before), and the religion after Islam is the Baha'i Faith, which began in the mid-1800s. So always when a religion declines, God establishes His new Faith.

The Religion of God is really One, but it is "renewed" every 500-1,000 years. When it is, people have to turn to the newer Divine faith, once established, for guidance. During this period of "transition," the previous religion which was once just might become very unjust in many cases.



Let's see your studies showing that premarital sex (not even promiscuity) directly causes the destruction of society and define "destruction" as well, because I might think what you call "destruction" to be something good. Until you do that, I'm just going to ignore your long winded posts.

Even though "correlation =/ causation" many scientific studies do rely on correlations, like in sociology and psychology. So if you want to discount all studies involving correlations, then you're missing out on a lot of science. But you can ignore anything you want, friend. :)

Weightaholic
12-26-2009, 06:52 PM
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,420 for "naked, screaming, and covered in someone else's blood". (0.24 seconds)

strong cliched witticism

(in before you whine about ad hominems without understanding what ad hominem means)

o_O

Damn. Do you google everything I post?

Here, google "creepy stalker"....

SDC77
12-26-2009, 06:59 PM
So if sex brings a husband and wife closer, why is it wrong for sex to bring two unmarried people closer? Where in the bible does it lay out importance of moderation anyway? Also, if it is A-OK for a husband and wife to have sex, what would be wrong with them having sex 10 times a day? Who decides what constitutes moderation?

Not being difficult for the sake of being so, just would like someone to answer these questions.

Bahai.Lifter
12-26-2009, 09:50 PM
So if sex brings a husband and wife closer, why is it wrong for sex to bring two unmarried people closer? Where in the bible does it lay out importance of moderation anyway?

Because unmarried people should not have that level of intimacy if they want to be chaste. Chastity involves completely avoiding all sexual relations before marriage.

I'm not speaking from a Christian point of view, since I'm not a Christian. But I'm sure there is a Christian here who could answer that for you if you'd like the Christian perspective.




Also, if it is A-OK for a husband and wife to have sex, what would be wrong with them having sex 10 times a day? Who decides what constitutes moderation?

My definition of "moderation" in regards to sex wasn't re how many times it is done, it was in regards to who was doing it (i.e., unmarried couple vs. married couple). I'm sure the husband and wife can figure that part out for themselves. Religion let's us think for ourselves and make wise decisions within the bounds that God has set.




Not being difficult for the sake of being so, just would like someone to answer these questions.

No problem. This is the place to discuss it, brother. :)

ONtop888
12-26-2009, 10:00 PM
Good posts Bahai! Furthermore, I haven't read any scientific journal articles that talk about co-habitation being the cause for broken homes, divorce, but I have read that pre-marital sex, with multiple partners, has a strong correlation with divorce, cheating, monogamy.

ONtop888
12-26-2009, 10:09 PM
So if sex brings a husband and wife closer, why is it wrong for sex to bring two unmarried people closer? Where in the bible does it lay out importance of moderation anyway? Also, if it is A-OK for a husband and wife to have sex, what would be wrong with them having sex 10 times a day? Who decides what constitutes moderation?

Not being difficult for the sake of being so, just would like someone to answer these questions.

Good questions. Sex does have a unitive aspect to it, helping to strengthen the relationship of couples in a very holistic manner. From a Christian's perspective, it is wrong to have pre-marital sex, or "no strings attached" sex without serious commitment, because marriage was intended by God to be a mutual-giving of oneself, an equal balance of feminine and masculine traits that converge together as one flesh, in which the Hebrew of Genesis is translated not only as physical, but spiritual and emotional, as further explained in supplemental Jewish texts, which unfortunately was lost for much of the Christian era (where Christians understood that meaning as being physical, and adapted it to Stoic philosophy).

The Bible doesn't directly lay out the practice of sexual moderation. What it does state is that:
"The husband must fulfill his (sexual) duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another (of sex)." 1 Corinthians 7:3-5

Bahai.Lifter
12-26-2009, 10:48 PM
Good posts Bahai! Furthermore, I haven't read any scientific journal articles that talk about co-habitation being the cause for broken homes, divorce, but I have read that pre-marital sex, with multiple partners, has a strong correlation with divorce, cheating, monogamy.

Thanks brother. Yeah, the types of journal articles you mention sound similar to the ones I've seen. Thanks for mentioning that.

KRANE
12-26-2009, 10:53 PM
Basically, there's nothing inherently wrong with it and if the idea of god wasn't around there would be nothing wrong with it.

But because god said it's wrong, it's wrong. Even if it isn't wrong.


Retarded.Retarded? Really? If nothing is wrong, then everything is right? So if somebody, anybody, want to have sex with your then it's alright? Because nothing is wrong. Right?

As for the OP, if sex was inherently wrong there would be no sex. Thing is, once a man makes a commitment to the laws of God, he must be able to overcome he innate desires which shows he is no longer a creature of unbridled animal urges.

Still, God's word does not restrict you from sex, rather, stipulates a manner in which it is holy. Since a man and women joined becomes one, a vessel of God cannot become one with something that is unholy--it tarnishes the one who has commuted himself, and presents as an insult to God by joining with her.

Think about it, would you present someone you considered important, a gift that had been used and soiled?

The other half is the natural protection against STD's: Choose one monogamous partner, and none of those things are an issue. Are you beginning to see how man's disobedience to God law creates his problems? Luckily, God give you a way through it, all we need do is follow it.

Vorian
12-27-2009, 02:28 AM
Retarded? Really? If nothing is wrong, then everything is right? So if somebody, anybody, want to have sex with your then it's alright? Because nothing is wrong. Right?

As for the OP, if sex was inherently wrong there would be no sex. Thing is, once a man makes a commitment to the laws of God, he must be able to overcome he innate desires which shows he is no longer a creature of unbridled animal urges.

Still, God's word does not restrict you from sex, rather, stipulates a manner in which it is holy. Since a man and women joined becomes one, a vessel of God cannot become one with something that is unholy--it tarnishes the one who has commuted himself, and presents as an insult to God by joining with her.

Think about it, would you present someone you considered important, a gift that had been used and soiled?

The other half is the natural protection against STD's: Choose one monogamous partner, and none of those things are an issue. Are you beginning to see how man's disobedience to God law creates his problems? Luckily, God give you a way through it, all we need do is follow it.

Newsflash: the "rules" in Bible are outdated. You can thank me later.

Geno
12-27-2009, 02:30 AM
Nope. Or going naked when appropriate.

Uptight has caused too many deaths.

jf1
12-27-2009, 04:54 AM
Good posts Bahai! Furthermore, I haven't read any scientific journal articles that talk about co-habitation being the cause for broken homes, divorce, but I have read that pre-marital sex, with multiple partners, has a strong correlation with divorce, cheating, monogamy.

wut?

jf1
12-27-2009, 04:58 AM
Think about it, would you present someone you considered important, a gift that had been used and soiled?



so someone who has dared had sex outside the bounds stipulated by your jewish god 2000years ago is tarnished because they are dirty?
:rolleyes:

Bahai.Lifter
12-27-2009, 07:26 AM
The other half is the natural protection against STD's: Choose one monogamous partner, and none of those things are an issue. Are you beginning to see how man's disobedience to God law creates his problems? Luckily, God give you a way through it, all we need do is follow it.

Well said!

Enso
12-27-2009, 08:30 AM
The Bible doesn't directly lay out the practice of sexual moderation. What it does state is that:
"The husband must fulfill his (sexual) duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another (of sex)." 1 Corinthians 7:3-5

Is that the NAS translation? The NIV reads much better. I don't know which is truer to the original, but the NIV sure does read better imho:

3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Although it does read better, it still opens up an avenue for abuse due to the assertion of 'mutual consent'. I understand the jest of what it is referring to, but I can see how such a statement can lead to the justification of someone forcing themselves on someone because of non-mutual consent...and being un-willing to take their partners desires into consideration simply because they couldn't control themselves (though the last bit in this passage does attempt to address that).

JAGERBOY
12-27-2009, 12:09 PM
So what happened in this thread? I was too busy this weekend having pre-maritial sex too keep up with it. Cliffs?

KRANE
12-27-2009, 12:54 PM
Newsflash: the "rules" in Bible are outdated. You can thank me later.WRONG! Human desire does not come with an expiration date. We're the same loathsome, corrupt, and selfish creature today as we were 50,000 years ago.
So what happened in this thread? I was too busy this weekend having pre-maritial sex too keep up with it. Cliffs?You're a sinner! :p

Bahai.Lifter
12-27-2009, 01:09 PM
So what happened in this thread? I was too busy this weekend having pre-maritial sex too keep up with it. Cliffs?

Cliffs:

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/9/24/633893854280158920-doingitwrong.jpg



:D

mingo3403
12-27-2009, 01:13 PM
kinda like when the government says you can't have buttsecks but instead of paying for it after you die in an eternity of hell, you pay fines lol. Seems like the government is a form of religion in a sense that they control you, but they want payment for your sins (breaking laws) now.

Vorian
12-27-2009, 01:20 PM
WRONG! Human desire does not come with an expiration date. We're the same loathsome, corrupt, and selfish creature today as we were 50,000 years ago.

I'm surprised. Judging from your posts I thought you were one of the "6000 year old Earth" worshipers.

And I didn't mean that human desire is outdated. I meant the rules in the Bible that say "sex is wrong" are outdated. It was written by barbarians for God's sake, are you going to believe their word over modern, educated men's...?

...please don't say that yes you will because it is the word of God. There is literally NO proof at all that the Bible was inspired by "God".

KRANE
12-27-2009, 01:29 PM
I'm surprised. Judging from your posts I thought you were one of the "6000 year old Earth" worshipers.Live and learn.


And I didn't mean that human desire is outdated. I meant the rules in the Bible that say "sex is wrong" are outdated.First, I know what you mean, but maybe you need to read the response again. And second, the Bible doesn't say that sex is wrong.
It was written by barbarians for God's sake, are you going to believe their word over modern, educated men's...?

...please don't say that yes you will because it is the word of God. There is literally NO proof at all that the Bible was inspired by "God".If that's your argument, then nothing is believable.

And by the way, when you ask a question then answer it, it means you really didn't want to believe the answer in the first place. In that case, just accept your decision, and your fate!

Bahai.Lifter
12-27-2009, 01:35 PM
kinda like when the government says you can't have buttsecks but instead of paying for it after you die in an eternity of hell, you pay fines lol. Seems like the government is a form of religion in a sense that they control you, but they want payment for your sins (breaking laws) now.

Some people look at the laws as control, but the spiritual laws are for our own protection and salvation; for our own good, in other words. We may not understand all the wisdom behind the laws, but that's our shortcoming. Think of a kid who wants to eat only candy for all of his meals, instead of vegetables. The father, knowing better than his son, out of love commands his son to eat vegetables because vegetables are good for the health. Similarly, the children of men need guidance from their Heavenly Father for protection. Some of His children are rebellious; the rebellious ones suffer by reason of their own actions. Some of His children follow His precepts, and benefit from them. Later on, after following His laws, as the children "grow up," they begin to see the wisdom behind them. They may not immediately realize the importance of the Laws; however, for their own protection, they should follow the Laws.

Further, some people think that rejecting the Laws of God leads to their "liberty" or "freedom," but, in reality, it's the opposite. For example, Baha'u'llah (Founder of the Baha'i Faith; www.bahaullah.org) says this about His Laws:


Consider the pettiness of men's minds. They ask for that which injureth them, and cast away the thing that profiteth them. They are, indeed, of those that are far astray. We find some men desiring liberty, and priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths of ignorance.

Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is the Reckoner, the All-Knowing. Know ye that the embodiment of liberty and its symbol is the animal. That which beseemeth man is submission unto such restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance, and guard him against the harm of the mischief-maker. Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity and wickedness.

Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, verily, are the All-Knowing.

Say: True liberty consisteth in man's submission unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were men to observe that which We have sent down unto them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Happy is the man that hath apprehended the Purpose of God in whatever He hath revealed from the Heaven of His Will that pervadeth all created things. Say: The liberty that profiteth you is to be found nowhere except in complete servitude unto God, the Eternal Truth. Whoso hath tasted of its sweetness will refuse to barter it for all the dominion of earth and heaven.

[The Kitab-i-Aqdas, pars. 122-25]



Back to the example of parents: one difference between God and our physical parents, however, is that God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, since "knowledge" and "wisdom" are parts of His Own creation. He is the Straight Path. So if we want to succeed, we should turn to God's knowledge, not to the knowledge of men, or to ourselves. We have to be detached from our own ideas and preconceptions, and be open to God's precepts because they really are the best thing for us, if we look at them with our inner (spiritual) eyes.


"O SON OF BEING! Thou art My lamp and My light is in thee. Get thou from it thy radiance and seek none other than Me. For I have created thee rich and have bountifully shed My favor upon thee." (Baha'u'llah, The Hidden Words)

Vorian
12-27-2009, 01:40 PM
And by the way, when you ask a question then answer it, it means you really didn't want to believe the answer in the first place. In that case, just accept your decision, and your fate!

ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY
(1) I have proof that God exists.
(2) I won't bother to tell you what it is because, being atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Tiffany Wantsmore
12-27-2009, 01:41 PM
So you're basically saying people can't think for themselves. Sounds about right.

AKR
12-27-2009, 02:03 PM
I'm surprised. Judging from your posts I thought you were one of the "6000 year old Earth" worshipers.


lol, Krane hasn't read the Old Testament, so he doesn't know about that stuff.

KRANE
12-27-2009, 04:12 PM
ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY
(1) I have proof that God exists.
(2) I won't bother to tell you what it is because, being atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway.
(3) Therefore, God exists.You do realize that you can't see me either. Here's more:

* Do crazy people know they're insane?
* Why do people dream?
* Where does your mind come from?
* When you're asleep, where does your mind go?
* Prove to me that the mind exist?
* When you talk to yourself, who are you talking to?
* What is the difference between light and darkness?
* Can you see in the dark?
* Can you think without words?
* What is thought?
kinda like when the government says you can't have buttsecks but instead of paying for it after you die in an eternity of hell, you pay fines lol. Seems like the government is a form of religion in a sense that they control you, but they want payment for your sins (breaking laws) now.Funny how that works out isn't it. I guess that means it's not just because I say so after all?

May of the laws of man sprang from the laws of God.

ONtop888
12-27-2009, 05:15 PM
Is that the NAS translation? The NIV reads much better. I don't know which is truer to the original, but the NIV sure does read better imho:

3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Although it does read better, it still opens up an avenue for abuse due to the assertion of 'mutual consent'. I understand the jest of what it is referring to, but I can see how such a statement can lead to the justification of someone forcing themselves on someone because of non-mutual consent...and being un-willing to take their partners desires into consideration simply because they couldn't control themselves (though the last bit in this passage does attempt to address that).

Yeah, I was tired last night and just typed in the Bible verse, not paying any attention to the translation. I've found the NIV and the NAS to be lacking, I prefer the NRSV.

TallDH
12-28-2009, 04:21 AM
WRONG! Human desire does not come with an expiration date. We're the same loathsome, corrupt, and selfish creature today as we were 50,000 years ago.You're a sinner! :p

THAT is what is wrong with todays society! That brainwashing that we are some worthless, corrupt being that doesn't deserve to be alive.

That's a bunch of bullchit and, deep down, you know it. That thinking is the catalyst behind why people have broken homes or grow up depressed or become outcasts.

That is my biggest beef with religion and it's why I have personally cast it off. I'm not a Christian anymore. I used to hardcore religious, believe it or not. There is just WAY too much hypocrisy in the church and religion for it to be of any worth to further mankind in a positive direction.

AKR
12-28-2009, 08:57 AM
So what happened in this thread? I was too busy this weekend having pre-maritial sex too keep up with it. Cliffs?


*Religious people have been cherry picking scenarios, only focusing on certain situations which would be negative while ignoring others than wouldn't.

*Religious people are confusing the act of sex or premarital sex with promiscuity.

*Religious people say that god says it's wrong so he must know what he's talking about.

*Religious people say it hurts the soul but offer no proof of a soul or the negative effects.

*Bahai Lifter writes so damn much he needs to make his own cliffs since I don't pay much attention to his posts.