Kylilin Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 When did Pat Buchanon's disciples get here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold leader Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 I really don't see what's so bad about having sex before marriage. But I'm not Catholic of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 Because it's a violation of the 6th commandment (or 7th in some traditions). If you are any type of Christian (you did not make that clear), having sex before marriage should be considered a sin. If you are not any type of Christian, the Commandments probably don't mean that much to you...unless you're Jewish...or maybe a Muslim. But remember that to commit a mortal sin, one must have a complete understanding that it is a mortal sin and he must freely choose do it even with that knowledge. So that is not to say every instance of pre-marital sex that happens in the world is an instance of mortal sin - it is wrong, but it will not damn the people invloved, if they do not realize it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold leader Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 First of all, you should know that I'm a protestant, reformed that is. I suppose the commandment you're referring to is "thou shalt not commit adultery." IMO this is defined as having sexual intercourse with a man/woman that is either married or having a relationship. I think that the origin of the idea that having pre-marital sex is a sin, lies in the ancient Middle East. As this is still the case over there, it's next to impossible for a girl to marry if she is not a virgin. Sex before marriage would then have a devestating effect on a women's life, and thus should be considered a sin. Nowadays, in western societies, this is no longer the case. Pre-marital sex is IMHO not a violation of the 6th/7th commandment anymore and therefore not a sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BasiliskJC Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 Thats the problem with people today. If they don't like something in the Bible they change it, or just ignore it, so that they can do what they want. Saying that things chang over the years, but they couldn't be more wrong. If God put something in the Bible he put it there for a reason and there would be no reason to change. God said things like this would happen in the last days of the Earth. That the everything that was once thought of as good would turn bad and the bad would turn to good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 Originally posted by Gold leader First of all, you should know that I'm a protestant, reformed that is. I suppose the commandment you're referring to is "thou shalt not commit adultery." IMO this is defined as having sexual intercourse with a man/woman that is either married or having a relationship. I think that the origin of the idea that having pre-marital sex is a sin, lies in the ancient Middle East. As this is still the case over there, it's next to impossible for a girl to marry if she is not a virgin. Sex before marriage would then have a devestating effect on a women's life, and thus should be considered a sin. Nowadays, in western societies, this is no longer the case. Pre-marital sex is IMHO not a violation of the 6th/7th commandment anymore and therefore not a sin. You are ignoring the spirit of the commandment. The Church has taught from the very beginning that fornication is a sin against that commandment. But if you need it stated explicitly, then check Heb 13:4 - "Adulterers and fornicators God will judge but the marriage bed is undefiled" - that about says it all. Also check I Corinthians 6:9-11 - "Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God" - so, it's quite clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 Originally posted by Kylilin When did Pat Buchanon's disciples get here? The question should be "When did the liberals show up?" We've always been here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR2000Z Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 Originally posted by Keyan Farlander You are ignoring the spirit of the commandment. The Church has taught from the very beginning that fornication is a sin against that commandment. But if you need it stated explicitly, then check Heb 13:4 - "Adulterers and fornicators God will judge but the marriage bed is undefiled" - that about says it all. Also check I Corinthians 6:9-11 - "Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God" - so, it's quite clear. And that goes the story of King David as well. I think he was staring at some naked chick taking a shower on the roof (which, I suppose, was the style at the time-a very sinfull style). And then it resulted in an affair. He was really upset with this, that he put himelf in extreme limits to apologize to God. (I haven't heard this story in years so I might of missed something.) You know, religion is another good reason why women = evil. Temtation is to great with them all around all the time and politics always get in the way. I bet God should have skipped this whole women thing and make the world full of men - shipping men down to Earth with 1st-class FEDEX boxes or that transport thing that was seen in the Terminator movies. Then again, in front of the eyes of God and fellow aliens, that will make us look like a bunch of homosexs. So women has at least have SOME kind of use after all. But that still leave us with the temptaion problem. Life sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 I think the liberals started to show up when they started getting ranked on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by JR2000Z You know, religion is another good reason why women = evil. Temtation is to great with them all around all the time and politics always get in the way. I bet God should have skipped this whole women thing and make the world full of men - shipping men down to Earth with 1st-class FEDEX boxes or that transport thing that was seen in the Terminator movies. Then again, in front of the eyes of God and fellow aliens, that will make us look like a bunch of homosexs. So women has at least have SOME kind of use after all. But that still leave us with the temptaion problem. Life sucks. The only problem I see with this way of thinking is that if we say that God created everything, then he also must have created the human sex drive, and in creating it he must approve of it and intend for it to be used. Therefore, what you are defining as 'temptation' is just another aspect of human existence that we were all meant to experience and cannot be viewed as evil, since God created it. Just a thought: Were Adam and Eve ever married? I don't remember reading that anywhere, yet they were commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" which apparently they did by having children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BasiliskJC Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 God said for man (humanity) to multiply and fill the Earth. God created the love that a man has for a woman and visa versa. But he did not creat the lust of the eye and the flesh, you are an idiot if you think that. That was the devil. People often under estimate what he can do. He is he rout of all evil, kinda like money is (having money is not a sin, but the love of money over God is). Having sex with your wife is a gift from God, so to speak, and you can do it as often as you want. Having sex with someone who is not your wife is a sin. Having lustful thoughts is just something we all have to deal with. We are not perfect and shouldn't expect to not sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by edlib The only problem I see with this way of thinking is that if we say that God created everything, then he also must have created the human sex drive, and in creating it he must approve of it and intend for it to be used. Therefore, what you are defining as 'temptation' is just another aspect of human existence that we were all meant to experience and cannot be viewed as evil, since God created it. Not everything in the world is here because God wished it to be. Evil and sin were never part of the plan, but because God respects man's free will (and the free will of the angels) he allowed them to be brought in by man's actions. But in the case of sexual drive, it is supposed to be used (in the proper context), and for good purpose. But I think <b>JR</b> was not entirely serious with that post. Were Adam and Eve ever married? I don't remember reading that anywhere, yet they were commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" which apparently they did by having children. Eve was created as a wife for Adam. That part of the story of creation is in many ways a metaphor for marriage - about how men and women were created to be together in a specific holy bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by Keyan Farlander Eve was created as a wife for Adam. That part of the story of creation is in many ways a metaphor for marriage - about how men and women were created to be together in a specific holy bond. Thats just another example of how people use the Bible to justify their point, some people quote the Bible verse for verse, yet others like to "read between the lines". Pick one people, if you are going to quote the Bible to prove your point, don't start talking about metaphors in the Bible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by Kylilin Thats just another example of how people use the Bible to justify their point, some people quote the Bible verse for verse, yet others like to "read between the lines". Pick one people, if you are going to quote the Bible to prove your point, don't start talking about metaphors in the Bible... There are many levels on which the Bible can be understood. Taking the whole thing literally or taking the whole thing as metaphor is going too far in one direction or the other. I don't believe I have any right to interpret the Bible in any way I want - I accept the interpretation (which this understanding of the story of creation is consistent with) that has been laid out for me by those in authority to do so. Authority that comes from the chair of St. Peter. It was the Church that defined the Bible and the Church alone that teaches what it means. Any such personal interpretations, in my opinion, are without justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by Keyan Farlander But I think JR was not entirely serious with that post. Neither was I, for the most part. I was attempting to stir up more conversation on the subject. I just forgot the I do like to make sure people are really thinking about what they are saying (or in this case, posting) however. Much harm has been done down the ages by equating natural human sexuality and sexual feelings (in every context, including marrage) with sin. That's just not true. Humans are sexual beings, and, historically, total repression has done far more harm than good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 How did this topic get off onto a religious bent? You people, jeez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR2000Z Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Were talking about sex and religion here Niner. If you dont like sex or religion, then you dont have to reply. (But I would think that you would like the sex part. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Got that right. I'm not too big on the religion thing, but sex...hellz, now there's a topic. I'm a guy, so sue me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by Keyan Farlander There are many levels on which the Bible can be understood. Taking the whole thing literally or taking the whole thing as metaphor is going too far in one direction or the other. I don't believe I have any right to interpret the Bible in any way I want - I accept the interpretation (which this understanding of the story of creation is consistent with) that has been laid out for me by those in authority to do so. Authority that comes from the chair of St. Peter. It was the Church that defined the Bible and the Church alone that teaches what it means. Any such personal interpretations, in my opinion, are without justification. This is where I disagree...the Church has not even existed as long as the Bible, so how can they define it? (Or, at least be the ultimate authority on it...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR2000Z Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Through faith dude! Faith! Seper Fi! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Faith in God? Or the Church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Gotta have a helluva lotta faith to believe in religion. All omnipotent-deity based religions require faith. Still not too big on it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR2000Z Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 We all know that the Old Testament was taken place and written before Jesus right? During that time, religious scholors wrote down what happended. The books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and the rest of the New Testiment were written not by themselves but scholors as well. From what I was told, the Popes Infallibility (meaning that, being the descendent of St. Peter, has the power to change information as he see fit) tells what should such information shoud and shouldn't be in the Bible. Of course, they try to make the Bible a Christian Book, not a Catholic one. (Again, its been years sinse I learned about this. I might of screwed someting up.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR2000Z Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by Rogue Nine Gotta have a helluva lotta faith to believe in religion. All omnipotent-deity based religions require faith. Not to mention caffine. Last night, I stayed up 2:30 AM talking about religion to you people. Its 1:02 right now, so I hope I dont have to sleep through Chruch today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Mass is at 6 PM for me :D I get to sleep til noon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.