StarGateWars Forums

what?
Get back to the castle and opress people

Here's a question:
Why would you think what ever was written a couple of millenia ago has more moral authority than what was a written a couple of centuries (or decades) ago?

Lol Sandman.

I created this thread to show that sex before marriage is not immoral as far as the bible is concerned.

I'm making what i consider a reasonable argument for my stance on the issue.

I'm not wrong just because you don't think I'm wrong. You have not demonstrate how I am wrong . This is how compeating ideas are measured.

And, so far you have failed to demonstrate why my idea is incorrect, I have refuted everything you have wrote logically and with good reasoning.

You have just taken what i have said mostly out of context to try and reinforce your concept of faith and your religeon. You're the one suffering from confirmation bias here. which is clearly demonstrated from your lack of understanding shown in your own arguments.

Sex before marriage(not done out of lust) is not morally wrong as far as the bible is concerned. It is a great injustice to the christian youth that this myth continues to persist and guilt these same people over their natural feelings. Instead of putting them in the proper context that they deserve.

You sould feel ashamed for trying to persecute yougn adults based on something you don't understand. But you don't... because obviously like most christians you enjoy picking and choosing what lessons to follow from the bible.

One thing I absolutely despise is fear mongering....

Thriller wrote:Sex before marriage (not done out of lust) is not morally wrong as far as the bible is concerned. It is a great injustice to the christian youth that this myth continues to persist and guilt these same people over their natural feelings. Instead of putting them in the proper context that they deserve.

Why IS it done, than?
If it's out of love, than why not marry?
What natural feelings?
Love? again, marriage (or, as the church would say holy matrimony)
Lust? you've just ruled that out as a legitimate reason.
What other feelings drive people to have sex (okay, I can see anger and hate as legitimate answers here, but somehow I sex ensued by either would constitute a sin worse than one ensued by lust)?

the real reason the church objects to sex out of wedlock is because it is blasphemy and heresy.
you see, sex is sacred in the Judeo-christian tradition (admittedly, some fanatic christian treat it as the original sin, but this is not an original christian concept EDIT:Okay, after reading Paul's Letter to the Corinthians, i stand corrected. Boy, you have a screwed up religion.). It is the means of propegating, the (chronologically) first of the 613 commandments ("Mitzvot") ("And God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply" Genesis 1:28).
And, as all things sacred, it should not be taken lightly.
it should be practiced under respectful circumstances and with the proper thought in mind. And that thought is to propegate, thus fullfilling God's command, and not to "screw around", fullfiling nougt but momentary pleasures.
Also, remember that men (and women) were made in the image of god ("And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." Genesis 1:27). thus, making our own bodies of holy nature.
So, just as the church would object to the use of one of thosh incense-burning thingies as a bong, or to the use of a cross as a club, so it objects to the use of our bodies for somthing which is less than holy.

EDIT: Damn, I'm so wasted on atheism. Just think how I could induce guilt trips and fanatic fervors in impressionable youths.

When two people are in a mutualy consenting relationship and wish to express their feelings physically, it's not lust.

When you go to the bar and pick up a girl for a one nighter, or solicit a protitute. That is lust.
Really only you know when your being lustful and when your in love, but love among people requires receprocation. Lust does not.

I don't really want to turn this thread into a discussio on "what is love." hitch.

World English Dictionary
lust (lʌst)

— n
1. a strong desire for sexual gratification
2. a strong desire or drive

— vb
3. ( intr; often foll by after or for ) to have a lust (for)

[Old English; related to Old High German lust desire, Old Norse losti sexual desire, Latin lascīvus playful, wanton, lustful. Compare listless ]

edit: I also don't agree with that interpretation of the text you put forth, but i'll get to that when i have time.

Thriller wrote:When two people are in a mutualy consenting relationship and wish to express their feelings physically, it's not lust.

When you go to the bar and pick up a girl for a one nighter, or solicit a protitute. That is lust.
Really only you know when your being lustful and when your in love, but love among people requires receprocation. Lust does not.

I don't really want to turn this thread into a discussio on "what is love." hitch.

World English Dictionary
lust (lʌst)

— n
1. a strong desire for sexual gratification
2. a strong desire or drive

— vb
3. ( intr; often foll by after or for ) to have a lust (for)

[Old English; related to Old High German lust desire, Old Norse losti sexual desire, Latin lascīvus playful, wanton, lustful. Compare listless ]

edit: I also don't agree with that interpretation of the text who put forth, but i'll get to that when i have time.

Well, the church the church would argue that if they're in love they should marry. And until they do, they should conquer their basic desires.

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:When two people are in a mutualy consenting relationship and wish to express their feelings physically, it's not lust.

When you go to the bar and pick up a girl for a one nighter, or solicit a protitute. That is lust.
Really only you know when your being lustful and when your in love, but love among people requires receprocation. Lust does not.

I don't really want to turn this thread into a discussio on "what is love." hitch.

World English Dictionary
lust (lʌst)

— n
1. a strong desire for sexual gratification
2. a strong desire or drive

— vb
3. ( intr; often foll by after or for ) to have a lust (for)

[Old English; related to Old High German lust desire, Old Norse losti sexual desire, Latin lascīvus playful, wanton, lustful. Compare listless ]

edit: I also don't agree with that interpretation of the text who put forth, but i'll get to that when i have time.

Well, the church the church would argue that if they're in love they should marry. And until they do, they should conquer their basic desires.

They would argue it would be the best thing to do; That's just advice though.
They would be wrong in saying not getting married is wrong or sinful since they have no scripture to cite to oultine the offense to God they would be commiting.

edit: Also i Would not suggest their desires basic, that implies immorality. They are natural gifts from god and if they are sinful or not, depends on what we choose to do with them.

All sins are clearly outlines in bible; sex before marriage not being one of them

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:When two people are in a mutualy consenting relationship and wish to express their feelings physically, it's not lust.

When you go to the bar and pick up a girl for a one nighter, or solicit a protitute. That is lust.
Really only you know when your being lustful and when your in love, but love among people requires receprocation. Lust does not.

I don't really want to turn this thread into a discussio on "what is love." hitch.

World English Dictionary
lust (lʌst)

— n
1. a strong desire for sexual gratification
2. a strong desire or drive

— vb
3. ( intr; often foll by after or for ) to have a lust (for)

[Old English; related to Old High German lust desire, Old Norse losti sexual desire, Latin lascīvus playful, wanton, lustful. Compare listless ]

edit: I also don't agree with that interpretation of the text who put forth, but i'll get to that when i have time.

Well, the church the church would argue that if they're in love they should marry. And until they do, they should conquer their basic desires.

They would argue it would be the best thing to do; That's just advice though.
They would be wrong in saying not getting married is wrong or sinful since they have no scripture to cite to oultine the offense to God they would be commiting .

They would argue that sex out of wedlock (and, in the case of the roman catholic church, any sex not meant to procreate) is lustful, by definition.
And, they have the argument I providede earlier

I adressed that argument in my edit.

Thriller wrote:I adressed that argument in my edit.

Technically, no you didn't. You just said you will.
Anyway, I'll wait for it.

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:I adressed that argument in my edit.

Technically, no you didn't. You just said you will.
Anyway, I'll wait for it.

I thought you were referring to something else. I'll reply to that when i get the time to do it properly.

yah damn devils advocate.

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:I adressed that argument in my edit.

Technically, no you didn't. You just said you will.
Anyway, I'll wait for it.

I thought you were referring to something else. I'll reply to that when i get the time to do it properly.

yah damn devils advocate.

Hey, you know the most important person in any democracy is the chairman of the opposition.

Thriller wrote:I created this thread to show that sex before marriage is not immoral as far as the bible is concerned.

I'm making what i consider a reasonable argument for my stance on the issue.

I'm not wrong just because you don't think I'm wrong. You have not demonstrate how I am wrong . This is how compeating ideas are measured.

I have serious doubts in your so called evidence and claims.

You are yet to post evidence for your 'translation' of porneia.

I have demonstrated how you are wrong.

I have used, Bible verses, Contextualisation of them, and the translation of particular words.

And, so far you have failed to demonstrate why my idea is incorrect, I have refuted everything you have wrote logically and with good reasoning.

Lol what?

You ignore all my examples and evidences.

Or state my definitions are incorrect with no proof.

I do assume you cannot read ancient Greek, Hebrew or Latin. So where do you get your 'correct' definitions.

Where is your 'logic'. You state and example and say, as seen, ergo, it is right.

You have just taken what i have said mostly out of context to try and reinforce your concept of faith and your religeon. You're the one suffering from confirmation bias here. which is clearly demonstrated from your lack of understanding shown in your own arguments.

Out of context? How did I take you out of context? unless you failed to create a rational context (if any context). Then any statement that wont agree with you is 'out of context'.

Sex before marriage(not done out of lust) is not morally wrong as far as the bible is concerned. It is a great injustice to the christian youth that this myth continues to persist and guilt these same people over their natural feelings. Instead of putting them in the proper context that they deserve.

Going to copy and pastea this:
Why IS it done, than?
What other feelings (other than love) drive people to have sex which is not tainted by lust?

I know many who regret having sex before marriage. It weakens the relationship of marriage, it trivialises marriage.

I know many who have no regret saving themselves for marriage, rather they were glad in saving themselves.

You sould feel ashamed for trying to persecute yougn adults based on something you don't understand. But you don't... because obviously like most christians you enjoy picking and choosing what lessons to follow from the bible.

One thing I absolutely despise is fear mongering....

Im not persecuting anyone, If you sleep around, I really dont care. If you call yourself Christian and wh-ore yourself, Well that is between you and God.

The facts are; if you choose a life of promiscuity you run high chances in getting;
Unexpected Pregancies,
STDs,
Relationship issues later on.
Fertility issues.

That is reality, not scaremongering.

Now. Please try to address my previous posts, as I do not want to keep on repeating myself.

How on earth does having sex affect oyur fertility, even having lots of it??

I mean, thats a new one for me to hear. Plus its not really backed up my what we know medically of those systems, care to expand on that please

A life of promiscuity can effect fertility. Rather, should i say, Infertility.

Wether this be another effect of STDs, or the lack of time for men to recuperate and replenish supplies.