Save sex? (1 Viewer)

[grk_styl]

I'm imagining how bad your wedding night would be...trying to break the hymen, the pain etc etc. (I'm generalising and suggesting that a lot of girls go through pain the first time). I want my wedding night to begin a life-long of wild, passionate sex (that's if I have enough energy after ym wedding night haha)

Ok in all seriousness...I just think it should be a decision that YOU make. Not one by your parents, your peers or the Bible. Like i said before, at my Catholic High school we were taught not to take the Bible literally...so I don't. I believe in God and I try not to commit "sins".

Let's not forget that the Bible was written during the stone ages where they believed that women were considered "impure" during their period and were forbidden to enter church or be seen in public (i think?).

So basically, if you're going to follow the Bible's translation of 'no sex before marriage' then you are also considered impure and dirty once a month, every month.

 

[withoutaface]

The Jews made it so you were dirty the week of your period, and the week directly before/after too.

 

[grk_styl]

But it's in the Bible right?

So technically, if you "follow the Bible" and believe in no sex before marriage, then you should also believe that you are dirty for the week of and before/after your period? Then you'll be dirty for 3 out of the 4 weeks per month!

(not YOU specifically lol)

 

[Ennaybur]

oh I know I am

 

[BradCube]

Why do none of these christians respond to me? I am of the understanding that even lusting someone is to commit the sin, so if she's already committed it why shouldn't she keep going - strictly from the perspective of jesus?

This thread kind of reminds me of the sex before marriage thread back a while ago.

Anyway, in answer to your question NTB, you are correct in saying that lusting after someone is a sin according to the bible, and indeed Jesus' own lips. But even if she has commited that already, that does not give her reason to continue doing it, or for that matter to start actually having sex.

It would be the same as saying that since I have stolen one thing it's ok for me to continuing stealing. Continuing to live in sin we have commited is not any more morally justifiable than it is to commit a whole lot of different sins.

I think this kind of ties into the issue that many people were getting at by saying that since you will be forgiven anyway, it is okay to sin as much as you like.

Jesus death is not an excuse for sin's to be commited. Do you think that you will be forgiven even when God know's perfectly well that you have no intention to change? Forgiveness is tied with repentance, meaning that you aim to turn from the sin that you have been commiting. Of course, we still may fail, but the effort to change must be present.

In answer to the original threadstarter, if you are a christian, then you know what is required by you in the bible. It's laid down perfectly clear in both the New and Old testaments. You should be waiting until marriage, like you have planned all along. So don't give into it, just because "it feels good" or your afraid that you will miss out.

Before I am bashed over the head by other posters here, I would like to point out that this view is from the perpective that absolute morality does exist. I am not trying to justifiy these views for anyone that doesn't agree. They are intended for the threadstater.

If abosulte morality doesn't exist, then stuff everything I have said because it really doesn't matter. For the orginal poster however, I'm assuming you do believe that the views in your bible are correct and as such, this post is intended for you.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Before I am bashed over the head by other posters here, I would like to point out that this view is from the perpective that absolute morality does exist. I am not trying to justifiy these views for anyone that doesn't agree. They are intended for the threadstater.

If abosulte morality doesn't exist, then stuff everything I have said because it really doesn't matter. For the orginal poster however, I'm assuming you do believe that the views in your bible are correct and as such, this post is intended for you.

I find your idea of absolute morality interesting. That it apparently *does exist*

I semi-agree on that, just hesitant on the wording. Although things like "thou shall not kill" seems like absolute morality, but then you always hit grey areas, such as in defense of your family, your country, and what you believe in to be right. (ie if you had to stop a killer from killing your family, or almost every random circumstance at war, which is not always against your enemy, things like mercy killing)

If you feel that if absolute morality does not exist = doesn't matter.

Surely we do not live in a world so black and white?

If the wording is "does absolute morality exist?" then I feel it is more a "no" then a "yes". Consider the amount of grey areas apparent in the most simplest of morals that derive from humanist values, such as not killing, not stealing. I still feel that even these basic values have their exceptions, and thus it is not absolute.

I'm not saying your idea about absolute morality is wrong. I don't totally disagree on it, yet I do however doubt that if there is no such thing as absolute morality, it does not necessarily mean that therefore everything does not matter.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Anyway, in answer to your question NTB, you are correct in saying that lusting after someone is a sin according to the bible, and indeed Jesus' own lips. But even if she has commited that already, that does not give her reason to continue doing it, or for that matter to start actually having sex.

My point is that according to the bible she has already committed the same sin as starting to have sex, so she might as well.

It would be the same as saying that since I have stolen one thing it's ok for me to continuing stealing.

No, that's a flawed analogy. A real analogy along those lines would be, if there was a law that said thinking about stealing something WAS to actually steal it, then by that law if you've thought about stealing product Z you might as well actually take the thing, as in the law's eyes there is no difference.

Can you see the difference between my analogy, which is more accurate and your own?

I think this kind of ties into the issue that many people were getting at by saying that since you will be forgiven anyway, it is okay to sin as much as you like.

I've studied christianity at school, so I'm personally not one of that crowd, I know christianity has answers to it which are quite good.

In answer to the original threadstarter, if you are a christian, then you know what is required by you in the bible. It's laid down perfectly clear in both the New and Old testaments.

You accept the Old Testament?

Anyway, While I agree that it is (to me) clear what the bible has to say on the matter, I have presented a pretty good loophole for her that still no christian has answered, the only way I imagine at the moment it could be wrong would be if the interpretation of that verse that I learnt in school and most christians seem to accept is in fact, wrong.

Anyway alot of stuff is laid out in the old testament/new testament... people don't always follow it? Why? Because they're able to work out that maybe what the bible says they should do is not always what is right.

Before I am bashed over the head by other posters here, I would like to point out that this view is from the perpective that absolute morality does exist.

I'm sorry, but no - I will challenge you, for both the threadstarter and any other girls that may be interested in this topic.

I am not trying to justifiy these views for anyone that doesn't agree. They are intended for the threadstater.

The threadstarter didn't indicate to me that she follows the bible 100% or anything, if she did, if she showed she was totally closed off from the idea that the bible could be fallable, then I would not have posted.

If abosulte morality doesn't exist, then stuff everything I have said because it really doesn't matter.

Actually it still does matter, as while the morals might not ultimately matter, to us mortals, living our mortal lives, they are important.

If the wording is "does absolute morality exist?"

UIC, absolute morality usually means that there is a perfect, moral answer to every question. I believe there are some moral stances that seem to just work perfectly here on earth and if we ever found other sentient life would probably work perfectly for them, just as with genes on earth we have examples of mutations that were very close to perfect, so they appear over and over again. But yea, don't confuse believing strongly in some morals, thinking they have a strong basis, with absolute morality.

Maybe i've misunderstood what you mean tho?

 

[BradCube]

I semi-agree on that, just hesitant on the wording. Although things like "thou shall not kill" seems like absolute morality, but then you always hit grey areas, such as in defense of your family, your country, and what you believe in to be right. (ie if you had to stop a killer from killing your family, or almost every random circumstance at war, which is not always against your enemy, things like mercy killing)

If you feel that if absolute morality does not exist = doesn't matter.

Surely we do not live in a world so black and white?

If the wording is "does absolute morality exist?" then I feel it is more a "no" then a "yes". Consider the amount of grey areas apparent in the most simplest of morals that derive from humanist values, such as not killing, not stealing. I still feel that even these basic values have their exceptions, and thus it is not absolute.

I'm not saying your idea about absolute morality is wrong. I don't totally disagree on it, yet I do however doubt that if there is no such thing as absolute morality, it does not necessarily mean that therefore everything does not matter.

Yeah, lol, it sure ends up a complicated issue. My original intention for the post was not to say that there is or is not an absolute truth but rather give advice assuming that there is.

having said that though, now that we are at this issue, I may as well give a bit of an explanation.

It seems to me that grey area's are not neccesarily and indictaion in regard to lack of morality, but rather are harder to define then other situations where it may be more clear cut (such as do not murder)

Also on the second issue, I should clarify myself. I did not mean everything does not matter as in there is no reason to existance, but rather specifically in regard to morality.

I think you understood this anyway so I will explain what I meant in that context. In our society we seem to function on pleasure = "right" and discomfort = "wrong" principal. In this regard, when we cause someone else discomfort (eg murdering them or stealing from them) we are doing something wrong and are punished according to our laws. This of course will still matter, as you can be punished and attempts to stop our world from falling in anarchy. Issue's however where pleasure is generally the outcome (eg sex before marriage) will not matter anymore if there is no absolute truth. This is the matter I was addressing.

Hope that makes a bit more sense

 

[Not-That-Bright]

BradCube - why is sex before marriage so wrong? I understand that it says it in the bible, but why did God prohibit it?

 

[BradCube]

No, that's a flawed analogy. A real analogy along those lines would be, if there was a law that said thinking about stealing something WAS to actually steal it, then by that law if you've thought about stealing product Z you might as well actually take the thing, as in the law's eyes there is no difference.

Can you see the difference between my analogy, which is more accurate and your own?

In your analogy the offender has in fact commited two acts. If it was infact wrong to think about stealing something that would be one offence. The second would be when they actually steal it.

In the biblical example you have Jesus is talking about the fact that it is just as wrong to lust over someone, as it is to commit adultery with them. He does not say that if you have lusted over someone you may aswell have sex with them anyway.

The second issue within this is that of lust. I don't think it works to simply say that it means thinking of the having sex with them. As in, it is not a passing thought.

Dictionary.com defines lust as:

To have an intense or obsessive desire, especially one that is sexual

With this in mind, we must note that is it not merely the thought, it is the desire which is intense and obsessive.

Anyway alot of stuff is laid out in the old testament/new testament... people don't always follow it? Why? Because they're able to work out that maybe what the bible says they should do is not always what is right.

I don't think that is quite accurate. In most cases the reasons that laws in the old testament (particularly leviticus) are not followed anymore are because they have been updated by the new covenent from the New Testament. This doesn't not mean Old Testament becomes unacceptable. It is the same God after all.

I will challenge you, for both the threadstarter and any other girls that may be interested in this topic.

I'm a male by the way

 

[BradCube]

This would take me ages to write out, so I'll refer you to an older post of mine in a similar thread that has the main reasons why I will be waiting for marriage.

http://community.boredofstudies.org/2153136/post-110.html

 

[Not-That-Bright]

In your analogy the offender has in fact commited two acts. If it was infact wrong to think about stealing something that would be one offence. The second would be when they actually steal it.

Err no, you're not understanding. In the bible, it means that lusting for someone IS THE SAME ACT as actually having sex with them. My analogy explained this using a make-believe law that said that "If you think about stealing an object, it is the same as stealing it" - therefore if you've thought about it, by physically taking it IN THE LAWS EYES you have only committed ONE act.

In the biblical example you have Jesus is talking about the fact that it is just as wrong to lust over someone, as it is to commit adultery with them. He does not say that if you have lusted over someone you may aswell have sex with them anyway.

No, he says that if you lust after someone then YOU HAVE COMMITTED ADULTERY. Not that it is 'as bad as committing adultery'.

Do not commit adultery.'[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt 5:27-28;&version=31;


If you want, you can say this only applies to people that are married (most christians I've met, how i've learnt of this verse seem to not apply it as such) and I'd have no real problem with that. However that then means that masturbation is fine.

Dictionary.com defines lust as:

To have an intense or obsessive desire, especially one that is sexual

Fine, doesn't bother me too much what the definition is. The common example i was given at school is that if you masturbate over someone, you have lusted over them. So it's roughly that level of desire, is that fair?

In most cases the reasons that laws in the old testament (particularly leviticus) are not followed anymore are because they have been updated by the new covenent from the New Testament.

No, in most cases people do whatever they feel is good within the confines of our society. Very few christians will read the old/new testament and compare the two.

I'm a male by the way

It doesn't matter.

http://community.boredofstudies.org/2153136/post-110.html

You're right, it is long. I'll rebut what you've written there, in that thread. However stuff that is answered in the form of 'what I want' etc, I'll ignore. What I'm after is more the reason why God believes that all humans should wait until marriage before having sex, not just the desires of one person.

For example

for me I only want that to be shared with one person, marriage commits to that .

 

[Anonymou5]

BradCube - why is sex before marriage so wrong? I understand that it says it in the bible, but why did God prohibit it?

You (Brad) forgot to answer the above.

 

[BradCube]

It's in the link to the other thread.

here it is again

http://community.boredofstudies.org/2153136/post-110.html

 

[BradCube]

Err no, you're not understanding. In the bible, it means that lusting for someone IS THE SAME ACT as actually having sex with them.

It doesn't mean that it is the exact same act. The one described in the bible is adultery committed in the heart, not adultery commited in the bed. They are both equally wrong acts however.

No, he says that if you lust after someone then YOU HAVE COMMITTED ADULTERY. Not that it is 'as bad as committing adultery'.

Same as above. He says that you have commited adultery in your heart. It does not say that by lusting you have actually slept with that person but rather have commited an act that is the same equivalent.

The common example i was given at school is that if you masturbate over someone, you have lusted over them. So it's roughly that level of desire, is that fair?

That seems about right. So taking this example, if you masturbate over someone then you are commiting a form of a adultery. It does not mean since you have masturabted over them though that you are not commited a sin by having adltery with them in real life.

No, in most cases people do whatever they feel is good within the confines of our society. Very few christians will read the old/new testament and compare the two.

Just because most people do what they feel is good doesn't mean what they are doing is good when we are dealing with absolute morality.

And I think I can agree with you that not many christians don't compare both the old and new testament much, but again this doesn't make it right for them to do that either.

It doesn't matter.

lol, yeah, not to the argument, I just thought it sounded like you thought I was a girl in the other post. lol.

What I'm after is more the reason why God believes that all humans should wait until marriage before having sex, not just the desires of one person.

There is a heap of stuff thoughout the whole thread. I was just trying to grab one post which had a fair bit in it. Take a read through the whole thread if you wish, it's pretty lengthy though.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It doesn't mean that it is the exact same act. The one described in the bible is adultery committed in the heart, not adultery commited in the bed. They are both equally wrong acts however.

So you believe that it makes a distinction between adultery in the heart and adultery in the bed with that sentence? How differently would the sentence be phrased if he meant that they were both equal acts then?

Do not commit adultery.'[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

See to me, for it to mean what you say, it should be phrased '... has already committed adultery in his heart with her'. An even better one would be 'Adultery of the Heart'. Where as for it to mean what I believe it does, it would be phrased exactly as is, 'He has already committed Adultery with her in his heart'.

I think the fact that it uses the word 'already' after talking about committing adultery, further aludes to the idea that it's saying they're one in the same act in the eyes of the lord.

It seems to me that he's saying in those two sentences, "You guys already know adultery is wrong. But understand that if someone has thought of a girl lustfully he has already committed adultery.'

 

[Anonymou5]

That seems reasonable...you've provided your opinion in that link so lets leave it at that.

 

[BradCube]

Yey! 10000 posts for you NTB! congratulations

Anyway back on topic, to me the phrasing in both forms put forward have the same meaning. The fact that it is in his heart in both show that there is a difference to the normal usual form of adultery.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes but the use of the word 'actually' and the fact that he brings it up in the context of adultery makes it seem much more to me as if my interpretation is more accurate. To add to that, why would God need to bring it up and say it's 'adultery in the heart' instead of simply saying that 'lusting is sin' ?

And no, just because it's in his heart does not mean that it's going to be considered different to the normal form of adultery (adultery usually involves married people btw ) in the eyes of God. To me it seems that he is explaining that by lusting you have already committed adultery - basically that whether it be physical or in your mind, it is the same sin. From the phrasing and in it's context I see no reason to see it your way, which while plausible is definately no better than my interpretation.

To go back more to the main question here, why is it that this sin (if all sins are equal) is the one where people tell others so vehermently to not break? If all sins are equal should not there be threads such as 'Don't lie?' popping up all around the place? The fact that this particular sin is such a point of contention, to me, further proves that this is much more of a social thing than it is religious matter.

 

[BradCube]

The word "actually"? Did you mean "already"?

Jesus brought up the issue of adultery in the heart because he wanted to emphasize that lusting is the same as commiting adultery in real life, as in, has the same immorrality. This would have been a big shock to those who heard this when he first said it, as they were living an an age where prostitutes were stoned to death.