Is premarital sex moral or immoral?

[Terrywoodenpic]

That old chestnut? Seriously.....who is the creator of science? Hint: it isn't humans.

One merely needs to know the difference between what science "knows" and what science "assumes" to know.

Who gave humans the intelligence to discover all the things that science studies?

If God had not created the world, what would science study? Did science give us a brain?...the ability to analyze data.....to figure things out by using evidence to come to valid conclusions?

No one bashes true and provable science......but we have to be able to distinguish between facts and suggestion.

Neither Science and the scientific method nor the subject of its studies depend on man for their existence.
Science is used to establish facts,and what is, and what is not.
Conjecture is one of the tools it uses, it is never an end point

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What kind of lies?

Like the vagina can be "used up" like a piece of scotch tape and the next guy she has sex with is getting something akin to used chewing gum.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Jesus taught us to be servants of one another. The church is extremely bad at taking charge of anyone or any thing. That is not it's it's role.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who gave humans the intelligence to discover all the things that science studies?

Before Satan urged us on, we were so ignorant and dumb we didn't even see we were naked. So, really, who gave us that knowledge?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Its the language of evolutionists. They have as much of a 'belief' system as we do.

There's no such thing as an evolutionist. They exist no more than does a germist, magnetist, or gravitist.

 

[Salvador]

Deeje is right about one thing. Man has not been around for 100,000 years. The evidence now supports that Homo sapiens has been around for 300,000 years. Of course, with a wave of the hand and some haughty rhetoric, these facts can be dismissed.

Human fossils, which were found in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, have been determined to be 315 ± 34 thousand years old; the age of these 300,000 plus-year-old human fossils have been measured by using the thermoluminescence dating method.

Reference: Nature: International Journal of Science

Letter | Published: 07 June 2017

New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens

• Jean-Jacques Hublin
• , Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer
• , Shara E. Bailey
• , Sarah E. Freidline
• , Simon Neubauer
• , Matthew M. Skinner
• , Inga Bergmann
• , Adeline Le Cabec
• , Stefano Benazzi
• , Katerina Harvati
• & Philipp Gunz

Nature volume546, pages289–292 (08 June 2017)

New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Bible provides my worldview...the fact that it does not provide yours is duly noted.

"Evidence" is a word that science has used to disguise the fact that it has no facts.

I'll bet I can produce a thousand effects with the use of science facts before you can produce a single one using what you suppose to be the "truths" of the Bible. Every time I turn on the light, or TV, or computer, or strike a match, I'm using science. Every time the path of a hurricane is predicted, or a surgeon repairs an infant's heart while still in the womb, they're using science.

Your turn...

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That old chestnut? Seriously.....who is the creator of science? Hint: it isn't humans.

One merely needs to know the difference between what science "knows" and what science "assumes" to know.

Who gave humans the intelligence to discover all the things that science studies?

If God had not created the world, what would science study? Did science give us a brain?...the ability to analyze data.....to figure things out by using evidence to come to valid conclusions?

No one bashes true and provable science......but we have to be able to distinguish between facts and suggestion.

The scientific method "proves" nothing, but it works well and produces results. If you are bashing "unprovable" science, you are bashing all science.

 

[Wasp]

Before Satan urged us on, we were so ignorant and dumb we didn't even see we were naked. So, really, who gave us that knowledge?

I'm sure you don't believe in that story.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm sure you don't believe in that story.

I don't. But it appears from the Bible that god didn't intent on humans to become intelligent. It wasn't until after the serpent encouraged Eve to reach out and take that knowledge that we even became smart enough to have any concept of clothing.

 

[Spartan]

I don't. But it appears from the Bible that god didn't intent on humans to become intelligent. It wasn't until after the serpent encouraged Eve to reach out and take that knowledge that we even became smart enough to have any concept of clothing.

And then there's those who think they can kick Christ to the curb and escape hell. How intelligent is that!?

 

[viole]

Hey everyone. I wanted to debate about whether or not premarital sex is moral or immoral. I will take the Catholic side since I am Catholic. We believe that premarital sex is immoral. We believe that it is gravely sinful which means that if it is done with full consent of the will and knowledge of the gravity of the sin, it becomes a mortal sin which can send you to Hell.

Anyway, we Catholics believe that sexual intercourse has two purposes: procreation and the union of the spouses which have to be one man and one woman as we don't believe in same-sex marriages. Premarital sex is often violating the first purpose as it is often contracepted sex. Premarital sex always violates the second purpose since the two having sex with each other are not married.

We believe that the Bible speaks out against premarital sex but I will not quote all of the citations from the Bible about it at this time.

So, what do you think? Do you think premarital sex is moral or immoral? Why or why not?

Where I come from, the main debate is whether to have sex at the first date or not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[iam1me]

Off hand I can't think of any scriptures that explicitly treat premarital sex as a sin. Did Adam & Eve hold a wedding? Not likely. I think of marriage as more of a formality, a way of declaring your relationship publicly and legally. This is a good practice as it helps to enforce the marriage. Most people will respect that someone is married and not try to pursue them.

Rather, scripture treats the physical act of sex itself as the union between two people. Thus, even without marriage or love, even with a prostitute, a man and woman who lie together are said to be one flesh.

Genesis 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.​

1 Corinthians 6:16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”​

While this can be used to condemn sleeping around casually, particularly for women as this naturally extends to an argument for adultery, this does not extend to the case of simply sleeping with someone prior to getting married.

 

[viole]

I would also like to mention that a good reason for saving sex for marriage is because sex can and often does result in children and the stability and hopefully permanent nature of a marriage is a much better situation to raise children in than an uncommitted a non-permanent dating relationship or other types of situations which have no stability or commitment.

Well, then gays can have sex before marriage and Catholics would be happy, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And then there's those who think they can kick Christ to the curb and escape hell. How intelligent is that!?

If all that stuff is real I'd rather be in Hell than spending all eternity worshiping an egotistical, genocidal tyrant. Separation anxieties, after all, no longer apply to me in that case.

 

[viole]

There is no actual proof that humans even evolved from primates, let alone been around for 100,000 years. That is scientific speculation, not fact. When God created humans to reflect his own moral qualities, they knew the difference between right and wrong from the beginning. But being in possession of free will, they made the decision that they wanted to live by their own rules.....so God let them...and here we are. What a right mess we have made of everything! When God implements the re-institution of his own rulership over mankind, who is going to accuse him of not allowing enough time for them to try every conceivable kind of government? Each one a dismal failure. We are witnessing the death of democracy right now......what's next?



A nice strawman.....I hope he didn't suffer much as you flogged him to death.

I agree that humans did not evolve from primates. They are still primates. Which should be quite obvious if you take a look at them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

And then there's those who think they can kick Christ to the curb and escape hell. How intelligent is that!?

You mean people like Einstein?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Can we *not* have creationism v evolution leak out onto every religious thread that exists? xD

 

[Skwim]

Before Satan urged us on, we were so ignorant and dumb we didn't even see we were naked. So, really, who gave us that knowledge?

Let me ask you; before the apple incident did A&E look down and see themselves as covered in clothes?

And why was it important that we see ourselves as naked? Did god blunder when he created us naked, but without the ability to recognize it?

.

 

[dianaiad]

Your scenario would be exactly the same if the new generations NEVER GOT MARRIED but remained monogamous to one partner, having clean, endlessly premarital sex.

True. this solution is about monogamy, not marriage, but in many cultures, 'marriage' is about picking a partner and sticking to him/her, with our without legal sanction. In reality, it would be pretty much the same thing.

But, like your scenario, you'd be better off encouraging regular medical testing and family planning over the utopian pipe dream you've got going here.

It's not an impossible dream, is it? I mean, as I mentioned, *I* managed to do it. I know many others who have...and y'know what else?

Those of us who have done so have lived long, healthy, happy and fulfilled (even sexually fulfilled) lives while doing so.

I remind that 'the science' shows abstinence only education states have the worst record of STI and teen pregnancies.

I don't remember saying anything about sex education or the 'abstinence only' option. In fact, it seems to me that we would have to, if we were going to try this, make sure that everybody knows precisely WHY it is important. People do stupid stuff in ignorance.

(The science so far also shows that in most cases balanced vegetarian diets is healthier than balanced omnivorious diets for humans, that certainly hasn't made meat eating end.) That you CAN be abstinent doesn't mean it's laudable, when there are more realistic tools at our disposal to curb both things.

I don't know of any other thing that would absolutely ensure the end sought, do you? Birth control measures are not 100% effective against pregnancy, after all, and, in fact, aren't all that helpful in preventing STD's.

I had lots of sex with my husband before we got married. But we also doubled protection, had plans in case something went wrong, and had a commitment to each other that transcended the largely empty gesture of marriage (which we literally did for tax/financial/legal convenience). And y'know what? We're living happy, fulfilled lives, too.

Did either of you have sex with anybody ELSE?

Remember; I'm not talking about morals or the ceremony of marriage here, or what 'marriage' means to the different cultures. In many of them, you are quite OK to have sex with your spouse before that ceremony...because for all intents and purposes, your commitment is permanent the first time you have sex, or consider yourselves to be 'betrothed.'

That's where the term 'hand-fasted' comes from, for one thing. The same as 'marriage,' to the participants and the religion/belief system they hold to, it lacks only the legal contract that the government views 'marriage' as.

So I hate to break this to you, but it doesn't really matter in terms of what I mentioned, whether one is legally married or not.

It's about choosing, and sticking to, one partner and not fooling around before you do, or after you do.

Wiccans sometimes do the 'handfasting' and not the legal contract. Doesn't matter what you call it, if the result is monogamy, does it?

As far as the scientific realities of getting rid of STD's are concerned, it really doesn't matter what the government or the church or your own 'but...but...." happens.

If one entire generation of people would come to their marriages (or partnerings, however it is called) virgin, and then stay monogamous throughout that relationship, then STD's would pretty much disappear.

Period.

It is possible for people to do this and live good, solid, fulfilled lives. Therefore it is possible to do this.

Doesn't matter how much one argues against it, it's possible...and all arguments against it pretty much come down to selfishness; "But....but...I want my jollies!"


I know it won't happen. Doesn't mean I'm not right about what such an action would mean.

Oh....even now, even with all the selfish 'I wanna screw around and nobody can stop me!" people whining about doing this, those who DO?

Well, they aren't going to get STD's, are they?