|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Feb 18, 2019 15:10:13 GMT
Never buy a pair of shoes without first trying them on.
That being said, it's entirely up to the individual people involved... If chastity works for 'em, that's great.
But -- again, depending on the individuals -- "sport fucking" is perfectly viable. No commitment, just physical fun... Like water-skiing.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 18, 2019 15:15:39 GMT
So what is God's law on premarital sex? Maybe we're thinking of different things because I'm thinking of the commandments. So the eleventh commandment is thou shalt not bump uglies with someone you are not married to? Huh? Not sure what you're getting at. Who said that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2019 19:40:51 GMT
k, I am not religious, I think you know that. I often question comments made by posters who use God's law as sounding board, when it is ultimately hollow and has no basis for a reasonable point or argument.
From my understanding, you are Christian\Catholic, so I made an assumption that you are\were in defense of God's law on pre-marital sex. Isn't that what being religious is, following your God's law and endorsing and\or enforcing it?
So what is God's law on premarital sex? Maybe we're thinking of different things because I'm thinking of the commandments. Pre marital sex is wrong in Catholicism because of one thing: it contradicts the “primary”, or even sole, purpose of marriage which is that of procreation.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 18, 2019 22:57:41 GMT
Of course it is! She might be confusing this with thou shalt not commit adultery which is along the lines of coveting your neighbors wife and bumping uglies. Now all those overly religious people out there still don't understand the relationship sex has with the priest abuse. The old fogie Church has yet to accept the fact that we are animals and that is the reason how allthese deviants gwginto the church. Who knows! Only k can explain what she really means. Religious people will present a defense surrounding God's law, due to what they have been conditioned to believe, but will talk circular around other points that have been presented to them that dismantle their own, because it contravenes the very essence and nature of what they are supposed to defend, yet can't. This was a tangent about the commandments she went off onto about adultery, when pre-marital sex was the discussion. God doesn't need me to defend His law. I thought I was pretty clear with the question whether God's law even covers premarital sex. Nothing more or less. I never thought it was part of the adultery commandment.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 18, 2019 23:07:06 GMT
God doesn't need me to defend His law. I thought I was pretty clear with the question whether God's law even covers premarital sex. Nothing more or less. I never thought it was part of the adultery commandment. You are Catholic though k. And no k, you were not clear and that is the source of contention regarding your points here. Are not followers of a specific religion supposed to defend the beliefs espoused to them, which is God's law as seen by that specific religious institution? In Catholicism, is not sex outside of marriage deemed a sin?
I was confused as to why you even brought adultery into the equation, if pre-marital sex has nothing to do with the adultery commandment. This appeared as a digression to avoid answering with some clarity. But then, if it is something concerning God, vagueness and inanity usually always tends to always muddy the waters. Again, I was thinking of the commandments as God's law (as least in terms of his main admonishments). I'm not clear on what you're looking for me to answer.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 18, 2019 23:14:34 GMT
Again, I was thinking of the commandments as God's law (as least in terms of his main admonishments). I'm not clear on what you're looking for me to answer. There are 3 here:
That as a Catholic, are you supposed to defend God's law, as per the beliefs of the CC?
Is pre-marital sex deemed a sin by the CC?
You said earlier you took my first point to slovak as literal, regarding what I commented on God's law. Did you really?
You take much more interest in me going to a Catholic church than I do. 1. I suppose so, but I care about being Christian, not Catholic. 2. Yes 3. Yes
|
|
|
Post by cwsims on Feb 19, 2019 1:16:31 GMT
I was raised in a religious Christian family and going by the KJV Bible sex before marriage is fornication! never had sex and most likely wont have sex before marriage
|
|
|
Post by HumanFundRecipient on Feb 19, 2019 13:52:41 GMT
Two males can marry, because the government says they can. End Of Story here gamey!
Yes, that is a good point about pre-marital sex, because what is it really? Does it only become pre-marital sex when one gets engaged, which means plans to marry? Before the engagement, any sex isn't really pre-marital then, because where is the intention within the relationship to get married?
Pre-marital sex term is outdated and phony baloney, just like God's so called law regarding it, and uptight Christians are too caught up in their deluded and distorted morals to see the logic and basic need behind people just wanting to f<>k because they want to. Religious undertones have nothing to do with sex. Toasty, you've been reading too much Orwell if you think any government can step in and change the definition of a word and an institution is as old as man itself - heterosexual marriage. Marriage's purpose is to create a foundation and raise a couple's biological children. And 95% of heterosexual marriages do indeed create that couple's biological children. Any two males can draw up a domestic partnership contract. That's not marriage. If the OP's question had been asked 20 years ago when the idea of a homosexual marriage was still just a joke, I could have snidely brought up the fact that as a gay man pre-marital sex is impossible for me. Only a tiny percent of gay couples have gotten married since the state began trying to enforce this abomination. The only enforcement is legal recognition. Churches, last time I checked, can choose whether or not to perform a same-sex marriage. In the eyes of the law, not God.
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Feb 19, 2019 14:19:17 GMT
It would have been nice to have had the choice to save ourselves before marriage but little Johnny Howard and his bible bashing stooges stopped many of us from having a choice in that decision for a long time in Australia so we sinned and damn we liked it so much we sinned again. My Mum and Dad told me I would go to hell and hell’s never felt so good.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Feb 19, 2019 14:36:44 GMT
I'm gay. What do you call getting a blow job in a public toilet? That's not pre-marital because I have no intentions of getting married and I frankly don't believe two males can marry even if the government pretends they can. Disgusting. And a crappy comparison/argument.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Feb 19, 2019 14:38:55 GMT
Not an issue. You have to be a pretty simpleminded/extremely (naïvely so) religious to still believe this is a problem. We are made to want to do it. Doing it is natural and a good thing as long as no one is getting hurt.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Feb 19, 2019 15:44:31 GMT
So the eleventh commandment is thou shalt not bump uglies with someone you are not married to? Huh? Not sure what you're getting at. Who said that? Huh??? You are basically saying that! Really? Are you really this literal? Stop saying huh. You sound uneducated.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Feb 19, 2019 15:46:09 GMT
Of course it is! She might be confusing this with thou shalt not commit adultery which is along the lines of coveting your neighbors wife and bumping uglies. Now all those overly religious people out there still don't understand the relationship sex has with the priest abuse. The old fogie Church has yet to accept the fact that we are animals and that is the reason how allthese deviants gwginto the church. Who is she who is confusing something with thou shalt not commit adultery? Umm... You are the she who is grossly confused.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Feb 19, 2019 15:48:56 GMT
Of course it is! She might be confusing this with thou shalt not commit adultery which is along the lines of coveting your neighbors wife and bumping uglies. Now all those overly religious people out there still don't understand the relationship sex has with the priest abuse. The old fogie Church has yet to accept the fact that we are animals and that is the reason how allthese deviants gwginto the church. Who knows! Only k can explain what she really means. Religious people will present a defense surrounding God's law, due to what they have been conditioned to believe, but will talk circular around other points that have been presented to them that dismantle their own, because it contravenes the very essence and nature of what they are supposed to defend, yet can't. This was a tangent about the commandments she went off onto about adultery, when pre-marital sex was the discussion. Lol. Good luck with that. She is so confused she doesn't know this is her we are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Feb 19, 2019 19:14:35 GMT
OH SHIT! And we keep agreeing! Hallelujah! Have we ever really been in disagreement much lenlen? It is healthy anyway to have some healthy discourse. At any rate, try before you buy I say... ...I think there was that one time... hmmmm
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 19, 2019 20:27:47 GMT
Who is she who is confusing something with thou shalt not commit adultery? Umm... You are the she who is grossly confused. I have no clue what you mean (like what you think I don't understand about thou shalt not commit adultery?). Please share. Are you saying premarital sex falls under that word as well as infidelity? Like I shouldn't have asked the question? Big deal. Feel free to get into that (or not).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2019 20:49:01 GMT
I'm not personally invested in what other people do. I do think that the reason there is so much divorce in the church is because people feel pressured to rush into marriage because of this particular morality clause. Like many things in the Bible, people read the letter of the law without understanding the spirit. Much of the letter was written to a different time when sex was viewed differently than it is today. The spirit of the law, to me anyway, is still a good practice. Sex is safer and better when used for love, and it can lead to problems when it isn't. I think it's still a relevant principle from my own observation. Sex, love, and marriage just aren't exclusive to each other anymore. There was a great difficulty of keeping them exclusive even in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 19, 2019 21:12:14 GMT
You take much more interest in me going to a Catholic church than I do. 1. I suppose so, but I care about being Christian, not Catholic. 2. Yes 3. Yes Well, it is a semi religious discussion, as that is where the notion of pre-marital sex stems from and as a Christian\Catholic, you have made comments also, so that is where the discussion\debate is stemming from. It is about understanding your responses, which stem from your own beliefs, as with everyone on here.
Thanks for answering:
-So then the denomination isn't that relevant to you, just following the word of God or Christ or whatever, and you can take out what works for you and what doesn't. So you are not a hardcore Catholic then? I would say there would be more that aren't than are, as the CC can be a bit archaic and very rigid in their beliefs and it doesn't really fit in well with the forever changing world.
-So I guess then the response to the second question is a technical response and the CC's notions on pre-marital sex is a moot one with you and I'd say perhaps many other Catholic followers too.
-If you took it literal, that is your prerogative. I myself—and I am just being honest here—I took it as a flippant response, to my deliberate flippant question to slovak. I feel your response was underscored by your own belief in God and also a defense of slovak's point he made. My point was that God has nothing to do with it and never will, because an individuals belief in something that isn't concrete and solid can never be grounded in common sense and logic.
I don't know how many times I have said I am not a hard core Catholic or why you see me as someone who is supposed to represent that church. We've had this conversation multiple times. I care about being a Christian. It just so happens the community I worship with is a Catholic church. Not sure why you're all on me about this so often.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 19, 2019 23:28:36 GMT
I don't know how many times I have said I am not a hard core Catholic or why you see me as someone who is supposed to represent that church. We've had this conversation multiple times. I care about being a Christian. It just so happens the community I worship with is a Catholic church. Not sure why you're all on me about this so often. You have identified as Catholic and Christian k. If you go to a CC, that makes you Catholic to me.
Your beliefs are yours to own and sort out. You are then making points on a discussion thread and others are responding based on what you write at the time. It is debate. I am not in your head within the rest of your own thought process. I take each point as it comes. Own what you write and if you get owned, own that. How did I get owned?
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 19, 2019 23:32:39 GMT
Well, you are not exactly winning here k. Winning what??? I don't get it.
|
|