Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

HHobo wrote: »

Don't think we are ever told either way but I'd imagine so!

It's not all that important but I would be curious to know to what end did they have sex. No details on whether they had any other children but there is no harm in trying I suppose.

HHobo wrote: »

It is not a cliche. Christianity does treat sex as sinful. Why is a problem outside of marriage?

Ever hear the phrase "The immaculate conception"

Definition of immaculate:
1 : having no stain or blemish : pure
2 : containing no flaw or error

3 a : spotlessly clean

b : having no colored spots or marks <petals immaculate>

The conception was immaculate because it didn't involve any of that wonderful, loving, married sex.

You keep claiming X or Y is nonsense, or ridiculous and whenever you are presented with a case that seems to contradict these pronouncements, you just go ahead and claim that X or Y is nonsense....

Explain why sex is sinful outside of marriage. I'm not looking for scripture here Phil. I'm looking for a cogent case as to why sex with someone you are not married to is immoral

Wrong, the conception referred to in the immaculate conception is not the conception of Jesus but Mary herself. It's OK, it's a common misunderstanding.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Wrong, the conception referred to in the immaculate conception is not the conception of Jesus but Mary herself. It's OK, it's a common misunderstanding.

Indeed. I have already accepted my error on this.

HHobo wrote: »

While I think the case that Christianity has hang-up about sex still stands, I accept that I was completely wrong on the immaculate conception point.

Mea Culpa.

Except it doesn't. Christianity puts forward that sex us great in the right context. Namely between a husband and wife in marriage.

Will explain more about why I hold this when I get back on a PC.

philologos wrote: »

Except it doesn't. Christianity puts forward that sex us great in the right context. Namely between a husband and wife in marriage.

Will explain more about why I hold this when I get back on a PC.

By sex you mean penis-vagina sex for the purpose of procreation right?

Most of what could be described as normal sex practices are viewed as sodomy according to catholicism. (I don't know if you are catholic or not.)

Great catholic sanctioned sex:
Penis-vagina sex between a man and woman who have been married in the right church with a priest capable of casting the correct spells. (note this is not the polygamous marriage sanctioned by god in the bible)
Use of Billings contraceptive method.

Sodomy:
Digital sex with partner/Masteurbation (using hands or fingers)
Oral sex
Phone/Text sex
Sex between a couple in involved in committed relationship to promote pair bonding by release of oxytosin.
Spilling of seed/use of contraceptive
Etc

Are you sure they have NO hang ups about sex?
Appears to me they have plenty.

Are you sure they have NO hang ups about sex?
Appears to me they have plenty.

Well when your not getting any you tend to think about it a lot.

TBH and fair a lot of whats written on sex is little more than musings to test the first principal, i.e. sex is best in a committed relationship. So the extent that a bit of fingering is wrong is measured on how it will affect the ideal sex act. If I can get away with some mutual masturbation, I might not bother with getting married and that kind of thing is bad for a load of reasons. Kinda like cant allow people to be seen smoking in movies in case it promotes smoking. In other words ideas thought up by people with too much time on their hands. Mission creep is the term.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Yes. Abiogenesis, a new and exciting set of scientific fields investigates the emergence of life.

Hardly new. Hypotheses on how life emerged on earth have been around since the beginning fo the 20th century and there are dozens of competing proposals today. The Milley-Urea experiment which generated amino acids in the lab was in 1952 and led to a lot of the confidence that we would quickly solve how replicating molecules and prototype cells developed. However, it is proving quite elusive as we initially underestimated how complex even a very basic cell is.

The time available for such development also appears quite short, at least by evolutionary standards. Its generally accepted that the earth formed about 4.5B years ago, and the first unicellular organisms apppeared 3.5 -4.0B years ago. While getting to amino acids and even peptides seems reasonable in an early earth environment, getting to a cell still has a serious element of "then magic".

There are of course many hypotheses, other than random organization of complex structures from simple molecules. Basic building blocks or organisms could have been carried here via comets or space debris. Although this is pushing back the problem in time, we now have potentially several billion extra years to work with where life could have developed elsewhere. There could be some organizing principle that we are as yet unaware of that accelerates the development of life (I know, smells of God), or life could have been seeded here by aliens.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

Hardly new. Hypotheses on how life emerged on earth have been around since the beginning fo the 20th century and there are dozens of competing proposals today. The Milley-Urea experiment which generated amino acids in the lab was in 1952 and led to a lot of the confidence that we would quickly solve how replicating molecules and prototype cells developed. However, it is proving quite elusive as we initially underestimated how complex even a very basic cell is.

The time available for such development also appears quite short, at least by evolutionary standards. Its generally accepted that the earth formed about 4.5B years ago, and the first unicellular organisms apppeared 3.5 -4.0B years ago. While getting to amino acids and even peptides seems reasonable in an early earth environment, getting to a cell still has a serious element of "then magic".

There are of course many hypotheses, other than random organization of complex structures from simple molecules. Basic building blocks or organisms could have been carried here via comets or space debris. Although this is pushing back the problem in time, we now have potentially several billion extra years to work with where life could have developed elsewhere. There could be some organizing principle that we are as yet unaware of that accelerates the development of life (I know, smells of God), or life could have been seeded here by aliens.

It's new insofar as recent experimental techniques have heralded a massive expansion of the field. It is no longer esoteric speculation.

nagirrac

HHobo wrote: »

This is true but surely there must be a least some good reason to believe there is such a thing as "outside our space-time universe" before we bother wasting any time on it. The same rationale can be used to defend the possible existance of absolutely anything. It seems quite unproductive to start giving undue amounts of plausibility or undue consideration to some particular member of the set of all things which are not conclusively disproven by science. That set is infinitely large and likely always will be.

I should have said outside our known space-time universe. Our universe as we currently understand it has 3 spatial dimensions and time. Until we have a complete " theory of everything" that combines the standard model and gravity, our understading of the true reality of our universe is still incomplete, which is why we are investing so much in string theory and M-theory that suggest many more dimensions than we are aware of.

Our history tells us what appears supernatural today, when understood, becomes natural.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

By sex you mean penis-vagina sex for the purpose of procreation right?

Most of what could be described as normal sex practices are viewed as sodomy according to catholicism. (I don't know if you are catholic or not.)

Great catholic sanctioned sex:
Penis-vagina sex between a man and woman who have been married in the right church with a priest capable of casting the correct spells. (note this is not the polygamous marriage sanctioned by god in the bible)
Use of Billings contraceptive method.

Sodomy:
Digital sex with partner/Masteurbation (using hands or fingers)
Oral sex
Phone/Text sex
Sex between a couple in involved in committed relationship to promote pair bonding by release of oxytosin.
Spilling of seed/use of contraceptive
Etc

Are you sure they have NO hang ups about sex?
Appears to me they have plenty.

.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, many of us on this forum aren't. You shouldn't make this assumption.

In a marriage it needn't be only for procreation. The Biblical text provides no reason to believe it is.

In marriage a husband and wife are free to engage sexually from a Christian perspective and this is well and good.

I'm sure that the Bible presents no hangups about sexuality.

Unless you're defining hangups as any reasonable disagreement to your secular worldview.

Edit: Benny Cake here's a clear example of why the Gay Megathread should be the Sexuality megathread.

philologos wrote: »

.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, many of us on this forum aren't. You shouldn't make this assumption.

Fair enough. I accept that.

In a marriage it needn't be only for procreation. The Biblical text provides no reason to believe it is.

In marriage a husband and wife are free to engage sexually from a Christian perspective and this is well and good.

I'm sure that the Bible presents no hangups about sexuality.

Unless you're defining hangups as any reasonable disagreement to your secular worldvie.

Forget secular worldviews. Your religion can impose any restrictions on sexuality it wants. There is nothing inherently right or wrong when consenting adults engage in sex. I think its fair to say the restrictions even your religion places on people, do constitute hangups. For example the restriction in terms of the same sax acts are good or bad depending on whether the marriage spell is cast or not.

I say that jokingly.The way I see it is that consensual sex is basically amoral. You are free to impose restrictions on yourself but I call them hangups.

It might be that i'm only seeing it from my secular worldview. Not sure if I am or not

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The way I see it is that consensual sex is basically amoral. You are free to impose restrictions on yourself but I call them hangups.

It might be that i'm only seeing it from my secular worldview. Not sure if I am or not

Well . . .

1. Of course you’re “only seeing it from your secular worldview”. If you have a secular worldview, then naturally you see the world through your secular worldview. That’s what having a worldview means. But . . .

2. Having a secular worldview doesn’t compel you hold the particular moral view of sex that you do. Plenty of other secular people would hold a different view.

For example, it’s not hard to envisage someone with a basically secular stance who only engages in sex in the context of a at least a basic romantic relationship. Or who will engage in more casual sex, but not with a partner who’s in a romantic relationship with someone else. Or who would have sex with someone in a relationship with someone else, but only after making sure that it’s an open relationship, and there is no cheating involved. Or who will only engage in sex with one sexual partner at a time - i.e. they won’t have sex with B until they have ended things with A.

In other words, they observe restrictions which have to do with commitment, and/or honesty and/or exclusivity.

By your own account, you call those restrictions “hangups”. Fair enough; you can call them anything you want. But you can’t really say that you have this view of them because of your secular worldview; secularity doesn’t require, or indeed particularly support, this view of sex.

philologos wrote: »

.

Unless you're defining hangups as any reasonable disagreement to your secular worldview.

As I asked before, why is sex outside of marriage immoral?

To my mind thinking it is immoral is a whopper of a hang-up.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well . . .

1. Of course you’re “only seeing it from your secular worldview”. If you have a secular worldview, then naturally you see the world through your secular worldview. That’s what having a worldview means. But . . .

2. Having a secular worldview doesn’t compel you hold the particular moral view of sex that you do. Plenty of other secular people would hold a different view.

For example, it’s not hard to envisage someone with a basically secular stance who only engages in sex in the context of a at least a basic romantic relationship. Or who will engage in more casual sex, but not with a partner who’s in a romantic relationship with someone else. Or who would have sex with someone in a relationship with someone else, but only after making sure that it’s an open relationship, and there is no cheating involved. Or who will only engage in sex with one sexual partner at a time - i.e. they won’t have sex with B until they have ended things with A.

In other words, they observe restrictions which have to do with commitment, and/or honesty and/or exclusivity.

By your own account, you call those restrictions “hangups”. Fair enough; you can call them anything you want. But you can’t really say that you have this view of them because of your secular worldview; secularity doesn’t require, or indeed particularly support, this view of sex.

I'm trying to see it from an objective point of view. I was in work today thinking of the point you brought up.

I agree with all the points you raised about people imposing their own restrictions on sex. As you highlighted, commitment, and/or honesty and/or exclusivity are the issue not the sex.

(assuming consent) In relationships there is an agreement on what is ok and what is not. Some couples talk about is and make it explicit, some don't talk about it and leave it implicit.

The sex it's self is amoral, one act could be moral or immoral based on their agreements with themselves and agreements with other people. Either way, it's probably trust or honesty in sticking to the agreement or potential to cause harm that's causing the restrictions. A person who has sex with someone other than their partner might or might not be in violation of their agreements.

I think its fair to say the hangups I referred to could be defined as arbitrary restrictions on sex. I'm not sure if just my worldview but I would like your view. Honestly I haven't made up my mind on this one.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm trying to see it from an objective point of view. I was in work today thinking of the point you brought up.

Atheistic worldview != objective surely?

HHobo wrote: »

As I asked before, why is sex outside of marriage immoral?

To my mind thinking it is immoral is a whopper of a hang-up.

Whats wrong is is your definition of immoral, you seem to see it as either/or, when it 's in fact it's more a sliding scale. Sex outside marriage is immoral because it isn't the best place for sex. Thinking sex is some thing that has no context or consequence is your first mistake.
Morality has a purpose, it's not just arbitrary rules to test your patience.
It defined whats good and encourages us towards that good. In a Christian context that means being in a good relationship with God. In a secular context morality tries to do the same but without the God bit, well maybe it tries to replace God with the state. But thats another thread.

HHobo wrote: »

As I asked before, why is sex outside of marriage immoral?

To my mind thinking it is immoral is a whopper of a hang-up.

I think the word "hangup" is just meaningless. It's not negatively affecting my life to understand that I should wait for marriage.

I think it is immoral for a number of reasons:
1) At the base of it all. God established an order for relationships and sexuality, God also as Creator knows a heck of a lot more about Creation than I do. I trust His providence in instituting marriage in the way that He did.

There's a number of other reasons.
2) Waiting until marriage means less spread of STD's. If one only sexually engaged with their spouse rather than any other person there would be less spread of STD's.

3) Waiting until marriage means that there is better provision for dealing with unplanned pregnancies should they arise.

4) By extension of 3, waiting until marriage means less abortions.

5) Marriages provide a safe context for both partners to express themselves sexually than in another relationship structure. Waiting until marriage allows the assurance that you know your spouse fully before engaging sexually with them. Waiting until marriage also means that there is a formal commitment in place before you express yourself sexually with your partner, it also gives ample time to discuss this prior to being married.

6) Marriages bind biological families together in a way that relationship structures other than marriage don't. The reality is marriages stay together longer, and marriages are the best way to provide children with both a mother and a father. Moreover families with married parents bind bloodlines together where other family structures don't.

G.K.

philologos wrote: »

3) Waiting until marriage means that there is better provision for dealing with unplanned pregnancies should they arise.

Why? Can't fathom this one myself.

lazygal

G.K. wrote: »

Why? Can't fathom this one myself.

Yeah, its not like unmarried people don't know how to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. We weren't handed any information on this on the day(s) we got married.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I think the word "hangup" is just meaningless. It's not negatively affecting my life to understand that I should wait for marriage.

I think it is immoral for a number of reasons:
1) At the base of it all. God established an order for relationships and sexuality, God also as Creator knows a heck of a lot more about Creation than I do. I trust His providence in instituting marriage in the way that He did.

There's a number of other reasons.
2) Waiting until marriage means less spread of STD's. If one only sexually engaged with their spouse rather than any other person there would be less spread of STD's.

3) Waiting until marriage means that there is better provision for dealing with unplanned pregnancies should they arise.

4) By extension of 3, waiting until marriage means less abortions.

5) Marriages provide a safe context for both partners to express themselves sexually than in another relationship structure. Waiting until marriage allows the assurance that you know your spouse fully before engaging sexually with them. Waiting until marriage also means that there is a formal commitment in place before you express yourself sexually with your partner, it also gives ample time to discuss this prior to being married.

6) Marriages bind biological families together in a way that relationship structures other than marriage don't. The reality is marriages stay together longer, and marriages are the best way to provide children with both a mother and a father. Moreover families with married parents bind bloodlines together where other family structures don't.

On point six, are you opposed to adoption? Is that not a 'pro life' 'solution' to an unwanted pregnancy? Are you opposed to ivf using donor eggs and/or sperm?

Zombrex

HHobo wrote: »

As I asked before, why is sex outside of marriage immoral?

To my mind thinking it is immoral is a whopper of a hang-up.

It is a hang-up, people don't like the idea that their partners have had sex with other people, particularly men in cultures where so much emphasis is placed on lineage, and the sexual laws of most religions (particularly the Judo-Christian religions) reflect this.

So you have these rules reflected in the Old Testament. For all the modern excuses about the benefits of waiting until marriage it is clear that these modern convulsions are not the priority. The priority was ensuring that any children produced in your marriage were your children, because men's value was seen as being able to sustain their family name and women's value was seen as providing the children to do this. Which is why you get such ridiculous laws in the Old Testament as women being stoned to death if they are not virgins on their wedding night, or rapists being required to marry the rape victim.

Like so much of the "moral" laws in the Bible modern Christians are forced to search around for more palatable interpretations as to why God would be such strong restrictions on sexual intercourse. Because theses drift significantly from the original means they will end up being really convoluted, and Christians are forced into extreme dichotomies (you are either having sex in a marriage or sex with random men behind the chipper on a Saturday night, getting STIs and unwanted pregnancies left right and centre).

As for the hang up part, this is just evolution. Consequences of sex have various undesirable outcomes, from an evolutionary point of view. We as humans wrap a lot up in sex, from self esteem issues to the issue of raising children who are not out own.

All humans have hang ups about sex, religions simply provide a way to validate these by allowing the religious person to dismiss those who are more comfortable with they would see as sexual taboos, as being at fault or immoral.

So for example, a man feels self conscious that his partner has had more sexual partners than him (or often any sexual partners at all other than him). This makes him feel insecure, for a variety of reasons that again trace back to evolution. Rather than self reflection and learning that this insecurity is his issue, not hers, religions (particularly the Judo-Christian ones) give him a way of expressing his feelings in a manner where the fault lies with the woman, not him. He feels uncomfortable about what she did because what she did was morally wrong. She was being slutty and promiscuous and it is her fault. He is simply reflecting a moral wrong she has committed.

Kiwi in IE

philologos wrote: »

I think the word "hangup" is just meaningless. It's not negatively affecting my life to understand that I should wait for marriage.

I think it is immoral for a number of reasons:
1) At the base of it all. God established an order for relationships and sexuality, God also as Creator knows a heck of a lot more about Creation than I do. I trust His providence in instituting marriage in the way that He did.

There's a number of other reasons.
2) Waiting until marriage means less spread of STD's. If one only sexually engaged with their spouse rather than any other person there would be less spread of STD's.

3) Waiting until marriage means that there is better provision for dealing with unplanned pregnancies should they arise.

4) By extension of 3, waiting until marriage means less abortions.

5) Marriages provide a safe context for both partners to express themselves sexually than in another relationship structure. Waiting until marriage allows the assurance that you know your spouse fully before engaging sexually with them. Waiting until marriage also means that there is a formal commitment in place before you express yourself sexually with your partner, it also gives ample time to discuss this prior to being married.

6) Marriages bind biological families together in a way that relationship structures other than marriage don't. The reality is marriages stay together longer, and marriages are the best way to provide children with both a mother and a father. Moreover families with married parents bind bloodlines together where other family structures don't.

Can you explain any difference between two relationships, fully committed and intended for life, where one couple has partaken of a marriage ritual and the other has not? Keeping in mind that point 1 of the above post is non applicable to many people.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Whats wrong is is your definition of immoral, you seem to see it as either/or, when it 's in fact it's more a sliding scale.

Is it at all a sin? Sins being immoral. To put it another way, is it immoral at all. If so, why?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Sex outside marriage is immoral because it isn't the best place for sex.

Why? Sitting on the roof of a fast moving car is not the best place to eat your dinner. It might well be stupid, dangerous and impractical. This is a universe away from it being immoral to do so.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Thinking sex is some thing that has no context or consequence is your first mistake.

I don't think this, nor have I said it.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Morality has a purpose, it's not just arbitrary rules to test your patience.

Are you really sure that you want to start arguing that morality is utilitarian?

tommy2bad wrote: »

It defined whats good and encourages us towards that good.

Good? What do you mean. Morally good in principle or functionally practical/utilitatian?

tommy2bad wrote: »

In a Christian context that means being in a good relationship with God. In a secular context morality tries to do the same but without the God bit,

You make it sound here like the purpose of morality is sucking up to God.
If God commanded you to murder an innocent child (wouldn't be a first for him), would you do it?
Perhaps a better phrasing would be "If God commanded you to do something you were sure was immoral, would you do it?

tommy2bad wrote: »

well maybe it tries to replace God with the state. But thats another thread.

I won't comment on "replacing God with the state" for politeness sake, but I am curious as to why the religious seem convinced that if someone rejects the God Hypothesis, that they must have to replace it with some kind of surrogate. Why is this?

HHobo wrote: »

Is it at all a sin? Sins being immoral. To put it another way, is it immoral at all. If so, why?

Sin? as in falling short or a black mark against you?

Why? Sitting on the roof of a fast moving car is not the best place to eat your dinner. It might well be stupid, dangerous and impractical. This is a universe away from it being immoral to do so.
If it endangers yourself or others it's imoral, morality is about how you treat others and yourself. No it's not a mile away.

I don't think this, nor have I said it.

So whats your point if we agree that sex has context and therefore it use is context sensitive?

Are you really sure that you want to start arguing that morality is utilitarian?
Don't mind really, I argued it before, I'm not a believer in an objective morality.

Good? What do you mean. Morally good in principle or functionally practical/utilitatian?

Good in general, in a subjective ulitilitarian way. Our good.

You make it sound here like the purpose of morality is sucking up to God.
If God commanded you to murder an innocent child (wouldn't be a first for him), would you do it?
Perhaps a better phrasing would be "If God commanded you to do something you were sure was immoral, would you do it?
What??? I said relationship but whatever, if your definition of a relationship is sucking up....

I won't comment on "replacing God with the state" for politeness sake, but I am curious as to why the religious seem convinced that if someone rejects the God Hypothesis, that they must have to replace it with some kind of surrogate. Why is this?

They don't but they tend to do so. Lets face it without rules and morals and laws and customs and mannerism their is no way for society to function. Not because God said so but because thats they way humans are. I chose to see that as a reflection of how God is; your mileage may vary.

philologos wrote: »

I think the word "hangup" is just meaningless. It's not negatively affecting my life to understand that I should wait for marriage.

You sure have a lot hang-ups about words

. Sorry, couldn't resist!

philologos wrote: »

I think it is immoral for a number of reasons:
1) At the base of it all. God established an order for relationships and sexuality, God also as Creator knows a heck of a lot more about Creation than I do. I trust His providence in instituting marriage in the way that He did.

This is just white noise to me. How persuasive would you find it if I starting telling you all about Shiva's perspective on the thing?

philologos wrote: »

There's a number of other reasons.
2) Waiting until marriage means less spread of STD's. If one only sexually engaged with their spouse rather than any other person there would be less spread of STD's.

3) Waiting until marriage means that there is better provision for dealing with unplanned pregnancies should they arise.

4) By extension of 3, waiting until marriage means less abortions.

These may be practical reasons, though they certainly are not necessary consequences of pre-marital sex. Risk avoidance is not a moral action. Any argument that follows the "If everyone just did X.." form, is not an argument about our actual world. If everyone who was already married didn't cheat, marriages would have a higher chance of lasting. This is not a realistic solution to anything, it is an exercise in imagination.

3. and 4. can be true in or out of marriage.

philologos wrote: »

5) Marriages provide a safe context for both partners to express themselves sexually than in another relationship structure. Waiting until marriage allows the assurance that you know your spouse fully before engaging sexually with them. Waiting until marriage also means that there is a formal commitment in place before you express yourself sexually with your partner, it also gives ample time to discuss this prior to being married.

I would say the above is an indication that you are putting too much importance on the sex act. Why does it need to be such a big deal. Not everyone feels this way about it.

philologos wrote: »

6) Marriages bind biological families together in a way that relationship structures other than marriage don't.
The reality is marriages stay together longer, and marriages are the best way to provide children with both a mother and a father.

Why do you assume the former is a good thing. There used to be many married couples living in poisonous relationships on account of seperation/divorce.
A couple are quite capable of being together, having a kid and not being married all at the same time besides, this was a question about pre-marital sex, not non-marital parentage.

philologos wrote: »

Moreover families with married parents bind bloodlines together where other family structures don't.

What have bloodlines got to do with anything?

Even where I to grant everything bar 1. in what you have listed above, you have provided only reasons why it might be less optimal to have sex outside of marriage. Presumably you would agree that even married couples should wait until they are financially secure before having kids. This is surely better than having kids before they can even properly support themselves which ,while unwise, it would be quite a stretch to say it was immoral.

Doc Farrell

HHobo wrote: »

This is just white noise to me. How persuasive would you find it if I starting telling you all about Shiva's perspective on the

This response is an example of why it's a waste of time to engage for more than a couple of minutes with atheists in the Christian forum. You ask for a Christian response on a Christian forum and then show confusion about getting a Christian response. You owe Philogus an apology for trolling.

Doc Farrell wrote: »

This response is an example of why it's a waste of time to engage for more than a couple of minutes with atheists in the Christian forum. You ask for a Christian response on a Christian forum and then show confusion about getting a Christian response. You owe Philogus an apology for trolling.

It is probably worth saying that I am only in a Christian forum because a mod moved a conversation I was having from a non-Christian forum.

Precisely how could a person argue atheism in a Chrsitian forum and simultaneously grant the theistic presuppositions of Christians?

This debate " Atheism/Existence of God" has absolutely no business being in the Christian forum but I have no control over mod decisions.

Trolling? You clearly don't understand what that term means. I suggest you google the term to avoid future embarrassment. Were I a cynic, I might interpret your labelling my response "trolling" as baiting.

On an unrelated note, did I mention I am quite cynical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HHobo

Is it at all a sin? Sins being immoral. To put it another way, is it immoral at all. If so, why?

Sin? as in falling short or a black mark against you?

Yes as in that.

Why? Sitting on the roof of a fast moving car is not the best place to eat your dinner. It might well be stupid, dangerous and impractical. This is a universe away from it being immoral to do so.
If it endangers yourself or others it's imoral, morality is about how you treat others and yourself. No it's not a mile away.

Do you consider smokers, drinkers, over-eaters, under-eaters, race car drivers, skydivers, boxers, etc.etc.... virtually every human alive to be immoral by this logic?

I don't think this, nor have I said it.

So whats your point if we agree that sex has context and therefore it use is context sensitive?

My question was why is sex outside of marriage immoral? There is nothing in there to suggest sex is context free. Why does the context of "marriage" make it ok but any other context ie "not-married" immoral?

Are you really sure that you want to start arguing that morality is utilitarian?
Don't mind really, I argued it before, I'm not a believer in an objective morality.

Interesting. I would like to hear more of the perspective of a believer who works from a subjective moral framework. As this is the internet I feel the need to stress that the previous sentence is entirely sincere.

Good? What do you mean. Morally good in principle or functionally practical/utilitatian?

Good in general, in a subjective ulitilitarian way. Our good.

There is an argument for that but I think that non-marriage sex can tick all the same boxes. Marriage seems to function as a catch all short hand descriptor but I just can't see marriage itself as being the operative difference between good-in-general (good for us) sex and bad-in-general sex.
You make it sound here like the purpose of morality is sucking up to God.
If God commanded you to murder an innocent child (wouldn't be a first for him), would you do it?
Perhaps a better phrasing would be "If God commanded you to do something you were sure was immoral, would you do it?
What??? I said relationship but whatever, if your definition of a relationship is sucking up....

Hey, in fairness, you are claiming a relationship with someone who has never responded to you and can't even be proven to exist. I say sucking up becuase God is an authoritarian, to whom you supplicate. His mercy is conditional on you following his rules. You talk to him, he doesn't talk back. Sounds like a suck-up kind of relationship. Also, I have never worshipped anyone I had a relationship with. The idea sounds unhealthy.

I won't comment on "replacing God with the state" for politeness sake, but I am curious as to why the religious seem convinced that if someone rejects the God Hypothesis, that they must have to replace it with some kind of surrogate. Why is this?

tommy2bad wrote: »

They don't but they tend to do so. Lets face it without rules and morals and laws and customs and mannerism their is no way for society to function. Not because God said so but because thats they way humans are. I chose to see that as a reflection of how God is; your mileage may vary.

I accept the need for rules etc. for a society to function, of course. I think my consequent view of the state is so far away from being like how a Christian sees God that it isn't a particularly useful comparision. I suspect you were implying a little more...

Benny_Cake

Mod note: Folks, if trolling is suspected, report it, don't indulge in accusations on thread. Also, this is the Christianity forum and what is posted here is largely going to have a Christian focus. The existence of this thread is absolutely justified here as it provides a space for Christians and atheists/agnostics to debate without derailing the other threads in the forum as happened in the past. General discussion regarding atheism is probably better served by the Atheism and Agnosticism forum so I would suggest that might be a more suitable place for debate if Christian responses aren't sought. Thanks.