Answering an Atheist (2 points I want help with)

[Rau]

Gay marriage in particular

Personally, I find the expression an oxymoron. However, insofar as this is a societal question of what the state should do, we all get a say. I don’t have a strong issue with the state accommodating arbitrary persons seeking a legal accommodation for their personal arrangements, I just dispute that the arrangement should be considered one and the same with marriage with all the downstream implications for family formation, children acquisition and so on.

and gay rights in general.

A person who experiences SSA has no less rights than any other and I know of no faith-based claim to the contrary.

Closer to home, attempts to ban ethics classes in New South Wales.

Ethics classes could be good, but I believe the issue was their injection as an alternative to Faith based scripture classes that had long been offered without such an alternative. I am somewhat ambivalent, but see the issue as a pretty standard negotiation.

Attempts to have Creationism taught in schools in a few countries.

Hardly a widespread initiative, nor a Catholic one! What is it to be taught as - not science!

Attempts to restrict access to contraception.

Better to teach the proper venue for sexual relations! Seriously, this is typically in the context of how government money is spent.

Teaching young children that they could go to hell.

How much worse is today’s ethic that anything goes? Should we hold the view that evil has no bad consequences? Regrettably, this seems the widespread view today…

We sent both our children to Catholic schools. I’d hardly do that if I felt you guys were an evil influence…

Nice to know. How would you have reacted if children’s primary school readers (in use in State Scools) had started to appear preventing same sex parenting as a norm, and your local Catholic primary school declined to utilise them. Would you see that as wrong?

 

[Bradski]

It didn’t carry zero risk, and it certainly had negative consequences. You are just ignoring them or are unaware of them. Unintended outcomes happen. In this instance you offended your Creator, and each of you used the other person for your own selfish desires and disrespected their human dignity.

I didn’t realise you knew so much about me. I must admit I was and still am blissfully unaware of the negative consequences. Funny, but I would have thought that I would been the one to be able to determine this. It comes as a surprise to me that someone who only knows me through t a few posts on a forum can know so much about me.

But hang on…that bit about selfish desires and disrespect. I can actually check this. Wait a minute and I’ll ask her.

Well, I did ask, and she was a little confused. Then bemused. And eventually a little irate. She thought it quite impertinent that you should have the effrontery to assume that you know more about our relationship than we do ourselves. I think that if you suggested to her in person that she had disrespected my dignity and I hers, then you might find yourself in a bit of strife, zz.

The thing is, without knowing anything at all about me, you HAVE to say that anything I have done is wrong, otherwise what you think you believe, that my business is any business of yours, is simply wrong. Which, actually, it is.

And as for offending my Creator? Well, you have it slightly wrong. You think that I am offending YOUR creator, which is an entirely different thing. As you might expect, I won’t be losing too much sleep over that. I doubt if He will either. I’m pretty certain He’s got more things to worry about other than my wife and myself having sex before we signed some paperwork which made us legally married. But feel free to ask Him and let me know what He thinks.

But in passing, doesn’t it strike you as strange that He would consider sex immoral an hour before we signed said paperwork and perfectly OK after we signed it? I guess you might say that we didn’t know what was going to happen. It could have turned out differently. But God knows what’s going to happen. He lives in the Eternal Now. He already sees the happy life together, the kids, the lifetime of respect. He can hardly say to Himself: “Hey, this will have unintended outcomes…this could end badly’. He knows it will end happily ever after.

So are you REALLY saying that He’s going to get irate because we had sex in the morning and then got married in the afternoon? Are you really trying to tell me that’s a valid argument against sex outside marriage? That God really does get mad at the two of us because we have broken one of His rules?

I’m not actually sure He would accept the marriage as acceptable in any case. It wasn’t in a church. It wasn’t before the eyes of God. We didn’t ask for his blessing. In fact, it couldn’t have been further from your ideal version of a Christian marriage. We were married by a Muslim. The marriage paperwork is all in Egyptian.

So what say you, zz? Is it still OK to make love to my partner? Is God OK with the manner in which we decided to legalise our relationship? Are we still breaking the rules?

Let’s face it mate. You have no idea at all. As my wife said, don’t be so impertinent.

 

[Bradski]

How would you have reacted if children’s primary school readers (in use in State Scools) had started to appear preventing same sex parenting as a norm, and your local Catholic primary school declined to utilise them. Would you see that as wrong?

I take it you mean if they started to appear ‘promoting’ same sex parenting as the norm. As in, would I think it wrong if the Catholic school objected to use of material promoting same sex parenting?

If it was a state school, I would object (depending on the tone of the literature), but in my son’s or my daughter’s schools I wouldn’t. I know what Catholics believe and if I decide to send my kids to a Catholic school, then I have to expect that they will not teach what they find immoral. I had no objections to what they did teach, including, obviously, Catholic belief in the Christian God. They never said that ‘this is true and you must believe it’. They allowed differences of opinion.

In fact, my son’s school knew I was an atheist when they were deciding to accept him or not. My wife and I had to fill in an entry form before my son was accepted and there was a box labeled ‘Religious affiliation’. Let’s just say that the discussions with my wife as to what I was going to write there were robust. Honesty seemed the best policy to me.

 

[Rau]

I take it you mean if they started to appear ‘promoting’ same sex parenting as the norm. As in, would I think it wrong if the Catholic school objected to use of material promoting same sex parenting?

If it was a state school, I would object (depending on the tone of the literature), but in my son’s or my daughter’s schools I wouldn’t. I know what Catholics believe and if I decide to send my kids to a Catholic school, then I have to expect that they will not teach what they find immoral. I had no objections to what they did teach, including, obviously, Catholic belief in the Christian God. They never said that ‘this is true and you must believe it’. They allowed differences of opinion.

In fact, my son’s school knew I was an atheist when they were deciding to accept him or not. My wife and I had to fill in an entry form before my son was accepted and there was a box labeled ‘Religious affiliation’. Let’s just say that the discussions with my wife as to what I was going to write there were robust. Honesty seemed the best policy to me.

Well, I guess “none” is a perfectly clear and honest answer to “religious affiliation” and while it won’t help you get to the top of the prioritizing system, it won’t rule you out either.

Faith based instruction can only be something “offered”, for in reality, actual beliefs can’t be compelled nor tested. In my experience, the extent of religious education in Catholic schools is quite limited in the sense that it addresses basic tenets of the faith, biblical events, sacraments, some areas of morality. etc, but really does not address the kind of moral theology debates we see on CAF. Arguably this and relevant supporting papal encyclicals could be covered in a Y11/Y12 course, but I suspect there is neither the space in the school day nor the available teaching expertise to do so. I remember little of what high school religious education was included in my day - but what I do remember is the extraordinary goodness of a number of the teachers - in those days - religious brothers.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Gay marriage in particular and gay rights in general. Closer to home, attempts to ban ethics classes in New South Wales. Attempts to have Creationism taught in schools in a few countries. Attempts to restrict access to contraception. Teaching young children that they could go to hell.

Those don’t include all Christians of course. Some would back my stance on all those points. But I’m far from being anti Christian or even anti Catholic. We sent both our children to Catholic schools. I’d hardly do that if I felt you guys were an evil influence…

Good morning Bradski,

It’s time for me to leave again. Things are getting to heavy for me. I’m sure your other half would agree I shouldn’t even be here.

I know you’re aim in life is not to make Fran understand anything, but let me say that I’ve stopped arguing with atheists because it’s pretty dar n useless. I won’t convince you and you won’t convince me.

I would like to understand, though, at some point WHY you feel so strongly that we are, maybe, a threat? I can never get a straight answer. The only reason I personally have in saying anything to you is to maybe slip in something that some day might click in putting all thoughts together for you. But that’s pretty presumptuous of me, isn’t it? I mean in a testifying sort of way; I’m sure you understand. In the end, we each have to live with what we each believe, until and unless that belief system changes. And the only way you could come to a christian belief is to have some kind of encounter with Jesus or God, same thing. It can happen through reason, as I’ve said before but it seems unlikely in the present world system we live in.

I do think that kids have a natural desire to know God. I used to tell them that there’s a hole in us and only God could fill it up. It’s only after we grow up that we become cynical. Maybe because of all the “bad” we see around us, in people, in nature, in health. A doctor wanted me to keep my dying father alive back in 2003 with a feeding tube. After confering with my two brothers who agreed with me, I told him no. We were confident he was going to a better place. The dr told me he couldn’t believe in that because he’d seen too much pain. I’ve seen too much pain too. I wonder what the difference is.

I leave you to Rau, Peter Plato, Jelrak TB and ZZ912. Will be checking in on Sunday when I get back, but I’ll bet nothing will have changed. And why expect anything different?

I do always wonder how you think everything started? Where God began is a problem too. You know the answer: He always was and always will be. Not very satisfying is it?But at least I could say He’s a first cause. What do you think the first cause was?
Is this not a big problem for you? Maybe not any bigger than mine. But SOMETHING had to get things going. Let’s leave that Ken guy out of this. There are extreme nutty people in all facets of life.

The other thing I’d like to say is that I don’t really know what’s going on in your neck of the woods, but in the U.S. and here in Europe, I can say that atheists can take a breather. I do believe that your side has won.

Soon
Fran

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Good morning Bradski,

It’s time for me to leave again. Things are getting to heavy for me. I’m sure your other half would agree I shouldn’t even be here.

I know you’re aim in life is not to make Fran understand anything, but let me say that I’ve stopped arguing with atheists because it’s pretty dar n useless. I won’t convince you and you won’t convince me.

I would like to understand, though, at some point WHY you feel so strongly that we are, maybe, a threat? I can never get a straight answer. The only reason I personally have in saying anything to you is to maybe slip in something that some day might click in putting all thoughts together for you. But that’s pretty presumptuous of me, isn’t it? I mean in a testifying sort of way; I’m sure you understand. In the end, we each have to live with what we each believe, until and unless that belief system changes. And the only way you could come to a christian belief is to have some kind of encounter with Jesus or God, same thing. It can happen through reason, as I’ve said before but it seems unlikely in the present world system we live in.

I do think that kids have a natural desire to know God. I used to tell them that there’s a hole in us and only God could fill it up. It’s only after we grow up that we become cynical. Maybe because of all the “bad” we see around us, in people, in nature, in health. A doctor wanted me to keep my dying father alive back in 2003 with a feeding tube. After confering with my two brothers who agreed with me, I told him no. We were confident he was going to a better place. The dr told me he couldn’t believe in that because he’d seen too much pain. I’ve seen too much pain too. I wonder what the difference is.

I leave you to Rau, Peter Plato, Jelrak TB and ZZ912. Will be checking in on Sunday when I get back, but I’ll bet nothing will have changed. And why expect anything different?

I do always wonder how you think everything started? Where God began is a problem too. You know the answer: He always was and always will be. Not very satisfying is it?But at least I could say He’s a first cause. What do you think the first cause was?
Is this not a big problem for you? Maybe not any bigger than mine. But SOMETHING had to get things going. Let’s leave that Ken guy out of this. There are extreme nutty people in all facets of life.

The other thing I’d like to say is that I don’t really know what’s going on in your neck of the woods, but in the U.S. and here in Europe, I can say that atheists can take a breather. I do believe that your side has won.

Soon
Fran

…and what are we to do without our Fran keeping up our spirits in this far too serious of threads…? Must we truly wait until Sunday? Well we shall be patient in awaiting your return…you have earned your rest…!

 

[Bradski]

I know you’re aim in life is not to make Fran understand anything, but let me say that I’ve stopped arguing with atheists because it’s pretty dar n useless. I won’t convince you and you won’t convince me.

It is me trying to make you understand. Understand what I think. But not necessarily to convince you of anything.

I would like to understand, though, at some point WHY you feel so strongly that we are, maybe, a threat?

Did I not explain that well enough? Religion is only a threat when it considers itself an authority on secular matters. Non overlapping magisteria etc.

I do think that kids have a natural desire to know God.

I have never known one. We obviously move in different circles.

Let’s leave that Ken guy out of this. There are extreme nutty people in all facets of life.

Tell that to the last poster who seems to think he deserves some air time. And hey, you are both Catholics. Should I treat all Catholics differently depending on what they believe? What an odd position.

I do believe that your side has won.

My side? I think you mean everyone who doesn’t believe as you do. That’s quite a team I have.

 

[ahs]

…I do believe your side has won…

And here’s a good spot to get back to the OP. The Christian “side” would be those who objectively believe that there is “a way things should be” [a.k.a. “good”], and that the absence of this good is evil.

The other side, (is this the team you are on?) complains against evil, but also doesn’t believe that there is “a way things should be”, aside from aligning up with their own subjective opinions…rendering “evil” a meaningless mash of opinion.

Indeed, that other side [subjective side] is the majority view. I would argue that it doesn’t make it the right view.

 

[zz912]

I didn’t realise you knew so much about me. I must admit I was and still am blissfully unaware of the negative consequences. Funny, but I would have thought that I would been the one to be able to determine this. It comes as a surprise to me that someone who only knows me through t a few posts on a forum can know so much about me.

I don’t need to know anything about you to know that touching your hand on a hot stove will burn you. Same with having sex outside marriage harms you, especially your soul.

But hang on…that bit about selfish desires and disrespect. I can actually check this. Wait a minute and I’ll ask her.

Well, I did ask, and she was a little confused. Then bemused. And eventually a little irate. She thought it quite impertinent that you should have the effrontery to assume that you know more about our relationship than we do ourselves. I think that if you suggested to her in person that she had disrespected my dignity and I hers, then you might find yourself in a bit of strife, zz.

Not surprising. Most people don’t like their favored sin called to account. Most want you to celebrate their sin and celebrate what is harming them. Pretty standard reaction. Still, we are called to inform you of the harm you are causing.

The thing is, without knowing anything at all about me, you HAVE to say that anything I have done is wrong, otherwise what you think you believe, that my business is any business of yours, is simply wrong. Which, actually, it is.

I don’t need to know anything about you to know that having sex outside marriage is wrong and harmful to you, and is sinful.

And as for offending my Creator? Well, you have it slightly wrong. You think that I am offending YOUR creator, which is an entirely different thing.

There is only one Creator. Your opinion about Him doesn’t change Him and His role in creating you.

As you might expect, I won’t be losing too much sleep over that.

Possible. It seems to have vexed you some. I hope it causes you to pause and consider that you just MIGHT not know everything, and might be wrong about this.

I doubt if He will either. I’m pretty certain He’s got more things to worry about other than my wife and myself having sex before we signed some paperwork which made us legally married. But feel free to ask Him and let me know what He thinks

.

This paragraph indicates you don’t understand what Christians mean by Creator. He doesn’t get tired, He doesn’t run out of time, and He knows everything. And yes, He’s concerned about how you and your now wife conduct your lives. You are projecting your limitations onto Him, when He doesn’t have limits like you.

But in passing, doesn’t it strike you as strange that He would consider sex immoral an hour before we signed said paperwork and perfectly OK after we signed it?

No, not a bit. Just as it is immoral to take a car off the dealership lot an hour before you actually buy it. Just as it is immoral to vote in an election before you become a citizen. Just as it is immoral to move into a house before you’ve signed the deed. You are claiming rights you do not possess. Once you do possess the rights, then you may freely use them.

So are you REALLY saying that He’s going to get irate because we had sex in the morning and then got married in the afternoon?

Yes. You’re being disobedient. And in a particularly insulting way. You are showing your defiance at a point in time when it is the EASIEST to obey His rules. You only have to wait a couple hours, and you are showing that you REFUSE to do so, even when it is easy to do it. That’s actually worse than if the wedding was far off.

Are you really trying to tell me that’s a valid argument against sex outside marriage? That God really does get mad at the two of us because we have broken one of His rules?

Yes, God doesn’t like it when you violate His rules. He created you, and you show your nastiness by disobeying the pretty simple rules He lays out for you.

I’m not actually sure He would accept the marriage as acceptable in any case. It wasn’t in a church. It wasn’t before the eyes of God. We didn’t ask for his blessing. In fact, it couldn’t have been further from your ideal version of a Christian marriage. We were married by a Muslim. The marriage paperwork is all in Egyptian.

I’m not sure you even know or understand Church teaching on this matter. God and the Church recognize natural marriages. Catholics are called to be married in the Church. That requirement doesn’t apply to those outside the Church.

So what say you, zz? Is it still OK to make love to my partner?

Sex is licit within marriage when it is respectful of the dignity of both persons, and has both functions of the marital act (that it unites the couple together and is open to life).

Is God OK with the manner in which we decided to legalise our relationship?

I’d need more info to determine such. If neither one of you is Catholic, then marrying outside the Church is quite valid.

Are we still breaking the rules?

I have no idea.

Let’s face it mate. You have no idea at all. As my wife said, don’t be so impertinent.

I have used the info you have provided. It is enough to determine what I have stated so far. That’s not impertinence.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I don’t need to know anything about you to know that touching your hand on a hot stove will burn you.

Actually, you WOULD need extra information. Even in such a physical event as touching a hot stove. People can touch hot objects and it does not harm them - even without donning asbestos gloves. It looks like that you just talk, without knowing what you talk about.

Same with having sex outside marriage harms you, especially your soul.

What kind of physical harm can come out from a sex an hour before the ceremony, which will be absent one hour after the ceremony? And if that “harm” is not physical, how can anyone know that there IS a harm? Referring to the undefined “soul” is not much of an argument. My “spiritual” life (if there is any) never suffered from having sex before we got married. As a matter of fact these encounters “nudged” us to become married, because we KNEW that one of the “glues” necessary to sustain a happy marriage was already tried, tested, and found sufficient.

No sane person would buy even a pair of shoes without trying them on first. And a pair of shoes is totally insignificant compared to a “life-long” relationship. After all “knob A”, does not necessarily fit into “hole B”, and even if it can be “forced” into it, neither the “knob” nor the “hole” will benefit from such a forced “solution”.

And if God is “offended” he has ample opportunity to express his “displeasure”. Strangely, he stopped “smiting” the evildoers… since Onan was struck down (if it ever happened). I think that God is much more permissive than you give him credit for. The creator of the universe is not a “Peeping Tom”.

 

[eddie_too]

the RCC is only teaching what it received from Jesus.

Jesus said thoughts about fornication and adultery are evil.

if you have a problem with that, your problem if as much if not more so with Jesus than with His Church.

 

[eddie_too]

for nearly two thousand years, Jesus’ flock has been living according to His words.

millions of people have refrained from engaging in sexual activity before marriage or outside of marriage. they did this because they believed Jesus is God and they know how He taught human beings to live in this world.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

for nearly two thousand years, Jesus’ flock has been living according to His words.

millions of people have refrained from engaging in sexual activity before marriage or outside of marriage. they did this because they believed Jesus is God and they know how He taught human beings to live in this world.

For untold tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of years - billions of people did not. After all, sex is a normal part of life. Only a handful of people wish to restrict it. And most of those have never even tried it. (Or at least they say so… history tells us a different story.)

 

[eddie_too]

only a handful of people want to restrict human sexual activity?

I think that is totally wrong.

how many people believe rape is wrong? how many people believe pedophilia and ebophilia are wrong? how many people believe adultery is wrong?

I am just guessing, but I am guessing that billions, not millions – billions with a b, of people down through the centuries have believed in restricting human sexual activity in one manner or another.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

only a handful of people want to restrict human sexual activity?

I think that is totally wrong.

how many people believe rape is wrong? how many people believe pedophilia and ebophilia are wrong? how many people believe adultery is wrong?

I am just guessing, but I am guessing that billions, not millions – billions with a b, of people down through the centuries have believed in restricting human sexual activity in one manner or another.

Totally beside the point. Mutually agreed upon sex between consenting adults is the topic - either within or outside marriage. Not rape or adultery. Please stick with the topic. It is bad form to create red herrings.

 

[Bradski]

The other side, (is this the team you are on?) complains against evil, but also doesn’t believe that there is “a way things should be”, aside from aligning up with their own subjective opinions…rendering “evil” a meaningless mash of opinion.

Indeed, that other side [subjective side] is the majority view. I would argue that it doesn’t make it the right view.

My team, if I may speak for others, is the one that declares something wrong based on the evidence produced. Not simply because it is written. I’d guess you and I would align on almost everything if we had to decide what was wrong and what was right. With some variance, of course. But most people understand the difference between right and wrong because there are reasons available on which we can base our decisions.

That seems entirely reasonable to me. I find it difficult to think that someone would believe anything at all without a good reason, after due consideration and some credible evidence. Admittedly we often make assumptions about various situations without going to the trouble of verifying every aspect, but the evidence must be there if we choose to examine it. I believe the pilot flying me to Hong Kong is fully qualified and capable of taking off and landing the plane and One would have to be pretty paranoid if you needed to check his qualifications and flight record before you boarded. But the information would be available.

The same is true with sexual matters on which the Catholic Church makes pronouncements. As I note below.

I don’t need to know anything about you to know that touching your hand on a hot stove will burn you. Same with having sex outside marriage harms you…

So my son wants to touch the hot stove. I tell him not to because I know (I have evidence, based on my knowledge of physics, biology and past experience) that he will burn himself. But my son likes to find out things for himself, so he ignores my warning and gets burnt.

If I told you that one of my kids had ignored my warning and suffered the consequences, then you would be able to tell which of my children had done so. You would be able to tell my daughter: ‘See what happened to your brother when he ignored his father’s warning? See how he has been harmed?’

Now let’s try an easy hypothetical for you. I say easy because you seem to be very sure on the outcome of premarital sex. It is harmful, you say. So you have known two couples for many years. Very good friends. Excellent members of society. Well thought of. Great parents. But…one couple isn’t married. It seems they didn’t think it was necessary.

How do you tell which couple has been harmed? It was easy with the story about touching the stove. The harm is there for all to see. So what harm is apparent to you which will enable you to say: ‘See what happened to this couple when they ignored their Father’s warning? See how they have been harmed?’

I think the answer I will get will be some empty rhetoric such as ‘their souls have been harmed’ or something as equally fatuous. Because, zz, you have no idea what you mean by saying they will have been harmed. You have no concept of any harm that will result at all. Other than your constant refrain that it displeases God.

So what you are saying, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, is that to persuade anyone to abstain from sex until they are married, your only argument is: ‘it will harm your soul and displease God’.

Now I don’t know about you, but I can’t see that carrying a lot of weight in any discussion about sex outside of marriage. In fact, to be perfectly honest, it carries no weight at all. But thanks for taking the time.

 

[ahs]

My team, if I may speak for others, is the one that declares something wrong based on the evidence produced. Not simply because it is written. I’d guess you and I would align on almost everything if we had to decide what was wrong and what was right. With some variance, of course. But most people understand the difference between right and wrong because there are reasons available on which we can base our decisions.

That seems entirely reasonable to me. I find it difficult to think that someone would believe anything at all without a good reason, after due consideration and some credible evidence. Admittedly we often make assumptions about various situations without going to the trouble of verifying every aspect, but the evidence must be there if we choose to examine it. I believe the pilot flying me to Hong Kong is fully qualified and capable of taking off and landing the plane and One would have to be pretty paranoid if you needed to check his qualifications and flight record before you boarded. But the information would be available.

The same is true with sexual matters on which the Catholic Church makes pronouncements. As I note below.

Sure, I see what you are saying. But this is essentially what Pallas said so many posts ago (see the summation in Post 81, with reference back to 66 and 67). It all boils down to “rational people” deciding what is good vs. what isn’t. But no one can decide what is or isn’t rational without necessarily forcing his/her opinions onto someone else. Meanwhile, it’s a big show of hypocrisy as we decide what’s rational while simultaneously claiming we shouldn’t force our opinions on people.

It’s exactly the summation of Pallas’ position. You DO believe in a way things should be, AND a plan for that, AND a planner. But you believe you should be that planner while I believe God is. Is that not how this boils down?

 

[eddie_too]

my comment about billions of people in the past and the present have believed in restricting human sexual activity was a response to someone else who (quite erroneously) had said that throughout history billions of people did not believe in restricting human sexual activity, I was just pointing out that such a statement has no merit at all.

is the statement that billions of people believed in no restrictions on voluntary human sexual activity any more correct?

I would say no because as I already pointed out, adultery has never been accepted in the vast majority of human societies. adultery occurs without coercion.

the truth is that throughout human history, societies have virtually always placed restrictions on human sexual activity, freely engaged in or otherwise

just wanting to keep erroneous statements under control and not allow them to go uncontested.

as to the subject, I already commented that atheists cannot in any significant or material way support their belief that only the material world exists.

in support of my statement, I pointed out that being must be unlimited (infinite); and, that being must be eternal (without beginning or end). I then added that it is perfectly reasonable to add as an attribute of infinite and eternal being, reason and order; and, since the death and Resurrection of Jesus the Lord it is equally reasonable to add as an attribute of infinite and eternal being, the concept of Perfect Love.

I did not veer the thread in to a discussion of human sexual activity. I just have a visceral negative reaction to misstatements of fact that might mislead innocent people in to error.

misstatements like through out history billions of people have not believed in restricting voluntary human sexual activity. that is a false statement that should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

 

[eddie_too]

the very existence of marriage is a restriction on human sexual activity and so far as I know there has never been a human culture on this earth in which marriage did not exist.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Actually, you WOULD need extra information. Even in such a physical event as touching a hot stove. People can touch hot objects and it does not harm them - even without donning asbestos gloves. It looks like that you just talk, without knowing what you talk about.

It seems you are being unnecessarily pedantic here…the original analogy appeared sufficient for the purpose for which it was offered…

What kind of physical harm can come out from a sex an hour before the ceremony, which will be absent one hour after the ceremony? And if that “harm” is not physical, how can anyone know that there IS a harm? Referring to the undefined “soul” is not much of an argument. My “spiritual” life (if there is any) never suffered from having sex before we got married. As a matter of fact these encounters “nudged” us to become married, because we KNEW that one of the “glues” necessary to sustain a happy marriage was already tried, tested, and found sufficient.

No physical harm might come of it if it is an hour before the ceremony…other than to demonstrate unequivocally one’s lack of restraint…for if one cannot maintain control of one’s breeding function for a simple hour might not such a thing be suggestive of a likely lack of restraint in other areas?

Alternately, if one is sufficiently comfortable with pre-hour, pre-ceremony, action, why not two hours? Or five? Or ten? Further, why not a week prior? Or a month? Or a year?

Essentially, why begin the race at the starting line when you might declare to have begun on the other side of the finish line?

The objection to pre-marital sex is essentially that it seemingly shows an errant disregard for the potential welfare of one’s offspring inasmuch as such action might lead to accidental life…and accidental life might lead to further accidental decisions, which might have other negative impacts on the best potential outcome for one’s child.

No sane person would buy even a pair of shoes without trying them on first. And a pair of shoes is totally insignificant compared to a “life-long” relationship. After all “knob A”, does not necessarily fit into “hole B”, and even if it can be “forced” into it, neither the “knob” nor the “hole” will benefit from such a forced “solution”.

Surely no sane person might compare his/her spouse to being equal in value to a set of footwear…should one truly “shop” for one’s spouse by trying different “knobs” with different “holes” to see if things fit…?

And if God is “offended” he has ample opportunity to express his “displeasure”. Strangely, he stopped “smiting” the evildoers… since Onan was struck down (if it ever happened). I think that God is much more permissive than you give him credit for. The creator of the universe is not a “Peeping Tom”.

It is doubtful that Onan was struck down for this crime, but rather for his refusal to grant a son to his brother’s wife as it would interfere with the potential inheritance of his own sons…assuming it was God who might have struck him down in the first place.

Summation
Essentially given that one has all manner of enjoyable activities to pursue towards the building up of a relationship with one’s fiance prior to marriage, is it not seemingly reasonable to practice restraint so as to arrive at the best possible outcome for one’s potential child, one’s future spouse, as well as to successfully demonstrate one’s own personal commitment to remain faithful after marriage given one’s now tried and true proof in practice? Or is one supposedly to be more fixated upon the task of “trying on” one’s potential spouse like a pair of “new shoes?”