is premarital sex bad? why?

[Rau]

… it would be in everyone’s best interest if God would express his opinion in an unmistakable way, for everyone to see and hear. Until we have that, there will be no consensus - which is really sad. This is why the allegedly expressed opinion of God is best left out from such discussions. Maybe there is some afterlife, maybe not. But we live here and now.

Everyone’s conscience is somewhat different. The court system does not care about our conscience. If you could have prevented a serious event and failed to do so, you will be held accountable as an accomplice. It is because the whole system is based upon the principle: “Do no harm. But if the circumstances force you to do harm, do as little harm as possible”.

And remember, sometimes we are forced by the circumstances, through no fault of our own. No just judge would find fault in you actions if you chose the least amount of harm.

I will convey your wish for God to convey his position once again in an unmistakable way. . Actually, no need, you’ve just done so.

In the meantime, I am not finding circumstances where our court system is punishing people for obeying the divine law (the Decalogue) - or as you might say, using it as an excuse not to do something you believe they ought to do. But what if it did?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I’ve never understood this “do no harm” from non believers. Why do no harm? Why is that a virtue or principle? Can’t one just do harm?

I wonder if you ever heard the phrase: “what goes around, comes around”. It is true, you know. Spread good will, good actions and you will be treated similarly. Be hostile and antagonistic toward others, and they will treat you accordingly. Sheer “selfish” behavior. What I cannot understand is why does this crystal clear principle need to explained over and over again?

Why don’t YOU do harm? Because you are afraid of punishment in the afterlife? And you expect a reward? Are these fears and expectations of reward the foundation of your “morality”? Many (probably most) believers would be upset if they were accused of being kind and loving toward others ONLY because they are scared of punishment. They say that being kind and loving comes from the “inside”, they would be just as kind and loving if there would be no reward or punishment. Being kind and loving is its own reward… If they are believers, you accept this explanation, uncritically. Can’t you extend this elementary courtesy toward non-believers?

 

[PRmerger]

Why don’t YOU do harm?

Because we recognize that there is inherent dignity in all human persons because they are made in the image and likeness of God.

And because we believe in a Creator. And understand that harming something God created is not our right.

Now, if one doesn’t believe in God, then all of the above becomes an incoherent mess and there is NO REASON whatsoever not to harm another human person.

He is, after all, just a bag of water and electrolytes, mixed with some other chemicals…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I will convey your wish for God to convey his position once again in an unmistakable way. . Actually, no need, you’ve just done so.

Kind of you to do so. Maybe he will listen to you more than he listened to me.

In the meantime, I am not finding circumstances where our court system is punishing people for obeying the divine law (the Decalogue) - or as you might say, using it as an excuse not to do something you believe they ought to do. But what if it did?

Are you aware of the court cases when some people refuse the services of their public business (bakery, florist) because they consider accommodating those clients to be participating in their “sinful” acts. By the way, is the divine law restricted to the Decalogue? And which version of it?

 

[PRmerger]

By the way, is the divine law restricted to the Decalogue? And which version of it?

Which version of it?

Well, since you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, it should be noted that the answer should always be: the Catholic version.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As such, it would be in everyone’s best interest if God would express his opinion in an unmistakable way, for everyone to see and hear.

Even if He did, that is no guarantee that everyone would acknowledge Him or worship Him.

God doesn’t want people who simply admit that He exists; He wants people who love and obey him.

 

[Rau]

…Are you aware of the court cases when some people refuse the services of their public business (bakery, florist) because they consider accommodating those clients to be participating in their “sinful” acts. By the way, is the divine law restricted to the Decalogue? And which version of it?

Here we have a conclusion about morality a few steps of theological thinking removed from the Decalogue, and requiring prudential judgement to gauge. Not quite the issue you seemed to be arguing?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I wonder if you ever heard the phrase: “what goes around, comes around”. It is true, you know. Spread good will, good actions and you will be treated similarly. Be hostile and antagonistic toward others, and they will treat you accordingly. Sheer “selfish” behavior. What I cannot understand is why does this crystal clear principle need to explained over and over again?

Why don’t YOU do harm? Because you are afraid of punishment in the afterlife? And you expect a reward? Are these fears and expectations of reward the foundation of your “morality”? Many (probably most) believers would be upset if they were accused of being kind and loving toward others ONLY because they are scared of punishment. They say that being kind and loving comes from the “inside”, they would be just as kind and loving if there would be no reward or punishment. Being kind and loving is its own reward… If they are believers, you accept this explanation, uncritically. Can’t you extend this elementary courtesy toward non-believers?

There is a lot of faulty thinking there. What goes around… Is a spiritual belief not a logical atheistic belief. It is closer to karma than cause and effect. For the wealthy, smart or powerful this does not apply. For a powerful person can steal the last crumbs from a starving man and have no moral flaw here. I often wonder to the athiest why rape is wrong. To explain it without morality is interesting.

Not all religion teaches “punishment” for immoral behavior in the afterlife. And the true Christian is not moral for fear of punishment but rather for love of God and his creation.

I find your position almost nonsensical.

 

[e_c]

I stopped by on this thread to see how on earth such a simple question could have provoked such popularity, and whaddya know, it is the same old thread as always on “what makes something right or wrong,” “secular morality,” “motivation for being good,” “how do I know what God actually commands,” etc.

Sisyphus laughs at these threads.

If the discussion doesn’t begin with an investigation into what constitutes happiness, then it will never work out. There is a reason both Thomas and Aristotle start ethics with that investigation… Pure deontology doesn’t work. We’re all children of Kant, and we need to get emancipated already.

 

[PRmerger]

Even if He did, that is no guarantee that everyone would acknowledge Him or worship Him.

Yep.

We have proof of that.

2000 years ago. He did just that, and oh-so-few were convinced.

 

[MichaelP3]

A child cannot give consent. The OP isn’t about rape or other abusive acts, but only where there is mutual consent between adults.

Given that the same poster compared my parents’ marriage (a very good one in fact) and relationship to that of a “good cook and a person that hits a child”, I would’t give her analogies much thought.

 

[PRmerger]

God doesn’t want people who simply admit that He exists; He wants people who love and obey him.

God wants us to say yes to Him in marriage!

 

[PRmerger]

No, luv.

Things are not defined as “bad” based on their consequences, necessarily.

That would make adultery only bad if it resulted in bad consequences.

And, I want to emphasize this: it would make adultery GOOD at the moment it’s enacted if it produces very pleasurable results.

 

[Bradski]

I’ve never understood this “do no harm” from non believers. Why do no harm? Why is that a virtue or principle? Can’t one just do harm?

Matthew 7:12

 

[Bradski]

I agree that correlation is not causation.

However, having sex for the first time is not something that can be undone. Therefore, while there may by any number of CAUSES for the loss of virginity or the taking multiple sex partners, it is also possible that having had sex at least once prior to marriage may lead to any number of the problems within marriage.

Agan, I have no problem with the way this is worded.

 

[PRmerger]

Matthew 7:12

But the position has no coherence for an unbeliever.

Computers are under no obligation to “do not harm”.

Why should human computers be under such an obligation?

 

[Bradski]

But the position has no coherence for an unbeliever.

Computers are under no obligation to “do not harm”.

Why should human computers be under such an obligation?

I’ve told you before. You need to study reciprocal altruism. It’s the basis for civilised behaviour. That’s why you’ll find it being proposed in ancient Egypt, India, China, Greece, Persia.

You don’t need a belief in anything at all to understand it. In fact you don’t need to understand it in any case. It’s inherrant. Even small children exhibit it.

Matthew was just reiterating what was already common knowledge. Although it does seem that it needs to be pointed out now and then.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve told you before. You need to study reciprocal altruism. It’s the basis for civilised behaviour. That’s why you’ll find it being proposed in ancient Egypt, India, China, Greece, Persia.

And I’ve told you before, that’s all well and good but it doesn’t explain OBLIGATION.

You don’t speak of computers being OBLIGATED to do anything.

But you do speak of humans as having moral obligations.

That’s an incoherent position for any atheist to embrace.

Unless, of course, you believe in a Moral Law.

Which means, of course, that you believe in a Moral Lawgiver.

You don’t need a belief in anything at all to understand it.

Yes, you are correct.

In fact you don’t need to understand it in any case.

Yes. And I propose that’s exactly what atheism does. It expresses moral behavior but doesn’t understand it.

It’s inherrant. Even small children exhibit it.

Yes, it is inherent. That’s very Catholic of you to say. And that’s why even small children exhibit it.

But you haven’t explained why it’s OBLIGATORY to stop an immoral action vs “I just don’t like it when a father kills his 10 year old daughter for the audacity of getting raped”.

Matthew was just reiterating what was already common knowledge.

Sure.

Every morally sane person already knew that. Already knew to turn the other cheek. Already knew to feed the poor, clothe the naked, give succor to the sick.

 

[Bradski]

And I’ve told you before, that’s all well and good but it doesn’t explain OBLIGATION.

It deals specifically with obligation. I’m not sure how you think you can argue against something if you don’t understand it.

In any case, being obliged to do something doesn’t mean that you have to comply. That’s applicable to any moral code, be it religious or secular. But most people ‘follow the rules’. And they do so because they will tell you that it feels like the right thing to do. But not many people know why.

In the same way that not many people know why sweet foods taste good. Or why sex feels great. Or why you’d save a cousin rather than a distant relative.

A few of us were in the pub yesterday and one of the guys went to put a bet on a horse race. If you win, the machine gives you either cash or a voucher to use on the next bet. Someone had left a voucher for over a hundred bucks on the machine.

Now you would think that evolution would tell us that something for nothing is a huge benefit. But if everyone did that and only looked out for themselves, then people would not be able to work together in groups. Tribes wouldn’t form. Towns wouldn’t arise. Cities wouldn’t exist. Civilisation would be impossible.

So he spent a while finding out who the voucher belonged to and he gave the money back. When he got back to our table, he wondered out aloud why doing that made him feel good. Much more than having the money would have felt.

Well, now you know. You know that he wasn’t following any specific moral code. You know why he felt this sense of obligation. It’s literally civilised behaviour. Inbuilt. Common throughout nature.

If you like, you can maintain that it’s God given so you can claim it as being Christian amd wax lyrical about Morality and a Moral Law Giver (all in upper case of course).

So here’s a second chance for you to deconstruct my moral code. Matthew 7:12.

 

[PRmerger]

It deals specifically with obligation.

Oh. Okay then. So human beings are OBLIGATED to do certain behaviors as moral agents?