T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
So you claim there is no absolute truth, then?
But by that statement, you yourself claim that the statement ‘no absolute truth exists’ IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. . .
Is sex before marriage truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?
- Status
But by that statement, you yourself claim that the statement ‘no absolute truth exists’ IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. . .
S
Soren_Itenu
Guest
Tantum ergo,
Of course you are correct. This is the most elementary, most basic argument against relativists. But relativists cannot even understand that their own relativism defeats itself by claiming absolute relativism. This is why you shouldn’t even respond to posters like Aprilfloyd. They are not ready to meet real thinkers on any intellectual level.
Of course you are correct. This is the most elementary, most basic argument against relativists. But relativists cannot even understand that their own relativism defeats itself by claiming absolute relativism. This is why you shouldn’t even respond to posters like Aprilfloyd. They are not ready to meet real thinkers on any intellectual level.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
But regarding morality itself, there exist absolute truths. There must.
As I stated earlier, the claim that truth is ultimately all relative and that therefore one can have equal and absolutely ‘opposite’ beliefs on the morality of such an absolute. . is itself a claim that such RELATIVITY itself is ‘absolutely true’. . .and therefore, it contradicts itself.
Think about it.
Either we have a situation whereby certain actions are always (absolutely) morally right or wrong. . .
or we have a situation whereby certain actions are only determined right or wrong based on the individual’s ‘opinion’, which can flatly contradict another’s option. . .
but in the latter scenario, the concept that certain actions are relative (that is, right or wrong dependent on the choice of the individual, and not on the action itself) is itself a claim that this determination is ABSOLUTELY TRUE and there can be NO opposing belief that actions are NOT ‘relative.’
In the former scenario, there is no disconnect, because the adherents already know that absolutes exist. . .
the latter claims there are no absolutes, but in doing so, claims this itself as an absolute truth. . .
J
JackieMom
Guest
What? I’m sorry, I don’t understand. Do you live in the USA? Unless the mother and father are heavy drug users or physically abusive to the baby, single parents keep and raise their own kids 99% of the time. Those who choose to place the child for adoption do so privately, not via the state. I literally know at least 50 kids born out of wedlock and all are raised by one or both bio parents, or their grandparents.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I think I understand what you’re trying to convey, but while it is certainly true that there are single parents out there who are estranged from their family and raising their children completely on their own, there are many, very many, very VERY many mothers (and fathers) who may have brought children into the world without wedlock, and whose own parents (those grandparents) are very involved with their grandchildren, just as much as they would have been had their children been married before having children.
Do we wish our children had made a commitment? Yes. Is it a tragedy that so many of our children are raising THEIR children solo? Yes. But are grandparents ‘not involved’ in their grandchldren’s lives because the parents of the grandchildren aren’t married? I don’t believe so.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Evidently you have been education through the public school system, where opinions have been substituted for actual fact for decades now. And “tolerance” of all viewpoints (i.e. opinions) is seen as the greatest and highest good.
No, something cannot be both morally right and wrong. It is either one or the other, black or white. You are muddled up in your thinking, probably through little fault of your own except perhaps intellectual laziness (which again, the public school system encourages).
I urge you to read. Read the New Testament. Did Jesus ever say, “What I tell you could be right or wrong, it depends on how you feel about it?” I would start with the NT and there are other books I can recommend, but you probably can’t absorb them at this point. So start with Jesus, and we will see how you argue anything he said could be both right and wrong.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
L
lizaanne
Guest
Yes.
And I’m shocked that this even needed to go beyond the first response, no less for ten pages.
~Liza
S
Soren_Itenu
Guest
Good idea, Juliane! Bye.
G
GraceUnderFire
Guest
People will always try to justify what they know deep down is wrong. There would be no need to even ask if the conscience wasn’t pointing the way to Truth.Yes.
And I’m shocked that this even needed to go beyond the first response, no less for ten pages.
~Liza
K
Kamaduck
Guest
When I saw this thread, I immediately began wondering about a hypothetical situation in which all the priests have been killed and the survival of the human species is in jeopardy. I suppose that’s just how my brain thinks, especially when confronted with the words “EVERY SINGLE” in all caps. 
But no, it’s just about people who really, really want to have sex before marriage.
Yes, it’s wrong/immoral.
I’m a little disappointed that this has nothing to do with a post-apocalyptic scenario, but at least it was easy to answer.
But no, it’s just about people who really, really want to have sex before marriage.
Yes, it’s wrong/immoral.
I’m a little disappointed that this has nothing to do with a post-apocalyptic scenario, but at least it was easy to answer.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Actually, the post-apocalyptic scenario is pretty easy too. Priests are witnesses to marriage, they do not perform the sacrament. Even in a world where every priest was dead, you can still have marriage.I’m a little disappointed that this has nothing to do with a post-apocalyptic scenario, but at least it was easy to answer.
Now if the question is whether polygamy for the purposes of repopulating the Earth in a post-apocalyptic scenario would be acceptable… that might be a slightly tougher question. But even in that case, if it was acceptable, you’d still have marriage. It would just be Old Testament style.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
We still wouldn’t need the priests to marry. It is a vow between the couple and God, the priest is there as a stand-in but he is not strictly necessary for the vow to take place. We would just have to stand before God and vow the same things. And it would be just as valid.When I saw this thread, I immediately began wondering about a hypothetical situation in which all the priests have been killed and the survival of the human species is in jeopardy. I suppose that’s just how my brain thinks, especially when confronted with the words “EVERY SINGLE” in all caps.
But no, it’s just about people who really, really want to have sex before marriage.
Yes, it’s wrong/immoral.
I’m a little disappointed that this has nothing to do with a post-apocalyptic scenario, but at least it was easy to answer.
K
Kamaduck
Guest
Ah, OK. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
H
Hovannes
Guest
:nope:
In the late 60’s and 70’s, premarital sex was a good and natural thing—that was preached from the pulpits in my diocese.* It was even expected*.
And it was all a big lie.
Sex outside of marriage is never a good idea and always sinful. Mother Church knows best.:yup:
YES Fortunately there is the Sacrament of Confession.Here is what is said :
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:1-40
I agree that there must be a pre-relationship courtship that may last several month without sex but once you truly feel in love and want to be with that person forever, I truly have a hard time understanding how it is immoral to have sex before marriage.
To be perfectly honest I think this whole rule of “no sex before marraige” is not an absolute. I think that when you have the intention to love and to stay together and to have children with the person you are with, to me I don’t think there is sexual immorality.
But since I don’t want to lean on my own understanding I would very much appreciate some of your insights and opinions.
Thank you very much in advance and have a wonderful day
Marie
In the late 60’s and 70’s, premarital sex was a good and natural thing—that was preached from the pulpits in my diocese.* It was even expected*.
And it was all a big lie.
Sex outside of marriage is never a good idea and always sinful. Mother Church knows best.:yup:
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
It was actually PREACHED in church, that premarital sex was good and natural???
Yikes. Those are some heretical priests. wow.
H
Hovannes
Guest
Yes.This was (in my neck of the woods, anyway) part of the wierdness following Vatican 2.
It was actually PREACHED in church, that premarital sex was good and natural???
Yikes. Those are some heretical priests. wow.
Not all our priests were like this, of course—most simply didn’t preach one way or the other for fear of being taken as judgemental,* I ‘m guessing*. Not being judgemental was a biggie back then.
How many abortions did it cause? How much acceptence of contraceptives did it support? How much disease was spread? How much disrespect did it foster by treating human bodies as simple things to be used? How many marriages failed based on this notion? How many good examples of marriage were missed out on by chldren? How many families left the Church because of the message being delivered by those priests? How was the very idea of marriage dealt a death blow (see Msgr’. Pope’s reaping the the fruits of the whirlwind article)
Yup.
But it isn’t just the fault of a few priests. There was the prevalent culture, especially what was offered as entertainment. Rent the most popular movies released during those times and count how many featured gratuitous sex scenes. Read the popular literature and listen to the lyrics of most of the top 40 rock songs.
It’s all there. And Reconciliation or not, we and our children will be paying for these sins for many generations to come.
A
aemcpa
Guest
Polygamy doesn’t change the essential nature of marriage. A marriage is between one man and one woman. The one man is just in three parallel marriages. Party A being in three separate contracts with Parties B, C, and D doesn’t mean that B, C, D are in contract with each other, or that there is somehow one mega-contract with all four of them.
R
rayne89
Guest
Yes sex before is truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance. Sex is for married couples. That is God’s law -and even though we think we sometimes know better than Him -we don’t. He created us, he knows what is best for our happiness. It is not about feelings. Love isn’t even about feelings. Its about actions, its about sacrifice, its about putting the soul of the one you love above all feelings. Truly loving someone means you would not put their soul in danger for any reason. Sex outside of marriage is not loving no matter what it “feels” like.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Oh, I know all about the culture. I came of age in it. I just didn’t realize that Catholic priests were preaching that sex before marriage was fine and natural.
What a mess.
- Status