The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pre-Marital Sex is it wrong

Practices Christian Living
#71

Yes. But NOT EVERYONE wants to marry a person who has been BRAINWASHED THEIR WHOLE LIFE that sex is sinful, dirty, evil and then if they get married change there lifetime brainwashing to the “opposite”, now thinking sexual enjoyment is now not sinful, not dirty, not evil.

But almost weekly in church she/he hears over and over sex is evil and sex is bad etc. and her brain retreats back to thinking, sex is dirty, is sinful, is evil and maybe more false teaching adds sex is only for reproduction , not for pleasure.

I had a co-worker who divorced his long time old fashion anti-sex wife to marry a prostitute so he would be sure that she did not have all the same anti-sex hang ups his previous anti-sex brainwashed wife had. They became swingers and both greatly enjoyed the sexual freedom and sexual enjoyment to the max.

Some people can not change that lifetime of brainwashing and you can hear hundreds of horrid anti-sex marriage where they go many years with no sexual enjoyment. and the only option you give them is divorce.

God sexual freedom give people many option to enjoy sexual freedom pleasures.

God himself promoted polygamy all over the OT. But many people. think that change in the NT. God’s thinking did not change but the gov’t changed. In pagan Egypt Gov’t and pagan Romans made laws so Hebrews and Christian could only have one man one male marriage in fear. that. they would over populate and over power them.

The Gospels are placed in the NT but they are under the same Age of Law as the OT is under the law and Age of the Law.

Jesus lived under the LAW . Age of Grace did not start until after Jesus DEATH and raising from the dead. That is when the "New Testament ", “Age of Grace”, with only one law, the Law of Love. really started.

Jas 2:12. So whenever you speak, or whatever you do, remember that you will be judged by the law of love, the law that set you free.

Romans 7:4 (GW) In the same way, brothers and sisters, you have died to the laws in Moses’ Teachings through Christ’s body. You belong to someone else, the one who was brought back to life. As a result, we can do what God wants.

Ro 13:9 - For the commandments against adultery and murder and stealing and coveting – and any other commandment – are all summed up in this one commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

2Co 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation ; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

God did not change his sexual freedom mind set, but pagan gov’t forces people and try to take away there God given sexual freedom given to all creation at creation.

2 Sam 12:8 , SOS 6:8 Both could have UNLIMITED SEX PARTNERS from God, this is to all creation at creation.

Even USA copy the pagan Roman Empire and try very hard to make every anti-sex law they can come up with, to take away God given sexual freedom.

#72

Nonetheless, our religion comes mainly from the clear NT writings; and none of those writers, as far as I can see, would counsel in favor of promiscuity or sex outside of marriage. As I said, get married is the answer.
I think you present a caricature of those who counsel self-control, abstinence, purity etc - they are NOT people who are brainwashed, brow-beaten, frightened into a pure life - usually not. They could be considered grown-up.
God has made us able to enjoy pleasure, yes; but that can be put aside until one is married; and then you have all the freedom in the world.
We are saturated with sexual messages - and NONE of them by and large EVER counsels self-control, or a higher meaning to sex other than the pleasure -and generally the sex is used TO SELL A PRODUCT.

#73

Yes, and he apparently promoted violence. Which means the Gun Smoke killers, arguing for:

And eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth

An this Pulp Fiction killer, can use the same arguments.

Either the Old Testament stuff still applies in FULL or NOT AT ALL. Except for the elements that Jesus, Paul and the apostles argue for, in the New Testament. But then, you are trying to “sell” the Old Testament… for this day and age , for the sex stuff. But then again, so is the Pulp Fiction killer - for the violence stuff.

But I might have to continue, any “dialogue” for tomorrow. As I have some spiritual groups, to visit tonight.

But then again, we can ALL convert to Islam. And probably find ALL the Old Testament stuff…as well as “temporary marriages”.

1 Like
#74

Has I have already explain All the NT is under PAGAN Roman Empire rules. NOT GOD’S,

the pagan Roman Empire try very hard to take away both Hebrews and Christians sexual freedom that God gave to all creation at creation.

The pagan gov’t did not permit Hebrews or. Christians to have polygamy.

Godly Hebrews gov’t with God’s rules, rule over Hebrews in the OT.

http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Polygamy_Mark_Henkel_Video

God wants as much polygamy and sexual freedom to make a large population.

http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Polygamy_God_is_very_pro-polygamy__misunderstand_Deut_1717

**Prostitution was always legal under King David and King Solomon and most all other Israel kings.

http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Polygamy_Bible_King_David_King_Solomon

NOTHING wrong with prostitution, accept major problem with pagan fertility god prostitution worshipping their Baal fertility god and whose goal was to seduce or bait all to join in with the pagan fertility pagan god worship…**

http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=PROSTITUTION_From_the_Book_Divine_Sex

http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Prostitution_in_the_Bible_Godrules_Net

All pagans that rule over them outlaw polygamy for fear they would over populate and over power them.

Males had sexual freedom and could have many, to unlimited sex partners.

Women from Gen 3:16 had men authority over their sexual freedom. But women with NO male authority over them also had God given sexual freedom that God gave all at creation to all creation.

God and Hebrew gov’t promoted polygamy to have very large families to make big population to make strong nation.

http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Sexual_Needs_Are_Important_To_God

To understand God’s sexual atitude you have to go back to Gen 1:1 and study everything you see in connection to anything sexual.

Also you need to research the context, culture, everything to clearly figure out the correct context, to get real truth, in proper context.

This is the correct way to do your sexual Bible Research. If you do NOT do this, you come up with wrong conclusions taken out of proper context…

#75

Well, there’s not much in your research that I personally can agree with; and I think the consequences of buying in to your sexual world-view would be, and have been, catastrophic.
That’s really all I have to say on the matter.

#76

Of course anecdotal testimony can be used to prove virtually any thesis. And I agreed with you above that a negative tradition toward sex can damage many religious people’s sexual relationships. Nonetheless, every broad secular survey I have read of sexual satisfaction in marriage has shown overall a strong correlation with waiting for sex until marriage, with fidelity in marriage, and with marriage between people devoted to their faith.

Maybe we religious types just dishonestly answer more positively, but no anecdote influences me as much as my own experience that being a one woman man has made me deeply happy and sexually thrilled. If I’m fooling myself, it’s a ride I have no desire to change :slight_smile: But of course if you find your own pursuit of numerous swinging relationships satisfying to the max, I understand why you argue so strongly for that approach.

1 Like
#77

That’s Dave to Professor Stink About-it.

And nothing in

Nor any reputable contemporary, theologian or scholar - would side with his position either.

And the Gun Smoke and Pulp Fiction killers, can foster the same OT arguments - in their defense.

Actually, folks would be better off…and it would probably be less catastrophic…to buy into my theory, of the tribulation and Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4)

#78

From St. Thomas: “When the lower powers are strongly moved towards their objects, the result is that the higher powers are hindered and disordered in their acts. Now the effect of the vice of lust is that the lower appetite, namely the concupiscible, is most strongly intent on its object, to wit, the object of pleasure, on account of the strength of the pleasure. Consequently the higher powers, namely the reason and the will, are most grievously disordered by lust.”

#79

Not sure I understand what that means… Dave you are quoting St Thomas…

Help me out.

#80

Ok, for better or worse, I have re-worked St. Thomas’s “8 daughters of lust” into the way I understand his intent, but closer to the language we share now. Here is the first installment; when I have completely finished I will post it somewhere.
Here goes:

Question: Does " lust" refer only to sexual desires and pleasures?
We can define a “lustful” man as “one who is dragged toward corruption by means of pleasures.” Now sexual pleasures, above all, draw a man’s mind. Therefore lust is especially concerned with such like pleasures.
So, lust applies chiefly to sexual pleasures, which more than anything else work the greatest havoc in a man’s mind, yet secondarily “lust” applies to any other matters pertaining to excess. Hence a gloss on Galatians 5:19 says “lust is any kind of unrestrained indulgence.”
“Lust” can also be applied to wine , either in the sense in which unrestrained indulgence in any matter is ascribed to lust, or because the use of too much wine affords an incentive to sexual pleasure.

Question: Is every sexual act a sin?
A sin, in human acts, is that which is against the order of reason.
-Now the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to its proper goal in a fitting manner.
-Therefore it is no sin if one, by the dictate of reason, makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and order for the goal to which they are adapted, provided this end be something truly good. Just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of sexual acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the goal of human procreation.

A thing (such as sexual intercourse) may not be a sin, but still may be a hindrance to virtue in two ways:
First, as regards the ordinary sense of virtue: only sin is an obstacle to this kind of virtue.
But what if we aim to higher virtue? Then secondly, as regards the perfect degree of virtue, this virtue may be hindered by that which is not a sin, but a lesser good. In this way sexual intercourse casts down the mind not from virtue, but from the height, i.e. the perfection of virtue.
Virtue depends not on the amount of pleasure, but on conformity with right reason: and consequently the exceeding pleasure attaching to a sexual act directed according to reason, is not opposed to the mean of virtue.
What really matters is how much of an interior appetite is raised by that pleasure. It is not necessarily true that a man cannot seek spiritual things and also reasonably enjoy the sexual pleasures : For it is not contrary to virtue, if the act of reason be sometimes interrupted for something that is done in accordance with reason, else it would be against virtue for a person to set himself to sleep. The real problem is that over-sexualized desire and pleasure are not subject to the command and moderation of reason, is due to the punishment of Adam’s sin, inasmuch as the reason, for rebelling against God, deserved that its body should rebel against it, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 13).

#81

So what the hell do you believe? I appreciate the Positions of historical blah blah fathers…

What do you think?

For Christ’s sake man give me a opinion!:neutral_face:

#82

Really? For Christ’s sake?

Well, for YOUR sake - I could not have said it better than the good Doctor of the Church, above.

And as for blah blah blah …one thing that reading OLD books is good for, is to show how smart people - even saints - wrestled with the same problems we do, but not in the same cultural setting we have. In other words, they might not have been infected by the internet, or Marx (not Groucho), or consumer culture etc. Reading them is a way of enlarging the mind and challenging current ways of thinking.

#83

Unfortunately it IS For ‘Christ’s sake’ and we who are infected with the modern ways may well be on to something. You seem to think that modern ways somehow disregard the past… History. You should know me well enough that I am all about history. And the historical rendering of the Bible story. Please don’t put me in a position with contradicting church Fathers. I have all the regard for the fathers they deserve, But hey man, time moves on and their beliefs, though important and relevant at the time, are history.

#84

First - do you agree with what St. Tom wrote, above? Even though he is way ‘in the past’, I think he’s writing for all time - human nature HAS NOT CHANGED.
Time moves on? We may be on to something?
That’s a problem imo - same problem I have with ‘progressives’ in politics - they shun the lessons of the past, and can give NO idea what ‘progress’ really means, other than putting the past behind; a conservative ‘conserves’ what history has taught us, tries to save what was good and is still good. Another topic for another time.
I’m uncertain as to which ‘we’ you are referring to.Europe/Africa/Russia/China - whatever they are ‘onto’, it is not getting them anywhere. Another topic for another time.
Your optimism is commendable, however. :slight_smile:

#86

It is very interesting you say this, because I concluded the same thing. I even almost posted a few hours ago in that very thing, but opted not too. I am not suggesting that Thomas was not brilliant for his time, or even our time, but he clearly had bias. As far as I know, he was a bit of a glutton and certainly a large man. How convenient he thought of gluttony as not such an important sin…

#88

Of course, I’m guessing neither of you has read about his life, his giving, his real dedication to Jesus Christ. So, you don’t know what you are talking about. You’re willing to trash this supposed gluttonous windbag with not a speck of evidence.
But I have noticed that anyone counseling self-control in sexual matters, or pointing out the very obvious perils of indulgence, is in for your kind of mud-slinging, almost without fail.

And also thinking about the 60 MILLION kids dead by abortion in this free=thinking (?) culture.

#89

I don’t it is mudslinging to point hypocrisy and double standards.

Self control is an entirely different thing than outright banning of certain behaviors.

#90

60 million kids aren’t alive today - at minimum - because certain behaviors are encouraged and winked at, without the serious teaching of abstinence or self control.
60 million.

#91

It is a net loss of zero, then. If abstinence was the solution, those kids would have never existed in the first place. So one could argue that it is better, because now they get to go to heaven.

Abortion is the issue, not sex. I don’t like abortion either. But, just like in nature, very few children survive.

From what I understand from people who have had abortions and now regret it, was… They existed and were common long before they were made legal. The only difference now is that it is safer for the mother. I guess, though, that could make you happier? That is, if an abortion went bad and killed the mother too? Sort of like karma? Again, after knowing some who have done this and regretted it, I can only suggest you give the same sympathy you give to “King David-The blood letter, cold blooded murderer” and not confuse pregnancy with abortion. They are not the same.

#92

It’s up to you, but you might want to retract that or put it in the humor category. Normally you make a lot of sense.