The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pre-Marital Sex is it wrong


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:


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.


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.


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:


Seems like an extremely long-winded way of condemning human happiness derived from things he finds icky.


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…


I find most “orthodox” theologians were misanthropic windbags who would spill oceans of ink to convince the world (or themselves?) that non-cruel human behaviors were somehow evil.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Not sure what is humorous about that? Nothing to retract. It isn’t my personal opinion, just a position that could be defended. But one thing is certain, those babies would not have existed. So not only would the 60million not have existed under your rules, but likely 10x as many who are here right now would not have existed under your rules! Are all people walking around who were born out of wedlock just a bunch of mistakes that really should not have been born?

Again, no need to confuse the issues or shift the goal posts. There have been and there are enough families willing to adopt that abortion is never a necessary result of an unwanted, out of wedlock pregnency.


I REALLY think folks on this thread…need something to cheer them up.

Like reading the philosophical works of

And listing to some good blues music!



Gabe has a very good point. I agree with him.


BTW I actually think premarital sex is bad for me but I think that’s a conclusion every individual has to reach for himself/herself. Personally, I think my future wife and I will have greater intimacy if we’re each others’ only sexual partners. But what works for me doesn’t necessarily work same for everyone. I certainly don’t think of fornicators as bad people the way I do murderers and bullies.