A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

[Polymath257]

Do you know why?

According to the story? Because he was sent for the children of Israel, not anyone else.

 

[ElishaElijah]

What is immoral, in my view, is making people feel guilty about having sex with someone they care about. That does far more damage than the sex itself. it is what leads to high rates of teen pregnancy (since birth control is avoided to spare the guilt) and promotes the spread of STD since frank discussion is avoided.

When I look at the disease in marriage compared to outside of marriage, there’s a big difference. I’m looking at what God says about sex and the related consequences and that’s why I believe what the Bible say on that. I see people in and out of relationships with multiple partners and the people I’ve talked to including my own experience, hasn’t gone well.
Life long sexual diseases with sex outside of marriage let alone other problems. I don’t see this in marriage, don’t see any sexual disease at all in a faithful marriage between a man and woman.

 

[ElishaElijah]

But, there is a difference between casual sex and sex with those you care about. The latter tends to strengthen relationships and to promote well-being.

This is also a fallacy, I care about so and so, great how long was that? 3months, 6months, a year then on to another partner when that wears out.
No one gets hurt? Sounds naive

 

[Polymath257]

When I look at the disease in marriage compared to outside of marriage, there’s a big difference. I’m looking at what God says about sex and the related consequences and that’s why I believe what the Bible say on that. I see people in and out of relationships with multiple partners and the people I’ve talked to including my own experience.
Life long sexual diseases with sex outside of marriage let alone other problems. I don’t see this in marriage, don’t see any sexual disease at all in a faithful marriage between a man and woman.

And I see a lot of sexual unhappiness in marriage. I see a lot of people that unknowingly have different sex drives because they didn't explore sexuality before marriage. I see a lot of people that don't reach the happiness they could because they don't really explore the possibilities of their sexuality.

I don''t see a problem with having multiple partners as long as everyone is aware of it and is OK with it.

What consequences do you see from having honest and compassionate sexuality outside of marriage? The worst thing I can see is that people will experience breakup and feel sad for a while. Frankly, that is one thing that needs to happen to grow up and have a healthy view of relationships.

Again, the main oral issues with sex are 1) honesty, 2) consent, and 3) avoiding pregnancy. The problematic consequences of sex happen when one or the other of these is violated.

 

[Polymath257]

This is also a fallacy, I care about so and so, great how long was that? 3months, 6months, a year then on to another partner when that wears out.
No one gets hurt? Sounds naive

It is a good thing to go through the emotional pain of a breakup at some point. it is part of growing up.

It your relationships only last a few months, maybe you need to think deeper about why that is. And I can guarantee the main reason is NOT because of sex. More likely, it is due to lack of communication skills, lack of honesty, and lack of respect for your partner. Sex is such a small part of a real relationship it hardly shows up as a concern.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I think people *should* have sex before and instead of marriage. it leads to happier and healthier people.

That’s BS

 

[ElishaElijah]

It is a good thing to go through the emotional pain of a breakup at some point. it is part of growing up.

It your relationships only last a few months, maybe you need to think deeper about why that is. And I can guarantee the main reason is NOT because of sex. More likely, it is due to lack of communication skills, lack of honesty, and lack of respect for your partner. Sex is such a small part of a real relationship it hardly shows up as a concern.

Relationships with life long promises to love, cherish and respect through anything that comes along, sickness, health, good times or bad, shows great character and integrity. People that honor their word and promises in marriage before God are the real heroes. This is true love. In my opinion when people are in and out of relationships and leave when the feelings aren’t there anymore for someone new will never experience that true joy and deep love of knowing another person, the acceptance and security of that cannot be touched.

 

[metis]

This is a one-and-out post so as to not derail this thread, but I think it's the height of hypocrisy for some to talk about the moral necessity of not having sex outside of marriage and yet they endorse and defend Trump. Go figgur.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It your relationships only last a few months, maybe you need to think deeper about why that is. And I can guarantee the main reason is NOT because of sex. More likely, it is due to lack of communication skills, lack of honesty, and lack of respect for your partner. Sex is such a small part of a real relationship it hardly shows up as a concer

Then why are you so fixated on the sexual aspect in relationships? Better to wait on that part and work on the rest of what you mentioned, communication, honesty, respect. Sex is what hinders these, I’ve noticed if 2 people have a relationship with no sex involved they remain friends if there’s a break-up, not the same when sex is involved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The theory that proposes that we pulled ourselves out of the primoral muck by our non existent boot straps and developed into humans by an impossible process is imaginary.

maybe you should first inform yourself on the actual science that you are so hellbend on arguing against with as only motivation a priori faith based bronze age myths.

At least then you can at least pretend to sound a bit more sophisticated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes it does, the gospel and being born again has given me a new nature. Just because someone has a Christian label doesn’t mean they are born again or walking by the Spirit of God.

And Lord Krishna gave my friend's brother a new nature.


ps: good job on ignoring the point made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The lustful desire I’m talking about is a desire for someone other than your wife. The sexual desire is fulfilled in a marriage between husband and wife and blessed.

I'm not married.
I have sex all the time with my "wife", with which I own a house and have 2 lovely children in a very stable relationship for over 20 years now. My oldest is 5. So for a good 15 years, our relationship was all about partying, having sex and fun and enjoying each other both intellectually as well as physically.

The only reason I ended up with her, is because I had lustful desires when my eyes first fell on her lovely face. And a few other body parts which shall remain unnamed because they'll likely be censored if I say them the way I'm thinking them, LOL. T&A baby! owwww yeeeeaaaa.


Also, you didn't qualify it the first time around. You just said "lustful desire".

Lust is in human nature. There's nothing wrong with it.

 

[Jose Fly]

maybe you should first inform yourself on the actual science

 

[Valjean]

I didn’t think this forum allowed this kind of speech, name calling and judging people like this. If it does the thread is going to change quite a bit when others start doing the same.

Name calling? Judging? If we weren't allowed to give an opinion, make a judgement, or critically analyze a political position, we'd have no forum.

There's a difference between saying "thou fool!" and explaining why one believes a person's stated opinion is foolish. One's an outright, unsubstantiated insult; an aggressive slight communicating nothing useful. The other's a critical analysis of facts or stated opinions.

If I call Stain a Bolshevik or Aexandria Ocasio-Cortez a liberal, am I name calling? Am I "judging" or "name-calling?"
If someone presents an argument defending Roman Catholicism, would calling her a Christian be name-calling or judging?
If someone opines that the Earth's not a sphere, but a flat plain, is calling him a flat-earther name calling?
If I point out the threats posed by global warming, am I judging?

If someone confesses he has no conscience or internalized moral code, and that his only behavioral restraint is an external, coercive threat, why would it be wrong to apply the label "sociopath?" Isn't this the very definition of sociopathy?
If one's forbidden to call a thing by its name, how are we to discuss anything?

 

[Valjean]

That’s correct and to the point that men are inherently selfish and given the opportunity will lust for money, power, control over other people. I believe it’s ignorant and naive to believe men are inherently good and will do the right thing. That has become obvious in our culture today.

But should we jail all for the misdeeds of the few?
Some of us would continue behaving properly and respecting others' rights even if there were no law. Is it us, or the criminals, who are the abnormal ones?

 

[Valjean]

I understand exactly what he meant and it isn’t at all what you all are thinking and saying. If he is like us we give our animals great food and take care of them, so because I don’t think they have morals like humans I’m a sociopath? Ridiculous and shameful way to think and relate to people.

The 'animals' have nothing to do with it. It's because a certain poster states he does not have morals like most humans that I apply the appropriate descriptor.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But should we jail all for the misdeeds of the few?
Some of us would continue behaving properly and respecting others' rights even if there were no law. Is it us, or the criminals, who are the abnormal ones?

I think you underestimate men's capability for evil. More than a few went off the rails when laws weren't enforced, BTW.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The 'animals' have nothing to do with it. It's because a certain poster states he does not have morals like most humans that I apply the appropriate descriptor.

Only I never said anything of the kind.
I asked why in a godless universe I would be obligated to act morally?
That's got nothing to do with my actual behavior in the reality we inhabit.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Only I never said anything of the kind.
I asked why in a godless universe I would be obligated to act morally?
That's got nothing to do with my actual behavior in the reality we inhabit.

@Valjean
This is correct, what I see is you falsely frame your argument then your strawman version you judge as a sociopath. Those were the words you used, you describe your strawman version then you said you judge him as a sociopath.

 

[Valjean]

Some people believe their internal moral code comes from themselves alone and others believe God placed that moral code inside of human beings by their conscience. I believe people can ignore that conscience and end up not recognizing or listening to that and do horrible things as a result.

But there's a commonsense, reasonable explanation for the existence of a natural, biological morality. The goddidit hypothesis is pure, unsupported speculation.