Is premarital sex really a sin?

[Sonofason]

Of course they are. But there's a HUGE difference between being a sinner and being sin, itself. Your assertion that homosexuality is sin means that every person who identifies as homosexual is sin.

Okay, well I see your point, but it's not really registering with me.
homosexual - of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.
Homosexual - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If a person identifies himself as a person characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another person of the same sex, or actually engages in sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex, then he is a person who has a desire to sin, or is a person who actually engages in sin. I do not mean to suggest that the homosexual "is" sin. But, according to the Bible, homosexuals are indeed sinners, because the nature of their thoughts and actions are sinful in regards to their sexuality and their conduct.

Again, your conflating the identity with the action. Sins are actions -- not identities. Homosexuality is an identity. What you're really saying is that it's better to dehumanize someone than it is to admit your piety is misplaced.

If a persons desires are sinful, and if a person's actions are sinful, then that person either has sinful desires, or that person is sinful, respectively. It is what it is. Take it how you must.

You probably also have no reservations about using any other form of hate speech, either. "Cuz ewe've got the word of Gawd on yer sahd."

It. Isn't. Behavior.

I say what I want. I say what I think is true. Whether you like what I say or not, is not my concern.

 

[Sonofason]

So, if heterosexuals are sinners and can get married, then to be equitable, homosexuals who are sinners should be allowed to get married. Using your line of reasoning, of course.

I personally am opposed to same sex marriages. There is nothing you can do about that. I will fight against it. And when it is the law, I will have to accept it as the law. In which case, I may continue to fight against it. That is my prerogative. And I will make my assessments along the way. All people have a right to marry persons of the opposite sex. All persons do not have the right to marry persons of the same sex. That is equal treatment.

Now the laws are changing, and homosexuals will likely be granted the right to marry persons of the same sex. And heterosexuals will also have the right to marry persons of the same sex. It will still be equal treatment "under the law". And that's fine by me. But I will oppose same sex marriage.

 

[Sonofason]

When dehumanizing statements are made, there's every reason to rail against them.

Rail away.

 

[sojourner]

If a person identifies himself as a person characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another person of the same sex, or actually engages in sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex, then he is a person who has a desire to sin, or is a person who actually engages in sin.

Nope. The bible says nothing against being oriented toward a person of the same sex. We cannot say with any certainty that the homosexual acts the bible does condemn are acts of love. Therefore, we can't say with any certainty that those who identify as homosexual are sinful, either because of their orientation or their acts.

I say what I want.

Feel free. But the world is already too full of mean, entitled people.

I say what I think is true.

By all means, feel free to continue to put yourself in a bad light.

Whether you like what I say or not, is not my concern.

Of course not. These kinds of statements show little regard for others.

 

[sojourner]

I personally am opposed to same sex marriages. There is nothing you can do about that. I will fight against it. And when it is the law, I will have to accept it as the law. In which case, I may continue to fight against it. That is my prerogative. And I will make my assessments along the way. All people have a right to marry persons of the opposite sex. All persons do not have the right to marry persons of the same sex. That is equal treatment.

Now the laws are changing, and homosexuals will likely be granted the right to marry persons of the same sex. And heterosexuals will also have the right to marry persons of the same sex. It will still be equal treatment "under the law". And that's fine by me. But I will oppose same sex marriage.

So, because you believe something, you will fight all those who oppose that belief, showing no respect for what they believe. I say that if you don't believe in homosexual marriage, then don't engage in it yourself. Nobody's twisting your winky. Therefore, it's not up to you to twist others' winkies to conform to your beliefs.

 

[sojourner]

Rail away.

You said:
"There truly is no need to be so hostile." which prompted my reply upon which you commented above. My next statement for you is based upon your quote above:
"I personally am opposed to same sex marriages. There is nothing you can do about that. I will fight against it. And when it is the law, I will have to accept it as the law. In which case, I may continue to fight against it."

There's no need to be so hostile.

 

[gsa]

But, according to the Bible, homosexuals are indeed sinners, because the nature of their thoughts and actions are sinful in regards to their sexuality and their conduct..

Actually there's nothing at all clear about what the Bible says on this matter; Christian tradition is another matter, but you should not conflate the two because they are very distinct. The only "clear" prohibitions are found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and given that the idiom used to describe the sex act is found nowhere else in the bible, and given its unusual pairing of zakar and issa as opposed to is and issa or zakar and neqeba. The fact that two distinct words for male are used in 20:13 (the prohibition is against ish with zakar, not ish with ish or zakar with zakar) coupled with its prominent placement in the holiness code and other cultic uses of zakar, to say nothing of the singular idiomatic expression used to describe intercourse, strongly suggests that it is not the model of anti-gay clarity evangelicals and conservative Catholics want it to be. So while the Christian tradition is quite clear in its homophobia, you cannot reasonably attribute that to a plain textual analysis of Leviticus.

 

[LightTraveler]

I'm not sure what the Father in Heaven thinks of this, but I can guarantee that He views consensual non-marital sex as small potatoes when compared to genocide and imperialism.

 

[Sonofason]

Nope. The bible says nothing against being oriented toward a person of the same sex. We cannot say with any certainty that the homosexual acts the bible does condemn are acts of love. Therefore, we can't say with any certainty that those who identify as homosexual are sinful, either because of their orientation or their acts.

I did not say that a person who identifies himself as homosexual is sinful. If he has not engaged in homosexual behavior, he has not committed sin. What I said was this: "If a person identifies himself as a person characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another person of the same sex...,then he is a person who has a desire to sin." And I said, "If a person...actually engages in sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex, then he...is a person who actually engages in sin. If you want to understand me, you must be capable of at least some degree of reading comprehension. This is what I actually said,
I said:

If a person identifies himself as a person characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another person of the same sex, or actually engages in sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex, then he is a person who has a desire to sin, or is a person who actually engages in sin.

Feel free. But the world is already too full of mean, entitled people.

I really don't care if anyone thinks I'm being mean. I intend to say the truth, whether or not someone thinks what I say is mean. They can take it up with God.

By all means, feel free to continue to put yourself in a bad light.

Oh no, some atheist thinks I have put myself in a bad light. What will I do? How can I live with myself?

Of course not. These kinds of statements show little regard for others.

You're right, I have little regard for those who deny truth. I say, so be it.

 

[Sonofason]

So, because you believe something, you will fight all those who oppose that belief, showing no respect for what they believe. I say that if you don't believe in homosexual marriage, then don't engage in it yourself. Nobody's twisting your winky. Therefore, it's not up to you to twist others' winkies to conform to your beliefs.

I will do what ever I can legally do to prevent others from corrupting the society that I live in. I really don't care about the opinions of others. Mine is really the only one that counts. And I will base my actions upon my own opinions.

 

[Sonofason]

Actually there's nothing at all clear about what the Bible says on this matter; Christian tradition is another matter, but you should not conflate the two because they are very distinct. The only "clear" prohibitions are found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and given that the idiom used to describe the sex act is found nowhere else in the bible, and given its unusual pairing of zakar and issa as opposed to is and issa or zakar and neqeba. The fact that two distinct words for male are used in 20:13 (the prohibition is against ish with zakar, not ish with ish or zakar with zakar) coupled with its prominent placement in the holiness code and other cultic uses of zakar, to say nothing of the singular idiomatic expression used to describe intercourse, strongly suggests that it is not the model of anti-gay clarity evangelicals and conservative Catholics want it to be. So while the Christian tradition is quite clear in its homophobia, you cannot reasonably attribute that to a plain textual analysis of Leviticus.

It's very clear. The Bible teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful.

 

[sojourner]

I did not say that a person who identifies himself as homosexual is sinful. If he has not engaged in homosexual behavior, he has not committed sin. What I said was this: "If a person identifies himself as a person characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another person of the same sex...,then he is a person who has a desire to sin."

Psssst!!! <stage whisper> It's the same thing!!!

I really don't care if anyone thinks I'm being mean.

Why am I not surprised? I bet you fart at the dinner table, too.

I intend to say the truth

Might I suggest, then, that you begin doing that in this thread? Because, so far...

Oh no, some atheist thinks I have put myself in a bad light. What will I do? How can I live with myself?

Some what?? Did you say atheist?? I thought you "intended to say the truth." I guess not...

You're right, I have little regard for those who deny truth.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Have a little self-regard, for Pete's sake!

 

[sojourner]

I will do what ever I can legally do to prevent others from corrupting the society that I live in.

Blatant disregard for the well-being of your fellow citizens isn't a great way to go about preventing corruption.

I really don't care about the opinions of others. Mine is really the only one that counts. And I will base my actions upon my own opinions.

Yah, except that's not how societies work. IOW, your attitude here works to corrupt society. So, was your statement above an intentional falsehood, or are you simply tripping over both sides of your mouth?

 

[sojourner]

It's very clear. The Bible teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful.

It's not at all clear. I see you're still not speaking the truth. Big surprise, there...

 

[Sonofason]

Psssst!!! <stage whisper> It's the same thing!!!

Please stop wasting my time.

 

[gsa]

It's very clear. The Bible teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful.

I am not talking about the Christian texts, just Leviticus. And Leviticus is clearly limited to anal intercourse between men, with all sorts of unusual and ambiguous language. Paul is another matter that must be considered separately.

 

[JerryL]

Is premarital sex really a sin? The Bible condemns sexual immorality but not premarital sex. I personally do not believe that premarital sex is a sin. What do you believe?

It depends on wither the woman is a virgin or not Biblically.

To take a woman's virginity was a property crime against her owner (father). It devalued her and so was punishable.

Outside of that, there's no proscription in the Bible that I am aware of against sex. If there is, it's likely from Paul somewhere.

 

[sojourner]

Please stop wasting my time.

Then don't have your time on my watch.

 

[sojourner]

It depends on wither the woman is a virgin or not Biblically.

To take a woman's virginity was a property crime against her owner (father). It devalued her and so was punishable.

Outside of that, there's no proscription in the Bible that I am aware of against sex. If there is, it's likely from Paul somewhere.

Is there a difference between being a biblical virgin and any other kind of virgin?

 

[JerryL]

Is there a difference between being a biblical virgin and any other kind of virgin?

I shall rephrase for clarity:
From a Biblical perspective: the answer hinges on whether the woman is a virgin or not.