What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[Polymath257]

That is not relevant to the claim he tried to make.

Since "sin" is a term derived from the Bible, the Bible gets to define what "sin" is.

You don't get to make up your own definition of "sin" that is completely inconsistent with how the Bible defines it.
There is no logical basis for doing that.

Simply choosing to not believe what the Bible says doesn't give you to the logical basis or right to then decide you're going to change all the definitions of the words contained in the Bible.

There are other religious traditions that have the concept of 'sin' that do not derive from the Bible.

 

[eik]

The Bible does not have any ownership of the word sin.
And all the jumping up and down claiming otherwise will not change it.

Sin is consequential to law, so if one refuses to recognize law, one will not recognize sin. Yet conversely the bible must own the word sin as it relates to biblical law.

Romans 7:7 "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law."

Now I realize you may well have a great difficulty understanding this, but the fact of the matter is that the Bible does not apply to me.
Or anyone else who is less than impressed with it.

Say that when you're dead and we'll believe you.

 

[ppp]

Say that when you're dead and we'll believe you.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[McBell]

Sin is consequential to law, so if one refuses to recognize law, one will not recognize sin. Yet conversely the bible must own the word sin as it relates to biblical law.

Romans 7:7 "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law."


Say that when you're dead and we'll believe you.

Try clicking the link in the post you replied to.

The Bible does NOT own the word sin.
All the jumping up and down in the world will not change that fact.

 

[McBell]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I never did understand why theists think that such a b old empty threat is anything other than laughable.

 

[ppp]

I never did understand why theists think that such a b old empty threat is anything other than laughable.

I am just picturing them standing over a corpse waiting to see if it says something. Cracks me up.

 

[eik]

Try clicking the link in the post you replied to.

The Bible does NOT own the word sin.
All the jumping up and down in the world will not change that fact.

Obviously you have difficulty with comprehension. I said sin relates to the concept of law. Nothing in your link disavowed it. Whether Norse law, or biblical law, the concept of sin relates to the law it is taken from.

 

[ppp]

Obviously you have difficulty with comprehension. I said sin relates to the concept of law. Nothing in your link disavowed it. Whether Norse law, or biblical law, the concept of sin relates to the law it is taken from.

And legal systems are rife with immorality. Including Biblical laws.

 

[eik]

I never did understand why theists think that such a b old empty threat is anything other than laughable.

Your claim of "non-application" cannot be proven until you'll dead. It is a fraud on your part to pretend that it can. (It's not a matter of threats but of logic.)

 

[eik]

And legal systems are rife with immorality. Including Biblical laws.

No point in debating the bible with one whom is neither logical nor knowledgable (cf. pearls and pigs).

 

[McBell]

Obviously you have difficulty with comprehension. I said sin relates to the concept of law. Nothing in your link disavowed it. Whether Norse law, or biblical law, the concept of sin relates to the law it is taken from.

You obviously have difficulty with comprehension.
I said that the Bible has absolutely no claim on the words sin.
The links shows that.

What strawman do you want to beat up on next?

 

[ppp]

No point in debating the bible with one whom is neither logical nor knowledgable (cf. pearls and pigs).

What you mean is that there is no point in debating the Bible with one who knows it better than you do, kiddo.

 

[McBell]

Your claim of "non-application" cannot be proven until you'll dead. It is a fraud on your part to pretend that it can. (It's not a matter of threats but of logic.)

The fraud is on your part making the bold empty claim that your chosen beliefs apply to anyone other than yourself.
In fact, you can not even show that your chosen beliefs even apply to yourself.

And here you are claiming "logic"?
Wow.

 

[McBell]

No point in debating the bible with one whom is neither logical nor knowledgable (cf. pearls and pigs).

ROTFLMAO
Are you flying home now to claim victory?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I never did understand why theists think that such a b old empty threat is anything other than laughable.

Maybe he expects your ghost to haunt him. Lol.

 

[Rise]

The Bible does not have any ownership of the word sin.

Your argument is fallacious because you're confusing two separate issues that are not logically related.

"Sin" is an english word with an etymology of it's own, yes - but that is irrelevant to the issue you were trying to argue. You were trying to argue against the Biblical definition of "sin" I gave.

English historical etymology has absolutely nothing to do with how the Bible defines the greek "hamartia" or the hebrew "chata".

And I made it clear in my post I was talking about the Biblical concept of "sin" - not the historical english etymology of that word.

Given that I was talking about the Biblical definition of "sin", only the Bible can define for us what that term actually means.

It ultimately won't change the Biblical definition of that word even if you changed what english word you used to translate "hamartai" and "chata" - because the context of the Bible provides for us what the definition of those words means.

Now I realize you may well have a great difficulty understanding this, but the fact of the matter is that the Bible does not apply to me.

Your statement is not relevant to the point you were trying to dispute.

Your belief in the Bible doesn't change the Biblical definition of "sin" as it is found used in the Bible.

You have no factual basis for asserting sin has a different Biblical definition than the one I gave.

And that doesn't change just because you decide you don't believe in the Bible. The two circumstances are not in any way linked together.

 

[Rise]

There are other religious traditions that have the concept of 'sin' that do not derive from the Bible.

That is irrelevant to any point I made.

I specifically mentioned in my post I was speaking of what the Bible said on the matter of immorality (ie. sin).

That is why he was wrong to try to dispute my definition of Biblical "sin".

He had no Biblical or logical basis for claiming my definition of Biblical sin was not correct.

 

[Rise]

That isn't particularly relevant,

You haven't given any reason why it wouldn't be relevant.

Just proclaiming it is not relevant doesn't make it so.

That makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion". Merely asserting something doesn't prove it's true just because you assert it is.

but even if there was one who made me, her definitions do not equate to my obligations

First off, it's "He", not "her", when talking of the Bible.
God is called "father" in the Bible by Jesus, not "mother".

Second: You're committing a strawman fallacy by trying to redefine what I said in different terms.

I never used the word "obligations".

That has a completely different set of connotations and conclusions attached to it.

I talked in terms of "design" - which is inescapable.

If your car is not designed to put salt in the gas tank, then to do so will have bad consequences.

If you are not designed to engage in certain sexual behavior then don't be surprised if there are bad consequences for doing it.

Why is the consequence of sin death in the Bible? Because you cannot be in union with God if your nature is different from His.
And to not be in union with God is to be cut off from your source of life.

"Obligation" falsely implies that you need to do something to earn favor to be granted something from God. The reason that word is false is because it implies that God could grant you union with Him without you letting go of your sin first. The Bible tells us that would be impossible. You are therefore literally incapable of avoiding death without coming back into union with God (which requires being without sin).

A better analogy would be comparing it to a law of nature, like gravity. If you do this then that happens. You just can't get away from it because that's how things function.

You can define it however you want.

It's not my definition of immorality. It's the Bible's definition of immorality.

Your definitions don't oblige me either.

If the Bible's definition is true, and I believe it is, then your rejection of the Biblical definition has no bearing on the fact that you are still bound by it's truth.

That would be like thinking you can become immune from the law of gravity by deciding you don't believe Sir Isaac Newton ever existed.

If the Bible is correct then you are bound by God's definition of what is right or wrong regardless of whether or not you want to believe it. And you bear the consequences for violating that just the same.

No. We don't.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely claiming what I said is not consistent with the Bible doesn't make it so just because you assert it.

You would not be able to give a single reason or piece of evidence to dispute what I said about the Bible's definition of immorality and sin.

I am going to skip the rest of the sermon.

You're the one who asked why it's immoral - and so I gave you an answer.

Are you afraid of what you might find in that answer?

I can't see why else you wouldn't read it, considering you're the one who asked for it.

 

[McBell]

Your argument is fallacious because you're confusing two separate issues that are not logically related.

"Sin" is an english word with an etymology of it's own, yes - but that is irrelevant to the issue you were trying to argue. You were trying to argue against the Biblical definition of "sin" I gave.

English historical etymology has absolutely nothing to do with how the Bible defines the greek "hamartia" or the hebrew "chata".

And I made it clear in my post I was talking about the Biblical concept of "sin" - not the historical english etymology of that word.

Given that I was talking about the Biblical definition of "sin", only the Bible can define for us what that term actually means.

It ultimately won't change the Biblical definition of that word even if you changed what english word you used to translate "hamartai" and "chata" - because the context of the Bible provides for us what the definition of those words means.



Your statement is not relevant to the point you were trying to dispute.

Your belief in the Bible doesn't change the Biblical definition of "sin" as it is found used in the Bible.

You have no factual basis for asserting sin has a different Biblical definition than the one I gave.

And that doesn't change just because you decide you don't believe in the Bible. The two circumstances are not in any way linked together.

I have not "contested" your preferred definition of the word.
I contest your bold empty claim that the Bible has some sort of ownership of the word.
It does not.

See, it is YOU who is contesting my definition of the word.
As though you think there can not be any other definition than one you prefer.
You go even further with your claim that the Bible owns the word.

Now since the Bible is merely another book to me, it holds no power, no authority, over me.
Your inability to understand and or accept that fact is on you.
Not me.

What is the next strawman you are going to beat up on?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What if there were no "buts"? Why is it moraly wrong? (Assuming marriage doesn't play in here)

The quick answer? Because Jehovah God intended it solely between married couples.
When both spouses apply Jehovah’s other requirements — selflessly putting the other’s interests ahead of their own — sex just strengthens that bond & love between them...it establishes a psychological security between them, that only they share. And the children they create, can feel a sense of security growing up, becoming well-grounded adults.

It all ties together....having genuine love for your spouse, and expressing it with foreplay & coitus. Sexual relations has lasting value in those circumstances.....the couple becomes “one flesh.”

Now, sex is just a form of amusement.....
Not too long ago, a few decades back, sex was held a lot more sacred. Women who devalued it and slept around were considered “loose.” And the men who slept with them were “cads, scoundrels, no use.” And the family unit was more intact.

Nowadays many children don’t even know who their Dad is! You think that’s good for society?
Sex outside of marriage, among other actions, has simply led to the breakdown of the family, which is the foundational unit of society.

Ponder this: We know the Bible condemns sexual immorality. If Jehovah God is the Author of it, what reason would He have to tell us to avoid it? (I mentioned a few already.) Maybe, being our Creator & knowing our makeup physically and psychologically better than we do ourselves, Jehovah knows what’s best for us in the long run?

I’ve known many sexually immoral people, my Dad being one of them, who were so unhappy when they died! As for my Dad, his immoral lifestyle brought him no lasting joy!
In the generation I was growing up, “free love” was gaining popularity. Sex was easier to find, & he found it elsewhere. He didn’t hold sacred the sexual attraction he had with my Mother.

I have discovered that following Jehovah’s Laws, even if it requires self-control, or patience, or some self-sacrifice on our part, is always better in the long run!


Take care, my cousin.