What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[Hockeycowboy]

I do wish I could be a better person. I don’t know if thats my own weakness, or if it's some kind of righteousness calling my name.

Question: apparently, you have a standard that you think can make a person “better.”

I think so, too...I’m not judging you, just agreeing. But I wonder (here’s the question): Do your friends meet that standard? I bet they don’t.
So, surround yourself with those people who do. Then learn from them. 1 Corinthians 15:33

 

[Rise]

I have not "contested" your preferred definition of the word.

...

As though you think there can not be any other definition than one you prefer.

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Assertion".
Merely asserting that the definition I gave of Biblical sin is a "preference" doesn't make it true just because you assert it.

You cannot establish with facts or reasons that the definition I gave of Biblical sin is not objectively true of what the Bible says about sin.

You therefore have no basis for claiming my definition of Biblical sin is just a "preference", which implies there are multiple definitions of equal value or that it is just subjective.

I contest your bold empty claim that the Bible has some sort of ownership of the word.
It does not.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".

I refuted your claim already in my last post and you have no counter to my arguments.

The burden of rejoinder is on you to provide a valid counter argument otherwise your claim stands as refuted.

Merely asserting that my claim is "empty" or that what I said is wrong doesn't make it true just because you assert it.

You need to give actual reasons why anything I said is wrong.


Here again is what I posted which refuted your claim:

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.

See, it is YOU who is contesting my definition of the word.

Post #187

You tried to contest my definition of Biblical sin by claiming the definition is something different.

I showed why you are wrong.

Of course I have to, by definition, contest your definition of the word in order to prove my definition was correct originally.

But that's missing the point that you were the one who first tried to contest my definition of the word.

You go even further with your claim that the Bible owns the word.

Logical fallacy, "Strawman".
You are mispresenting what I have said.

I said that I gave you the Biblical definition of sin.

I did not say I gave you the english etymological definition of sin.

The two are different.

And you cannot dispute that my definition of what the Bible says is sin is correct.

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.

Logical fallacy, "argument by repetition".

I already refuted your argument, and instead of responding to my points with a valid counter argument you merely repeated your original claim.

But merely repeating your original claim doesn't stop your argument from having been refuted already.

Here it is again, that which already refuted your argument:

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.

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

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".

Merely accusing me of committing a strawman doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.

You cannot quote any post of mine and explain logically why it qualifies as a strawman, because it never happened.

 

[sun rise]

I am trying to make clear that we humans are not perfect, and that the strongest, most loving, most committed relationships are not foolproof against our animal tendencies -- and that we then have to learn how to live with ourselves as we are, and deal with the consequences of whatever we do.

In terms of simply being human, I am no sort of "idealist" at all. We're going to screw up sometimes, so why not think about what that means, and how to deal with it?

I agree.

 

[wertwo]

There is nothing immoral there. It seems very safe, sane and consensual.

we both agree that seems mortal to us

 

[sun rise]

Of course I'm a liar. But in reality, I'm mostly an atheist who despises his own atheism, and his own deceitfulness. I do wish I could be a better person. I don’t know if thats my own weakness, or if it's some kind of righteousness calling my name.

...Maybe some day I'll know. Or I won't know anything.

I appreciate that post. It casts a different light on what you've written, at least for me.

 

[sun rise]

@Piculet , what is your attitude toward temporary marriage, or nikah mut'ah, which is the practice of some Muslims?

 

[Piculet]

@Piculet , what is your attitude toward temporary marriage, or nikah mut'ah, which is the practice of some Muslims?

It's not from Islam. It's a Shia practice.

 

[Piculet]

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

I never have verified why atheists keep accusing us of "threatening" them when we're simply telling them about our religion. My best guess is they're afraid they're wrong.

 

[Watchmen]

A: You're intoxicating.
B: You're amazing.
A: Sex?
B: Yes, please. I have till five.
A: I'll get a room across the street.
{pause for lingering kiss}
B: Any health concerns we need to work around?
A: No. And I test quarterly
B: Cool. Me too. But have had HPV
A: Not a problem. You'll get condoms?
B: I'll get the condoms. Latex okay?
A: I'm allergic.
B: Ok. I'll get polyisoprene. Lube preference?
A: Anything water based. And a dam. It will may me more comfortable. And get drinks and snacks. Salty snacks.
B: Will do. Here's my number. Text me with the room number.
A: You bet! {pause for promising kiss} We're going to have so much fun!
B: Feel my heart. It's pounding. I'd better go shopping before I forget how to walk. See you soon!

Well, he’s 35 and she’s 16, so there’s that.

 

[blü 2]

A: You're intoxicating.
B: You're amazing.
A: Sex?
B: Yes, please. I have till five.
A: I'll get a room across the street.
{pause for lingering kiss}
B: Any health concerns we need to work around?
A: No. And I test quarterly
B: Cool. Me too. But have had HPV
A: Not a problem. You'll get condoms?
B: I'll get the condoms. Latex okay?
A: I'm allergic.
B: Ok. I'll get polyisoprene. Lube preference?
A: Anything water based. And a dam. It will may me more comfortable. And get drinks and snacks. Salty snacks.
B: Will do. Here's my number. Text me with the room number.
A: You bet! {pause for promising kiss} We're going to have so much fun!
B: Feel my heart. It's pounding. I'd better go shopping before I forget how to walk. See you soon!

Your scenario rules out a resulting pregnancy, the transmission of sexual disease (as distinct from Covid-19, since social distancing ...), and romance as distinct from friendship.

That pretty much leaves what @Polymath in effect said, breach of faith.

If neither party is breaching the trust between them and a third person, then I don't see a moral problem.

As for praxis, in this age of me-too, who's allowed to broach the subject?

 

[thomas t]

Your scenario rules out a resulting pregnancy

no it does not. Condoms do not garuantee anything.

 

[blü 2]

no it does not. Condoms do not garuantee anything.

She may be on the pill anyway and the condom is prophyllactic. In that case the chances of harm are minimal, and voluntarily undertaken after disclosure.

And since there is disclosure (implicitly complete), then whether anything goes wrong or not, what moral question, rather than a practical one, arises?

 

[thomas t]

She may be on the pill anyway

*may be*. She may or may not be on the pill, that's the point.
Disclosures don't rule out that she has actually taken the pill during the time before the date. She may have forgotten it some day before the date...

And since there is disclosure (implicitly complete), then whether anything goes wrong or not, what moral question, rather than a practical one, arises?

You can't tell from the outside if the pill has been applied correctly.
So you can't rule out an unwanted pregnancy. If you can't rule out an unwanted pregnancy... then there is no reason to rule out that there will be an abortion in that scenario.

 

[eik]

ROTFLMAO
Are you flying home now to claim victory?

The victory is ours, not yours. The only question is when you will learn it.

 

[eik]

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?

Let me repeat myself. Sin is relative to law. The bible can lay claim to sin contextual to biblical law. When the bible talks about sin, it is also talking about law. Law has been acknowledged in every society. It was present in paradise in the garden of Eden. Therefore "sin" is an irrelevance. Your beef is with biblical law, not sin, of which Christ said, paraphrasing, biblical law will endure to the end of time.

But even if you think you can evade its consequences by pretending that it doesn't apply to you, you will still be judged, which is why I said: wait until after death before you say it's all untrue. Even pagans admit truth and morality, or sorts, but mockers will always be found wanting because they know not what they mock.

 

[eik]

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

Again no evidence of that. No evidence of anything from you, is there?

 

[Piculet]

then there is no reason to rule out that there will be an abortion in that scenario.

Or another baby without a proper family.

In 2011, nearly half (45%, or 2.8 million) of the 6.1 million pregnancies in the United States were unintended. Specifically, 27% of all pregnancies were “wanted later” and 18% of pregnancies were “unwanted.”2

Unintended Pregnancy in the United States

 

[ChristineM]

As a newfound atheist, perhaps you could teach me what is unacceptable with *facts* and *actual evidence* not based in the imagination then.

The law is the laid down by the country, state, municipality you live in?

Morality is your own system of values, usually based on what you consider right and wrong and how your peers expect you to behave

 

[ChristineM]

Is this a trick question?......to prove they're not being arrogant or ignorant?

The arrogance is expecting your belief to be grovelled over by others.

If you think otherwise to my post then show evidence that your god belief laid down those rules

Of course i dont expect anything other than ignoring the difficult questions, its a trait you have repeatedly shown you are good at.

 

[ChristineM]

In the admitted one time when it occurred to my friends, the result was a divorce and a friendship ending.

Seems to me their marriage was traditional and not open. In which case one partner was cheating, divorce makes sense.