What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[ppp]

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting my first statement was flawed doesn't prove it is just because you assert it is.

If I every try to prove it to you, I will take that into account. And since you didn't start by presenting your argument. I have no interesting in reading further.

 

[Watchmen]

Try reading the title.

Ok. She’s a cougar and he has Down syndrome.

 

[ppp]

Cats are not susceptible to Down's Syndrome.

 

[epronovost]

Ahm, I didn't say what your post attributes to me. That's the text I was replying to.

whoopsy my mistake.

 

[McBell]

[

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.

Still beating up that strawman?

My beef is with the bold empty claim that the Bible owns the word sin.
My beef is with the bold empty claim that your beliefs have authority over me.

And now I have a beef with your avoidance my actual beefs in favour of your strawmen.

since you are not interested in discussing what I have actually said, you really should fly on home and claim you bold empty "victory".
For you beat them strawmen up with a vigor the likes not seen here on RF for quite a few hours......

 

[McBell]

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.

That you have accepted the bold empty threat as normal every day conversation, does not mean that others do not see the bold empty threat for what it is.
My guess is that you have become so acceptant of it that you can not see it for what it is.

 

[ppp]

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.

If someone threatens me for not believing as they do, they are a jerk. That is irrespective of whether or not I believe their threat.

 

[Polymath257]

In the outlined scenario in this thread, there is a risk of potentially arising unborn life having to die. That's the moral question at stake.
However, this risk was caused by a decision of human beings.
Since you're not talking about terrorism or bad construction in your comparison as I understand it... the consensual decision is is the difference.

And I suspect that thi sis the original reason casual sex was declared to be immoral: before birth control, it was *way* too easy to produce another human being.

Fortunately, for responsible people today, the odds of that are much less.

Also, I don't consider an embryo to be morally equivalent to a person, who is born, by definition.

 

[eik]

[
Still beating up that strawman?

My beef is with the bold empty claim that the Bible owns the word sin.

My beef is with the bold empty claim that your beliefs have authority over me.

And now I have a beef with your avoidance my actual beefs in favour of your strawmen.

since you are not interested in discussing what I have actually said, you really should fly on home and claim you bold empty "victory".
For you beat them strawmen up with a vigor the likes not seen here on RF for quite a few hours......

Yours are the strawmen. The bible doesn't "own" any word. Belief does not have authority over one who does not believe. That is accepted logic, and accepted in the bible. The only thing that has authority is law. The only question is "which law" does one own? Clearly you along with many others do not accept or own biblical law (i.e. the law of Christ). I accepted that in my last post.

Your beefs are weird strawmen. They are not worth discussing, because they make no sense. You have yet to make a valid point.

 

[Piculet]

If someone threatens me for not believing as they do, they are a jerk. That is irrespective of whether or not I believe their threat.

If you say they threaten you it means you believe their threat. Almost every exchange between us becomes an apparent misunderstanding. I'm done.

 

[ppp]

If you say they threaten you it means you believe their threat.

No. It means I believe their intent.

Almost every exchange between us becomes an apparent misunderstanding.

There is no misunderstanding. You simply get frustrated when I don't fit comfortably into your misconceptions.

I'm done.

Peace.

 

[Piculet]

That you have accepted the bold empty threat as normal every day conversation, does not mean that others do not see the bold empty threat for what it is.
My guess is that you have become so acceptant of it that you can not see it for what it is.

No, that doesn't make sense. If I didn't believe there is a hell. If I was convinced there is no hell and someone warned me, 'if you keep living like that you might go to hell.' Why would I care? The only reason I would be upset is if I was not convinced.

I know there is a hell so I'm not concerned about whether the thought makes you "uncomfortable". That would be stupid of me and it would probably mean my belief in that hell exists, isn't all that strong.

If a Christian who rejects my faith and believes that Muslims will go to hell, was to tell me, "you can belong to any faith you want. It doesn't matter really. It's all about people loving each other...." I would think that is either a horrible person or, more likely, a very ignorant person doing a horrible thing.

What you like is hypocrisy. You want everyone to be hypocrites like you.

 

[Piculet]

No. It means I believe their intent.

Sometimes schizophrenics believe their voices....

 

[McBell]

No, that doesn't make sense. If I didn't believe there is a hell. If I was convinced there is no hell and someone warned me, 'if you keep living like that you might go to hell.' Why would I care? The only reason I would be upset is if I was not convinced.

I know there is a hell so I'm not concerned about whether the thought makes you "uncomfortable". That would be stupid of me and it would probably mean my belief in that hell exists, isn't all that strong.

If a Christian who rejects my faith and believes that Muslims will go to hell, was to tell me, "you can belong to any faith you want. It doesn't matter really. It's all about people loving each other...." I would think that is either a horrible person or, more likely, a very ignorant person doing a horrible thing.

What you like is hypocrisy. You want everyone to be hypocrites like you.

So you are claiming that the bold empty threat is because you are scared of it?

 

[blü 2]

I'm not attacking women by wanting to make them behave the way I do.
[...]
In the outlined case in this thread, let's say pill plus condom, you could do more to prevent unwanted pregnancy, I think.

Think of this: implanon plus condom would be more prevention as I see it.
[...]
I'm not trying to control behavior or anything like this. As these were the type of comments I used to get when conversing with pro-choicers...

You and I agree, then, that it's wise to take contraception seriously.

 

[Piculet]

So you are claiming that the bold empty threat is because you are scared of it?

I'm claiming you imagine a threat because you are afraid. You claim you're not so the other person speaks to you as though you didn't believe, but it turns out you're not sure and you blame them for not taking your doubts into consideration when you claimed you don't have any doubts.

 

[Polymath257]

No, that doesn't make sense. If I didn't believe there is a hell. If I was convinced there is no hell and someone warned me, 'if you keep living like that you might go to hell.' Why would I care? The only reason I would be upset is if I was not convinced.

I care because people who believe in such myths also think they are morally better than others. That their morality is 'higher'. And they then tend to try to do bad things to those who don't believe the same way they do.

I know there is a hell so I'm not concerned about whether the thought makes you "uncomfortable". That would be stupid of me and it would probably mean my belief in that hell exists, isn't all that strong.

If a Christian who rejects my faith and believes that Muslims will go to hell, was to tell me, "you can belong to any faith you want. It doesn't matter really. It's all about people loving each other...." I would think that is either a horrible person or, more likely, a very ignorant person doing a horrible thing.

And I would think that they are compassionate humans that realize all religion is doubtful. Someone who truly believes in hell scares me more than someone who is compassionate and thinks that people have the freedom to choose their beliefs.

What you like is hypocrisy. You want everyone to be hypocrites like you.

No, we just don't want tyrants, especially religious tyrants.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm claiming you imagine a threat because you are afraid. You claim you're not so the other person speaks to you as though you didn't believe, but it turns out you're not sure and you blame them for not taking your doubts into consideration when you claimed you don't have any doubts.

There are two issues. One is whether you believe the threat is legitimate or not.

The other is the intent of the threat. That someone believes in hell and thinks another person *deserves* to go there makes them a pretty nasty and ugly person, whether or not hell actually exists. And I am more concerned with the intent and attitude of that person than I am in an imaginary region of eternal punishment.

 

[Piculet]

That someone believes in hell and thinks another person *deserves* to go there makes them a pretty nasty and ugly person,

That someone would believe in hell and think another person might go there, but without deserving it, would be confused, to say the least. I believe that God is just so if a person goes to hell, they definitely deserve it, but it is not permissable in Islam to say of an individual that they go to hell or Jannah unless we have been informed about the fate of the individual by God.

 

[Piculet]

I care because people who believe in such myths also think they are morally better than others. That their morality is 'higher'. And they then tend to try to do bad things to those who don't believe the same way they do.

I fail to see how this would be different with atheists