What are your views on sex and marriage?

Has it now?  I can list you many an uncivilised act done solely in the service of religion.  This arresting of a persons basic needs as a tool of exploitation in their attempt to create a problem for you to have to come to them to solve is just one example.

Sitri_

Religion isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it has some good qualities that can be ignored simply because of the bad qualities. The Golden Rule is a good example.

Why is it not ethical?  Because someone says it isn't?  That doesn't sound like a very good reason to me.  If I were to say eating lettuce was unethical, would you say "Humans are more adapted than animals though and they have moral codes of conduct that can't be ignored for the simple sake of eating a sandwich"?  My moral code of conduct which is firmly in tack has nothing to do with non-harmful sex.

Sitri_

Merely someone saying that is ethical doesn't make it ethical or unethical. See the second part of this post for why it is unethical, outside of my opinion. Leaving it to a person's moral code of conduct makes it harder. It makes it harder to govern responsibly.

On what grounds?

Sitri_

Divorce is inethical. Marriages are not devised for an inevitable divorce, just like sex is not devised to have merely pleasure. Sex is devised for reproduction, nothing else. Of course, as is the case with sex, if one wants to make divorce look "ethical" just as much as extramarital sex, then they can be my guest. However, it distorts the value of marriage and sex, making it to be business as usual.

There is a big difference between saying that you don't find sex arousing and that it is unethical.  There are a great number of things that don't turn me on or may even repel me, but I don't place moral judgements on them for that reason.

Genetic_Code

Well, my personal opinion doesn't matter. It would still be unethical even if I was addicted to sex.

And if you don't want to get in a car crash you shouldn't ride in a car, and if you don't want to get food poisoning you shouldn't eat food you haven't grown and prepared yourself, and if you don't want to fail you should never try...........some things in life are not only worth the risk, our basic quality of life requires it of us.

Sitri_

The only time sex is necessary is to reproduce. Driving a car is necessary for transportation. Food is necessary for survival. Sex, when ignoring the consequences, isn't necessary, and when figuring the consequences, is very life changing.

And I personaly find nothing insulting in saying that we are animals. We are and if you like it we are not wild but domesticated - by god, lansdowne5 might say and he might be right. But the point is that I can't imagine a human being functioning properly without inner emotions, lusts, needs and impulse behaviour. If we hadn't these then there would be no social behavior, no need to define relationships (if there would be at all), no bonding with others, NOTHING.

Teenaged

Well, of course we can't fuction without those types of behavior. We're not perfect. We're prone to let our guard down. That doesn't make that behavior right.

I don't want to be unfair because I guess G_C has nothing against those things in general, but finds sex unethical before marriage and generaly not appealing. I would like first to know in what moral principals is it unethical: Christian morality, common sense? And why?

Teenaged

Both.

Marriage is designed for the bonding of two individuals metaphysically.

Sex is designed for the bonding of two individuals physically.

Why should two be one physically but not metaphysically?

Shouldn't the actions of our body be a representative of our mind? Or do the actions of our body dictate the representation of our mind?

Both.

Marriage is designed for the bonding of two individuals metaphysically.

Sex is designed for the bonding of two individuals physically.

Why should two be one physically but not metaphysically?

Shouldn't the actions of our body be a representative of our mind? Or do the actions of our body dictate the representation of our mind?

Genetic_Code

I think you are glorifying it a little bit.  Some may view sex as bonding and part of emotional closeness but ultimately it is there to sustain the human race.  What is wrong with that?

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

Both.

Marriage is designed for the bonding of two individuals metaphysically.

Sex is designed for the bonding of two individuals physically.

Why should two be one physically but not metaphysically?

Shouldn't the actions of our body be a representative of our mind? Or do the actions of our body dictate the representation of our mind?

AnObscureName

I think you are glorifying it a little bit.  Some may view sex as bonding and part of emotional closeness but ultimately it is there to sustain the human race.  What is wrong with that?

If the two individuals aren't in sync metaphysically, which would be emotionally and mentally, then I don't think that will necessarily translate to a physical bonding, even if emotion is included, and it definitely will make it more likely for the individuals to separate, which is undesirable.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Why does everything humans do have to be completely logical? Should we suppress every impulsiveness we have just to claim we are not animals? Emotions aren't (most of the times) logical, yet we feel them. And how does sex reverse the advances of humanity?

Genetic_Code

Humans don't have to be logical. They have no obligation to be logical, whether there is a Supreme Ruler or not, we have the free will, or at least the appearance of free will, to not confine within logic. I would imagine suppressing impulsiveness would equate to good behavior. Emotions aren't logical, but there's a logical way to approach them. Sex reverse the advances of humanity because we've made safeguards to prevent from having too much sex. No animal species that I know of has a specific code of conduct that disables them from having sex, although it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't any.

It could be argued that animals have better morals than us as animals do not kill based on emotions such as greed, jealously, vengeance etc.

THUMPTABLE

That's because humans don't study animals' emotions as much as we do humans. That's up to debate. Animals do kill.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

And I personaly find nothing insulting in saying that we are animals. We are and if you like it we are not wild but domesticated - by god, lansdowne5 might say and he might be right. But the point is that I can't imagine a human being functioning properly without inner emotions, lusts, needs and impulse behaviour. If we hadn't these then there would be no social behavior, no need to define relationships (if there would be at all), no bonding with others, NOTHING.

Genetic_Code

Well, of course we can't fuction without those types of behavior. We're not perfect. We're prone to let our guard down. That doesn't make that behavior right.

I don't want to be unfair because I guess G_C has nothing against those things in general, but finds sex unethical before marriage and generaly not appealing. I would like first to know in what moral principals is it unethical: Christian morality, common sense? And why?

Teenaged

Both.

Marriage is designed for the bonding of two individuals metaphysically.

Sex is designed for the bonding of two individuals physically.

Why should two be one physically but not metaphysically?

Shouldn't the actions of our body be a representative of our mind? Or do the actions of our body dictate the representation of our mind?

Marriage is designed to bond two people who either (speaking of the origins of the tradition) are sure that they will love each other for a long long time or there was need for children to be born officially for heirs and stuff, It's about officiality. The notion you have about marriage is actually the ideal one can have but this notion has deteriorated in time and became more... stupid.

Why shouldn't they?

And about the last question: No the actions of our body never representate our mind, at least not altered. We can't force our body to behave by the demands of the "logical" brain because this is... unnatural imo. We are animals after all. We just have the ability in contrary to other animals to be closer to what our mind says. But never the same and definetely not always far fom what another animal would fubction in that matter.

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

Both.

Marriage is designed for the bonding of two individuals metaphysically.

Sex is designed for the bonding of two individuals physically.

Why should two be one physically but not metaphysically?

Shouldn't the actions of our body be a representative of our mind? Or do the actions of our body dictate the representation of our mind?

Genetic_Code

I think you are glorifying it a little bit.  Some may view sex as bonding and part of emotional closeness but ultimately it is there to sustain the human race.  What is wrong with that?

If the two individuals aren't in sync metaphysically, which would be emotionally and mentally, then I don't think that will necessarily translate to a physical bonding, even if emotion is included, and it definitely will make it more likely for the individuals to separate, which is undesirable.

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

 That's a first.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I don't want to be unfair because I guess G_C has nothing against those things in general, but finds sex unethical before marriage and generaly not appealing. I would like first to know in what moral principals is it unethical: Christian morality, common sense? And why?

Genetic_Code

Both.

Marriage is designed for the bonding of two individuals metaphysically.

Sex is designed for the bonding of two individuals physically.

Why should two be one physically but not metaphysically?

Shouldn't the actions of our body be a representative of our mind? Or do the actions of our body dictate the representation of our mind?

Marriage is a product of the society. Different people might veiw marriage differently. It even varies geographically. Some think of it as a way to welcome the loved one into family. Some think of it as something that has to happen at a certain age. Some think of it as just a piece of paper. So yes, marriage is about bonding between two people and as for the "metaphysical" part, it may not always be there between the two while oficially they are still married. So I think the general definition of marriage doesn't have to include the "metaphysical" part... 

Sex in it's extreme raw form is the only way for us to reproduce (until and unless we start to grow babies in external wombs, artificially)... But as we all know sex usually have strings attached to it. People have sex to gain experience, to glorify one's ego, to get ahead in competetion, to forget emotional pain(temporarily) etc. and as for pleasure, it is always there in every cases. So, sex is for reproduction at the very basic. Pleasure is constant but intentions might still vary...

What I'm trying to say is marriage and sex are two totally different things.

That's why I think it's just as much a valid question if I ask "Why do sex and marriage have to come in a package?" to counter your claim (the sentence in bold).

In a couple marriage or sex is no more, if not less, vital than love. I think love connects the two... not marriage and not sex. Suppose, you have already asked out the preacher's daughter and now you two are a couple.

Now I come out of nowhere and ask you what do you mean by couple? What is it that makes you a couple?

Why are you two together? What would your answer be? ( you can chose only one answer )

A > Because we're married.

B > Because we have sex.

C > Because we love each other.

I know it looks like I'm going totally off-topic. In a way I am!

It seems to me like you are trying to define "The Perfect Couple" from your perspective, leaving out the most important ingredient...

[spoiler] :roll: [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I don't want to be unfair because I guess G_C has nothing against those things in general, but finds sex unethical before marriage and generaly not appealing. I would like first to know in what moral principals is it unethical: Christian morality, common sense? And why?

7guns

Both.

Marriage is designed for the bonding of two individuals metaphysically.

Sex is designed for the bonding of two individuals physically.

Why should two be one physically but not metaphysically?

Shouldn't the actions of our body be a representative of our mind? Or do the actions of our body dictate the representation of our mind?

Marriage is a product of the society. Different people might veiw marriage differently. It even varies geographically. Some think of it as a way to welcome the loved one into family. Some think of it as something that has to happen at a certain age. Some think of it as just a piece of paper. So yes, marriage is about bonding between two people and as for the "metaphysical" part, it may not always be there between the two while oficially they are still married. So I think the general definition of marriage doesn't have to include the "metaphysical" part... 

It seems to me like you are trying to define "The Perfect Couple" from your perspective, leaving out the most important ingredient...

PS. 7guns, my browser said you posted after me in a Lans's thread but it's not there.

Good points 7guns. Never off-topic in such threads lol! I think that his descrption is more like the perfect couple for evangelists. That's the way I receive it but I guess he doesn't describe it to serve any hardcore religious views.

PS. 7guns, my browser said you posted after me in a Lans's thread but it's not there.

Teenaged

Now it's time to wait for Genetic_Code to show up...

That was by mistake. Disregard that. 

[QUOTE="Sitri_"]

Has it now?  I can list you many an uncivilised act done solely in the service of religion.  This arresting of a persons basic needs as a tool of exploitation in their attempt to create a problem for you to have to come to them to solve is just one example.

Genetic_Code

Religion isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it has some good qualities that can be ignored simply because of the bad qualities. The Golden Rule is a good example.

Well I am far from convinced this is a good quality.  As stated in my post your referenced here, I think it is a very bad one.  And I think it falls very neatly within the golden rule.  Sex is largely an act of positive reciprocation.

Side Note:  I think the golden rule as more a philosophy than anything a religion can claim.  But you may be interested in these 21 religions and how all of them claim the golden rule.  http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm 

Merely someone saying that is ethical doesn't make it ethical or unethical. See the second part of this post for why it is unethical, outside of my opinion. Leaving it to a person's moral code of conduct makes it harder. It makes it harder to govern responsibly.

Genetic_Code

I am not trying to govern responsibility of others, just my own.  So I can't make ethical claims about how others should enjoy consensual sex. 

Divorce is inethical. Marriages are not devised for an inevitable divorce, just like sex is not devised to have merely pleasure. Sex is devised for reproduction, nothing else. Of course, as is the case with sex, if one wants to make divorce look "ethical" just as much as extramarital sex, then they can be my guest. However, it distorts the value of marriage and sex, making it to be business as usual.

Genetic_Code

Really?  I can think of many instances where divorce is the right option.  I don't know how old you are but I know I have lived many different lives and been many different people and I still think of myself at a relatively young age.  The fact is people change and if people grow apart they shouldn't be miserable and force someone else to be miserable for the sake of some social dogma.  Not only this innocent version, suppose one party is actually a culprit in the divorce, why is it unethical for the innocent party?  Remember marriage only exist as an idea, a phenomenological construct; any value judgement placed on it is as subjective as the essence of the subject itself.  For a long period of time marriage was for social and political gain, lovers were for personal fulfillment.

Sex has many other functions besides reproduction.  Check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it is well accepted as a requirement for personal fulfillment and acceptance.

The only time sex is necessary is to reproduce. Driving a car is necessary for transportation. Food is necessary for survival. Sex, when ignoring the consequences, isn't necessary, and when figuring the consequences, is very life changing.

Genetic_Code

Not according to Maslow, myself, and many others.  Sex is a necessity for a healthy partnership as I see it.  Just as needed as a car is to get around, or food prepared by others is to survive.  Sex is a powerful bonding and forgiving force.  It releases chemicals that stimulates couples and rewards them in ways to promote staying together.  

I don't know how old you are, but as you get older this gets more important.  I was with a girl for several years who had very....idiosyncratic taste.  I became very proficient at satisfying her but after we split I found myself much less viable in the common market than I was before being with her.  I had several unsatisfying sexual encounters before becoming more like the commons again.  Each and every time this happened it meant the relationship with the new girl I was with was over.  Once mature women know what they want and need and don't waste time on those that cannot provide this basic need to them.  It is entirely understandable.  It is a real need and I do the same.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Why does everything humans do have to be completely logical? Should we suppress every impulsiveness we have just to claim we are not animals? Emotions aren't (most of the times) logical, yet we feel them. And how does sex reverse the advances of humanity?

Genetic_Code

Humans don't have to be logical. They have no obligation to be logical, whether there is a Supreme Ruler or not, we have the free will, or at least the appearance of free will, to not confine within logic. I would imagine suppressing impulsiveness would equate to good behavior. Emotions aren't logical, but there's a logical way to approach them. Sex reverse the advances of humanity because we've made safeguards to prevent from having too much sex. No animal species that I know of has a specific code of conduct that disables them from having sex, although it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't any.

It could be argued that animals have better morals than us as animals do not kill based on emotions such as greed, jealously, vengeance etc.

THUMPTABLE

That's because humans don't study animals' emotions as much as we do humans. That's up to debate. Animals do kill.

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

gbpman630

[QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

THUMPTABLE

Just that it is really hard to imagine why it would be wrong outside of religious dogma.  ;)

[QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

THUMPTABLE

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :) 

[QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

THUMPTABLE

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

Lansdowne5

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :) 

I'd have to disagree Lans5.  Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I.  Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values.  Especially in the US.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

btaylor2404

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :) 

I'd have to disagree Lans5.  Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I.  Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values.  Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.  

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

Lansdowne5

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :) 

I'd have to disagree Lans5.  Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I.  Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values.  Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.  

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

Lansdowne5

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :)

I'd have to disagree Lans5. Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I. Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values. Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

THUMPTABLE

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :)

I'd have to disagree Lans5. Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I. Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values. Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.

Huh? :o My morals are coming from the Bible, and as I said above, they include - honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity. Are you saying that those things are wrong?

And also, just because one thing in the Bible 'may' be immoral (which it isn't) that doesn't mean the whole book is. :)

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

Teenaged

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :) 

I'd have to disagree Lans5.  Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I.  Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values.  Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.  

I don't do these things because I 'must'. I do these things because I know it's what's right. :)

Here's just one verse which sums it up nicely: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." - John 7:38 

Your answer to THUMBTABLE: And just because some parts of the Bible are acceptable even by common sense (love thy neighbor, don't murder, steal etc.) it doesn't mean that the whole book is morally valid. ;)

Your answer to me: "I do these things because I know it's what's right" - That must mean that whatever god says is right and since he says so then it must be done, right. That's acceptable. But think twice before you perceive something as the true word of god, everything that is layed in front of you as the true word of god. And you should consider keeping at the back of your head -at least- the though that maybe what is written in the Bible has been affected by the beliefs of the people who wrote it. After all they were humans with flaws, and one flaw of humans is their effort to use every means to impose their beliefs on others, especially in a time when intelligence and level of education of almost every person was not equivalent to today's.

And my statement was more emphasising on the fact that its better to be moral for the welfare and prosperity of the society, rather of the fear of punishment. But if you say you don't do it in fear of a punishment then I won't doubt it. :)

Your answer to THUMBTABLE: And just because some parts of the Bible are acceptable even by common sense (love thy neighbor, don't murder, steal etc.) it doesn't mean that the whole book is morally valid.

Your answer to me: "I do these things because I know it's what's right" - That must mean that whatever god says is right and since he says so then it must be done, right. That's acceptable. But think twice before you perceive something as the true word of god, everything that is layed in front of you as the true word of god. And you should consider keeping at the back of your head -at least- the though that maybe what is written in the Bible has been affected by the beliefs of the people who wrote it. After all they were humans with flaws, and one flaw of humans is their effort to use every means to impose their beliefs on others, especially in a time when intelligence and level of education of almost every person was not equivalent to today's.

And my statement was more emphasising on the fact that its better to be moral for the welfare and prosperity of the society, rather of the fear of punishment. But if you say you don't do it in fear of a punishment then I won't doubt it. :)

Teenaged

The validity and authority of Scripture is a separate matter. But what I will say, is that whenever I've done something which the Bible instructs me to do, only good has come of it. :) 

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

Lansdowne5

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :)

I'd have to disagree Lans5. Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I. Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values. Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.

Huh? :o My morals are coming from the Bible, and as I said above, they include - honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity. Are you saying that those things are wrong?

And also, just because one thing in the Bible 'may' be immoral (which it isn't) that doesn't mean the whole book is. :)

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

THUMPTABLE

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :)

I'd have to disagree Lans5. Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I. Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values. Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.

Huh? :o My morals are coming from the Bible, and as I said above, they include - honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity. Are you saying that those things are wrong?

And also, just because one thing in the Bible 'may' be immoral (which it isn't) that doesn't mean the whole book is. :)

Prove they're morally wrong. ;) 

First off, sorry for the delayed response. I've read everyone's responses and appreciate your input even if I disagree with your opinion. It's very important to me that you have the freedom to debate. I've had a lot to chew on with regards to this topic, but not enough time to elaborate my thoughts into writing.

I do, however, have this one simple analogy. I gather the topic of sex is so analogy driven because merely talking about it, even on a public forum, is taboo, but whatever the case may be, I think this analogy "drives" my point, pun intended.

Imagine that there are no laws about wearing seatbelts. You get in a car and your friend calls shotgun and gets into the passenger seat. You start the car and think about putting your seatbelt, but then you remember that there aren't any laws against it. You notice you friend also doesn't put her seatbelt on and turns on the radio and switches it to Rush Limbaugh. All of a sudden, you remember that you lost your driver's license. However, you're a safe driver. You rarely go over the speed limit and you obey all traffic signs.

What you are forgetting is that you are (a) unlicensed and (b) unprotected. Your willingness to allow your friend to simply not wear their seatbelt puts their lives into risk. You're the driver and they are under your responsibility. The same would be true if she was driving. It is then her responsibility to be accountable for what happens to the two of you. Merely wearing your seatbelt isn't enough, because you have no evidence that you are capable to drive to begin with, since your license is missing.

Is this clear enough?

I'll get to your responses later, but this analogy's been on my mind for so long that I've needed to write it down before I forget it.

Peace,
Gene

First off, sorry for the delayed response. I've read everyone's responses and appreciate your input even if I disagree with your opinion. It's very important to me that you have the freedom to debate. I've had a lot to chew on with regards to this topic, but not enough time to elaborate my thoughts into writing.

I do, however, have this one simple analogy. I gather the topic of sex is so analogy driven because merely talking about it, even on a public forum, is taboo, but whatever the case may be, I think this analogy "drives" my point, pun intended.

Imagine that there are no laws about wearing seatbelts. You get in a car and your friend calls shotgun and gets into the passenger seat. You start the car and think about putting your seatbelt, but then you remember that there aren't any laws against it. You notice you friend also doesn't put her seatbelt on and turns on the radio and switches it to Rush Limbaugh. All of a sudden, you remember that you lost your driver's license. However, you're a safe driver. You rarely go over the speed limit and you obey all traffic signs.

What you are forgetting is that you are (a) unlicensed and (b) unprotected. Your willingness to allow your friend to simply not wear their seatbelt puts their lives into risk. You're the driver and they are under your responsibility. The same would be true if she was driving. It is then her responsibility to be accountable for what happens to the two of you. Merely wearing your seatbelt isn't enough, because you have no evidence that you are capable to drive to begin with, since your license is missing.

Is this clear enough?

I'll get to your responses later, but this analogy's been on my mind for so long that I've needed to write it down before I forget it.

Peace,
Gene

Genetic_Code

1: The license is acquired after you are tested in driving by a superior. For me in real life your test and preparation for sex is education from parents (being informative as to give their children a healthy picture of what sex is - it all relies on what picture we have of sex not what sex actualy is), having the first relationships without sexual intercourse which off-course is the first step to test your relationship with the person close to you and maybe try to fix it, then when you enter a relationship which will involve sex then you try to talk about it with your partner etc.

2: Marriage in simple words does not render you capable of having a more respectable relationship. The fact that there aren't any laws (i guess that stands for marriage also) doesn't mean that one won't care about his life. This is not a matter of being "good boys" and obedient to laws (the same thing with morality stemming of the fear of a lake of fire)but out of common sense that no seatbelt = probably injury or even death (no matter the speed - besides some people are really good drivers!) and a matter of caring for the person next to you and encouraging him/her to wear the seatbelt as well.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

First off, sorry for the delayed response. I've read everyone's responses and appreciate your input even if I disagree with your opinion. It's very important to me that you have the freedom to debate. I've had a lot to chew on with regards to this topic, but not enough time to elaborate my thoughts into writing.

I do, however, have this one simple analogy. I gather the topic of sex is so analogy driven because merely talking about it, even on a public forum, is taboo, but whatever the case may be, I think this analogy "drives" my point, pun intended.

Imagine that there are no laws about wearing seatbelts. You get in a car and your friend calls shotgun and gets into the passenger seat. You start the car and think about putting your seatbelt, but then you remember that there aren't any laws against it. You notice you friend also doesn't put her seatbelt on and turns on the radio and switches it to Rush Limbaugh. All of a sudden, you remember that you lost your driver's license. However, you're a safe driver. You rarely go over the speed limit and you obey all traffic signs.

What you are forgetting is that you are (a) unlicensed and (b) unprotected. Your willingness to allow your friend to simply not wear their seatbelt puts their lives into risk. You're the driver and they are under your responsibility. The same would be true if she was driving. It is then her responsibility to be accountable for what happens to the two of you. Merely wearing your seatbelt isn't enough, because you have no evidence that you are capable to drive to begin with, since your license is missing.

Is this clear enough?

I'll get to your responses later, but this analogy's been on my mind for so long that I've needed to write it down before I forget it.

Peace,
Gene

Teenaged

1: The license is acquired after you are tested in driving by a superior. For me in real life your test and preparation for sex is education from parents (being informative as to give their children a healthy picture of what sex is - it all relies on what picture we have of sex not what sex actualy is), having the first relationships without sexual intercourse which off-course is the first step to test your relationship with the person close to you and maybe try to fix it, then when you enter a relationship which will involve sex then you try to talk about it with your partner etc.

2: Marriage in simple words does not render you capable of having a more respectable relationship. The fact that there aren't any laws (i guess that stands for marriage also) doesn't mean that one won't care about his life. This is not a matter of being "good boys" and obedient to laws (the same thing with morality stemming of the fear of a lake of fire)but out of common sense that no seatbelt = probably injury or even death (no matter the speed - besides some people are really good drivers!) and a matter of caring for the person next to you and encouraging him/her to wear the seatbelt as well.

Also I'd like to add a little bit...

@ G_C >>>  I find that your claim "per-martial sex is immoral", at best roughly translates to "driving without safety measures is wrong and somewhat immoral". But you just made it  clear to me that you find premarital sex reckless. If this is true then you can say premarital sex is equivalent to irresponsible driving...

As Teenaged explained, taking necessary possible measures doesn't eliminate the chance of something going wrong in either case. On the contrary, not taking any of the security measures in either cases won't ensure doom!

But I think the problem is, you find it immoral to be reckless since you'd know beforehand that you didn't take all the necessary steps that could minimise the risks involved...

But the thing is, even after taking all those steps you might still feel like you're on shaky grounds, because there is no absolute level of security. For example I can't talk about marriage since I can't imagine a more secure relationship. But let's talk about driving. After you've taken all the safety steps, next, you might find yourself less inclined to drive fast and the next day, "let's take the train,It's safer" and the next day, "Damned snow! Let's not go to office lest we want to go skating!" and the next day " Let's not eat vegetables ever again, I hear they use artificial chemicals to grow them which some scientists say might lead to not-so-severe mental disorder at around the age of 80 years...

There is a chance you'll feel immoral about pretty much a lot of activities you take part in with your significant other...

I think you might eventually have to draw the line somewhere since you can't control everything, but only a very few things and also, let's not forget your partner is a person just like you and will carry her own share of responsibilities for herself...

[spoiler] :roll: :roll: :roll: [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

Lansdowne5

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :)

I'd have to disagree Lans5. Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I. Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values. Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.

Huh? :o My morals are coming from the Bible, and as I said above, they include - honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity. Are you saying that those things are wrong?

And also, just because one thing in the Bible 'may' be immoral (which it isn't) that doesn't mean the whole book is. :)

Prove they're morally wrong. ;)

Thumptable, I have a very hard time with all of those parts of the Bible. And more and more Christianity has had to answer those questions as well. Much dancing will be involved regardless of who's doing the answer.btaylor2404

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

THUMPTABLE

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :)

I'd have to disagree Lans5. Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I. Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values. Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.

Huh? :o My morals are coming from the Bible, and as I said above, they include - honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity. Are you saying that those things are wrong?

And also, just because one thing in the Bible 'may' be immoral (which it isn't) that doesn't mean the whole book is. :)

Prove they're morally wrong. ;)

Backup your claims man. Which verses are you referring to?

Thumptable, I have a very hard time with all of those parts of the Bible.  And more and more Christianity has had to answer those questions as well.  Much dancing will be involved regardless of who's doing the answer.btaylor2404

Recently, I've re-read William Golding's book, "The Lord of The Flies". Are you familiar with it?

Basically, these kids get stuck on an island after a plane crash and one boy, called Ralph, becomes the leader of them. He gives specific roles to people, i.e - keeping the fire going, building shelters, collecting wood, etc. Everything is blissful at the beginning, it's exciting and fun, and everyone sticks to their roles.

However, some of the kids soon become rebellious, they start doing things which they shouldn't be doing, disregarding what Ralph had said. Eventually, they lose all sense of right and wrong, dismiss the roles that were given to them, and do whatever they want. As you can imagine, chaos and suffering insues, with much death.

Why was that? It was because they didn't stick to the roles Ralph had given them. They chose to go against him. If they'd stuck to what he'd said, everything would have been just fine. But they didn't, and the consequences of their actions soon followed.

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

Lansdowne5

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :)

I'd have to disagree Lans5. Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I. Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values. Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.

Huh? :o My morals are coming from the Bible, and as I said above, they include - honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity. Are you saying that those things are wrong?

And also, just because one thing in the Bible 'may' be immoral (which it isn't) that doesn't mean the whole book is. :)

Prove they're morally wrong. ;) 

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Thumptable, I have a very hard time with all of those parts of the Bible.  And more and more Christianity has had to answer those questions as well.  Much dancing will be involved regardless of who's doing the answer.Lansdowne5

Recently, I've re-read William Golding's book, "The Lord of The Flies". Are you familiar with it?

Basically, these kids get stuck on an island after a plane crash and one boy, called Ralph, becomes the leader of them. He gives specific roles to people, i.e - keeping the fire going, building shelters, collecting wood, etc. Everything is blissful at the beginning, it's exciting and fun, and everyone sticks to their roles.

However, some of the kids soon become rebellious, they start doing things which they shouldn't be doing, disregarding what Ralph had said. Eventually, they lose all sense of right and wrong, dismiss the roles that were given to them, and do whatever they want. As you can imagine, chaos and suffering insues, with much death.

Why was that? It was because they didn't stick to the roles Ralph had given them. They chose to go against him. If they'd stuck to what he'd said, everything would have been just fine. But they didn't, and the consequences of their actions soon followed.

In ...REALITY... going against some of the Bible's (which was possibly not even inspired by God) obsolete and anachorinistic teachings has only lead to ...EVOLUTION...! It is true that some steps to evolution have had side-eefects, but as I said before every step forward is difficult and the effort is all in trying to overcome the obstacles and not to presume that because something is difficult it should be abandoned. That would be either easy, fatalistic or something quitters do.

And since you talked about roles I suppose this is a direct mention to the Bible giving different roles to women, right?

Now answer me: did you see any negative outcome from the fact that women can be politicians and be in the army and take other roles the Bible doesn't approve of???

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

Bourbons3

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :)

I'd have to disagree Lans5. Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I. Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values. Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.

Huh? :o My morals are coming from the Bible, and as I said above, they include - honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity. Are you saying that those things are wrong?

And also, just because one thing in the Bible 'may' be immoral (which it isn't) that doesn't mean the whole book is. :)

Prove they're morally wrong. ;) 

God > Angels > Man. :) 

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Thumptable, I have a very hard time with all of those parts of the Bible.  And more and more Christianity has had to answer those questions as well.  Much dancing will be involved regardless of who's doing the answer.Teenaged

Recently, I've re-read William Golding's book, "The Lord of The Flies". Are you familiar with it?

Basically, these kids get stuck on an island after a plane crash and one boy, called Ralph, becomes the leader of them. He gives specific roles to people, i.e - keeping the fire going, building shelters, collecting wood, etc. Everything is blissful at the beginning, it's exciting and fun, and everyone sticks to their roles.

However, some of the kids soon become rebellious, they start doing things which they shouldn't be doing, disregarding what Ralph had said. Eventually, they lose all sense of right and wrong, dismiss the roles that were given to them, and do whatever they want. As you can imagine, chaos and suffering insues, with much death.

Why was that? It was because they didn't stick to the roles Ralph had given them. They chose to go against him. If they'd stuck to what he'd said, everything would have been just fine. But they didn't, and the consequences of their actions soon followed.

In ...REALITY... going against some of the Bible's (which was possibly not even inspired by God) obsolete and anachorinistic teachings has only lead to ...EVOLUTION...! It is true that some steps to evolution have had side-eefects, but as I said before every step forward is difficult and the effort is all in trying to overcome the obstacles and not to presume that because something is difficult it should be abandoned. That would be either easy, fatalistic or something quitters do.

And since you talked about roles I suppose this is a direct mention to the Bible giving different roles to women, right?

Now answer me: did you see any negative outcome from the fact that women can be politicians and be in the army and take other roles the Bible doesn't approve of???

You know, I used to use the eyes a lot too. But nowadays, I think it's better to use one of these - :)

1. A book can contain messages true to life, you know? Book doesn't necessarily = complete fiction. 

2. I don't know where you got the idea that disregarding God's Word was Evolution. It's devolution if anything. The side effects being suffering and chaos, just like in the book.  

3. The roles of women in society was only a small section of what I was referring to. And to your final question, yes, I've seen the negative outcome of women being in a position such as those. :)

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]

An atheist who thinks sex is immoral? :?

That's a first.

Lansdowne5

I'm not sure if he is, but I would certainly say they do. :)

I'd have to disagree Lans5. Sure some do, and some Christan's have worse morals than I. Most all of us were raised based in some part on Christian values. Especially in the US.

Maybe it's different in America. But over here, the social circles that are predominently atheistic tend not to install the same sort of values as Christian groups. The groups that I, and most other Christians go to, greatly emphasize good morals (such as honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity). Atheist groups on the other hand, do not emphasize these values, and therefore are generally, not as moral.

Huh? :o My morals are coming from the Bible, and as I said above, they include - honesty, love, forgiveness, patience, and generosity. Are you saying that those things are wrong?

And also, just because one thing in the Bible 'may' be immoral (which it isn't) that doesn't mean the whole book is. :)

Prove they're morally wrong. ;) 

God > Angels > Man. :) 

Lans that's a passage I have a terrible problem with as well, and though I appreciate your response, that answer won't do for me.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Thumptable, I have a very hard time with all of those parts of the Bible.  And more and more Christianity has had to answer those questions as well.  Much dancing will be involved regardless of who's doing the answer.Lansdowne5

Recently, I've re-read William Golding's book, "The Lord of The Flies". Are you familiar with it?

Basically, these kids get stuck on an island after a plane crash and one boy, called Ralph, becomes the leader of them. He gives specific roles to people, i.e - keeping the fire going, building shelters, collecting wood, etc. Everything is blissful at the beginning, it's exciting and fun, and everyone sticks to their roles.

However, some of the kids soon become rebellious, they start doing things which they shouldn't be doing, disregarding what Ralph had said. Eventually, they lose all sense of right and wrong, dismiss the roles that were given to them, and do whatever they want. As you can imagine, chaos and suffering insues, with much death.

Why was that? It was because they didn't stick to the roles Ralph had given them. They chose to go against him. If they'd stuck to what he'd said, everything would have been just fine. But they didn't, and the consequences of their actions soon followed.

Yes Lans, but it's been years.  But that example can be set in anything, business, family, you name it.  How is that relevant to God?  Your train of thought that if we don't follow God's example we'll deal with the consequences?  Lans, while a good point, if I don't believe there is a God how can I even debate this example?  We all know right from wrong, the law deals with the consequences here on Earth.  That's all I can go with.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Thumptable, I have a very hard time with all of those parts of the Bible.  And more and more Christianity has had to answer those questions as well.  Much dancing will be involved regardless of who's doing the answer.btaylor2404

Recently, I've re-read William Golding's book, "The Lord of The Flies". Are you familiar with it?

Basically, these kids get stuck on an island after a plane crash and one boy, called Ralph, becomes the leader of them. He gives specific roles to people, i.e - keeping the fire going, building shelters, collecting wood, etc. Everything is blissful at the beginning, it's exciting and fun, and everyone sticks to their roles.

However, some of the kids soon become rebellious, they start doing things which they shouldn't be doing, disregarding what Ralph had said. Eventually, they lose all sense of right and wrong, dismiss the roles that were given to them, and do whatever they want. As you can imagine, chaos and suffering insues, with much death.

Why was that? It was because they didn't stick to the roles Ralph had given them. They chose to go against him. If they'd stuck to what he'd said, everything would have been just fine. But they didn't, and the consequences of their actions soon followed.

Yes Lans, but it's been years.  But that example can be set in anything, business, family, you name it.  How is that relevant to God?  Your train of thought that if we don't follow God's example we'll deal with the consequences?  Lans, while a good point, if I don't believe there is a God how can I even debate this example?  We all know right from wrong, the law deals with the consequences here on Earth.  That's all I can go with.

I was trying to illustrate why sticking to the specific roles is so important. God didn't just hand out positions for no reason, they were to avoid trouble in the future. Sadly though, we ignored them.

PS. We're talking hypothetically here.  

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Thumptable, I have a very hard time with all of those parts of the Bible.  And more and more Christianity has had to answer those questions as well.  Much dancing will be involved regardless of who's doing the answer.Lansdowne5

Recently, I've re-read William Golding's book, "The Lord of The Flies". Are you familiar with it?

Basically, these kids get stuck on an island after a plane crash and one boy, called Ralph, becomes the leader of them. He gives specific roles to people, i.e - keeping the fire going, building shelters, collecting wood, etc. Everything is blissful at the beginning, it's exciting and fun, and everyone sticks to their roles.

However, some of the kids soon become rebellious, they start doing things which they shouldn't be doing, disregarding what Ralph had said. Eventually, they lose all sense of right and wrong, dismiss the roles that were given to them, and do whatever they want. As you can imagine, chaos and suffering insues, with much death.

Why was that? It was because they didn't stick to the roles Ralph had given them. They chose to go against him. If they'd stuck to what he'd said, everything would have been just fine. But they didn't, and the consequences of their actions soon followed.

Yes Lans, but it's been years.  But that example can be set in anything, business, family, you name it.  How is that relevant to God?  Your train of thought that if we don't follow God's example we'll deal with the consequences?  Lans, while a good point, if I don't believe there is a God how can I even debate this example?  We all know right from wrong, the law deals with the consequences here on Earth.  That's all I can go with.

I was trying to illustrate why sticking to the specific roles is so important. God didn't just hand out positions for no reason, they were to avoid trouble in the future. Sadly though, we ignored them.

PS. We're talking hypothetically here.  

No need for PS, I got you :).  I fully, fully agree with the roles and rules.  Lans are you referring to the 10 Commandments?  Or other rules?   If it's the former, don't we all, regardless of faith fail to live up to these?  The latter's another long discussion we'd probably rather skip.

Lans that's a passage I have a terrible problem with as well, and though I appreciate your response, that answer won't do for me.

btaylor2404

OK, I'll explain in more depth.   

Genesis 19:8 reads, "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

From what I can see, there are three possible explanations for why Lot suggested this:

1. The Angels were servants of the most Holy God, Lot knew very well that these Angels were extremely important beings, even more so than his daughters. Instead of offering up the Angels, which would surely have disgraced God, he offered his two daughters in their place.

2. Lot was a God-fearing man and knew that the Lord would protect his daughters. He only offered them to the crowd, in an effort to keep the Angels safe, because he trusted God to keep them from harm.

3. Sodom was an evil and wicked place, full of rapists, murderers and thieves. The very fact that Lot was living there shows that he had compromised his values and was being greatly influenced by the sinfulness of the city. Quite simply, Lot was wrong to offer his daughters. He sinned against them by offering to give them up to the crowd instead of the Angels.

I hope that answers your question sufficiently. From my study on the subject, I personally believe Lot offered up his daughters for the first reason. :) 

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Thumptable, I have a very hard time with all of those parts of the Bible.  And more and more Christianity has had to answer those questions as well.  Much dancing will be involved regardless of who's doing the answer.btaylor2404

Recently, I've re-read William Golding's book, "The Lord of The Flies". Are you familiar with it?

Basically, these kids get stuck on an island after a plane crash and one boy, called Ralph, becomes the leader of them. He gives specific roles to people, i.e - keeping the fire going, building shelters, collecting wood, etc. Everything is blissful at the beginning, it's exciting and fun, and everyone sticks to their roles.

However, some of the kids soon become rebellious, they start doing things which they shouldn't be doing, disregarding what Ralph had said. Eventually, they lose all sense of right and wrong, dismiss the roles that were given to them, and do whatever they want. As you can imagine, chaos and suffering insues, with much death.

Why was that? It was because they didn't stick to the roles Ralph had given them. They chose to go against him. If they'd stuck to what he'd said, everything would have been just fine. But they didn't, and the consequences of their actions soon followed.

Yes Lans, but it's been years.  But that example can be set in anything, business, family, you name it.  How is that relevant to God?  Your train of thought that if we don't follow God's example we'll deal with the consequences?  Lans, while a good point, if I don't believe there is a God how can I even debate this example?  We all know right from wrong, the law deals with the consequences here on Earth.  That's all I can go with.

I was trying to illustrate why sticking to the specific roles is so important. God didn't just hand out positions for no reason, they were to avoid trouble in the future. Sadly though, we ignored them.

PS. We're talking hypothetically here.  

No need for PS, I got you :).  I fully, fully agree with the roles and rules.  Lans are you referring to the 10 Commandments?  Or other rules?   If it's the former, don't we all, regardless of faith fail to live up to these?  The latter's another long discussion we'd probably rather skip.

Good. :)

I'm not referring to any rules. Just specific roles, i.e - Man to be the provider and head of the family.  

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Thumptable, I have a very hard time with all of those parts of the Bible.  And more and more Christianity has had to answer those questions as well.  Much dancing will be involved regardless of who's doing the answer.Lansdowne5

Recently, I've re-read William Golding's book, "The Lord of The Flies". Are you familiar with it?

Basically, these kids get stuck on an island after a plane crash and one boy, called Ralph, becomes the leader of them. He gives specific roles to people, i.e - keeping the fire going, building shelters, collecting wood, etc. Everything is blissful at the beginning, it's exciting and fun, and everyone sticks to their roles.

However, some of the kids soon become rebellious, they start doing things which they shouldn't be doing, disregarding what Ralph had said. Eventually, they lose all sense of right and wrong, dismiss the roles that were given to them, and do whatever they want. As you can imagine, chaos and suffering insues, with much death.

Why was that? It was because they didn't stick to the roles Ralph had given them. They chose to go against him. If they'd stuck to what he'd said, everything would have been just fine. But they didn't, and the consequences of their actions soon followed.

Yes Lans, but it's been years.  But that example can be set in anything, business, family, you name it.  How is that relevant to God?  Your train of thought that if we don't follow God's example we'll deal with the consequences?  Lans, while a good point, if I don't believe there is a God how can I even debate this example?  We all know right from wrong, the law deals with the consequences here on Earth.  That's all I can go with.

I was trying to illustrate why sticking to the specific roles is so important. God didn't just hand out positions for no reason, they were to avoid trouble in the future. Sadly though, we ignored them.

PS. We're talking hypothetically here.  

No need for PS, I got you :).  I fully, fully agree with the roles and rules.  Lans are you referring to the 10 Commandments?  Or other rules?   If it's the former, don't we all, regardless of faith fail to live up to these?  The latter's another long discussion we'd probably rather skip.

Good. :)

I'm not referring to any rules. Just specific roles, i.e - Man to be the provider and head of the family.  

You know how strongly we disagree here, but do you not think that times have changed and we have adapted the "roles".  We disregard the slavery parts and many other "roles" some people were in back then. I'm repeating something, but being married it's a partnership, a 50/50 one and wouldn't have it anyother way.  I have no desire to be "over" someone.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Thumptable, I have a very hard time with all of those parts of the Bible.  And more and more Christianity has had to answer those questions as well.  Much dancing will be involved regardless of who's doing the answer.btaylor2404

Recently, I've re-read William Golding's book, "The Lord of The Flies". Are you familiar with it?

Basically, these kids get stuck on an island after a plane crash and one boy, called Ralph, becomes the leader of them. He gives specific roles to people, i.e - keeping the fire going, building shelters, collecting wood, etc. Everything is blissful at the beginning, it's exciting and fun, and everyone sticks to their roles.

However, some of the kids soon become rebellious, they start doing things which they shouldn't be doing, disregarding what Ralph had said. Eventually, they lose all sense of right and wrong, dismiss the roles that were given to them, and do whatever they want. As you can imagine, chaos and suffering insues, with much death.

Why was that? It was because they didn't stick to the roles Ralph had given them. They chose to go against him. If they'd stuck to what he'd said, everything would have been just fine. But they didn't, and the consequences of their actions soon followed.

Yes Lans, but it's been years.  But that example can be set in anything, business, family, you name it.  How is that relevant to God?  Your train of thought that if we don't follow God's example we'll deal with the consequences?  Lans, while a good point, if I don't believe there is a God how can I even debate this example?  We all know right from wrong, the law deals with the consequences here on Earth.  That's all I can go with.

I was trying to illustrate why sticking to the specific roles is so important. God didn't just hand out positions for no reason, they were to avoid trouble in the future. Sadly though, we ignored them.

PS. We're talking hypothetically here.  

No need for PS, I got you :).  I fully, fully agree with the roles and rules.  Lans are you referring to the 10 Commandments?  Or other rules?   If it's the former, don't we all, regardless of faith fail to live up to these?  The latter's another long discussion we'd probably rather skip.

Good. :)

I'm not referring to any rules. Just specific roles, i.e - Man to be the provider and head of the family.  

You know how strongly we disagree here, but do you not think that times have changed and we have adapted the "roles".  We disregard the slavery parts and many other "roles" some people were in back then. I'm repeating something, but being married it's a partnership, a 50/50 one and wouldn't have it anyother way.  I have no desire to be "over" someone.

No. The roles God ordained were intended to last forever.