How could a CHristian ethically have sex with someone .....

How could a CHristian ethically have sex with someone they were not married to? Any ideas? I was thinking that if a girl only had sex with one man her whole life would she in a way be married to that man and remain sinless if she only has sex with him? Or maybe if she has sex and then asks for forgiveness then it is really like any other sin even though she does it intentionally?? Ideas? THoughts?

This depends on what kind of “christian” we are talking about…

Back in those old Israelite days, if they caught you scoring, you’d then have to pay the father the bride-price and marry her. You were allowed to buy more than one wife, also.

It’s was originally all about money!
Wouldn’t you be pissed off, if everyone else was getting allot of money after selling their daughters in marriage, but then you didn’t get any cash when someone married one of your daughters? Well, the Jews LOVE money, so it’s definitely a sin if you sex some chick but you don’t buy her and pay mr.Jew a whole lot of cash. [Yes, dad gets to choose the price. U don’t get to choose the price. Only mr.Jew gets to choose the price, and you MUST PAY, or else God hates you and your a low scum sinner and that’s final!!!] :laughing:

Dan, is right about the past, but today I think it is more about the intent.

Wanton fornication is condemned and for good reason. disease , children and mental issues make havingsex before marriage a bad idea. If as a female you have intecourse with just one guy it is forgiven and you are not married. Some sects have differing ideas though. Best person to answer this sort of question for you would be to go to a non denominational preacher and speak to that person… Non Denomitnational are by far the most Christian of christians in my book.

+Condoms and dry-humping.

+Suppressed young retards not able to express their strongest instincts with fellows.

Are the preachers wiser than nature?

Condoms and dry humping works for those that are not in a hormonal frenzy. Perhaps morals are a leash to control the passions that otherwise would make us like bunnies.

Only if they are not given guidance. You can’t teach a child by just saying no all the time. you must guide and explain. By just saying no all the time yes, you do supress them.

Guidence is not suppression it is teaching them self control and self discipline. Society is not easy on the single parent or the person with an incurable disease. Society does not welcome them readily. This is not a good thing, it is just a reality. Something that young people need to see. I try to encourage knowledge, knowledge allows for more and better choices.
Self control and discipline is not suppression. Suppresion is total denial.

Preachers are not wiser than nature. Ice did not ask about nature, Ice asked about moral issues for christians. If she had asked about nature I would have suggested a Doctor.

Basically, for Christians, sexual energy is to be transformed and shared in other ways than sexual intercourse/oral sex/anal sex before marriage. It’s very much possible, given the transitory pleasure of sex vs. the sustaining satisfaction of a loving relationship

it’s all about prioreties. If your basis for a relationship is baced on everything but sex till that magical day,… well then you can work out problems better. People who sleep around think they can find some one who will accept them for their problems and run away from the problem every time they break up. All the time they are becomming more and more caloused to love because they spit on love every time they run away from their problems.

Is sodomy so wrong within the confines of a man woman marriage? I mean, what would be wrong with it? I can’t believe it’s wrong in texas, even for married people, it’s crazy.

According to the Bible, is it not true that Adam and Eve were not married?

It is simple, really. Just interpret some passage of the bible so that it justifies whatever you want to do.

Words can so easily be bent to interpretation.

Scarily enough, this is the most plausable way to go about it. :frowning:

Just remember, the mandate against sleeping around was always practical and never ethical… it became a moral no-no out of practicality, so some may judge it as antiquaed based out of telos.

If you go into Christian morality looking to justify something you want, then you’re already in sin regardless of if you find that justification or not. If sin is to the east, we are supposed to go west, not skirt the edge.

As to the problem of interpretation, that’s why we have Churches and tradition.

But what if we’re so alienated from God that all we can do is sin? Why not just indulge in the worst sort of hedonism and hope for the best?

Heh. Sorry. Just wanted to twist that argument around. Don’t mean nothin’ by it :wink:

See I really want to find a religious doctrine that doesn’t say “try.” Simply “Do or do not.” Ahh loveable yoda.

Seriously, I’m quite certain you don’t go to hell if you repent after pretty much every sinful thing you can do. But you get more waiting time.

I think you should do lots of dry humping or something, as Dan suggests.

I think you should print off the threads you’ve had discussions on it, paste it in your church wall, subject it to interpretation, tell the boytoy to add some input, and start petitions for either side. Finally, you’ll need a logician to formalize the justification. It would be almost like . . . oh yeah . . .


You do know that Yoda was based off Zen Buddhist thought, right?


No, it’s good, I like it.
Have you ever loved someone that you didn’t feel you deserved to have love you back? Maybe not, not everybody has. But if you can imagine it- do you reckon that being in such a position would motivate you to betray them?

Someone once said religions are a-la-carte rather
than a fixed menu, you have multiple versions of the truth in
each religion, depending on how you interpret the religious text.
In Christianity you can find some denomination that either agrees
with a particular course of behaviour, and you can find one that

Christianity like all religions is not monolithic.

So the answer to the original question is yes and no.

A smarter solution would have been to write the damned thing correctly and clearly in the first place, so it’s not always contradicting itself.

You mean the 66 - 70 damned things? In which language? Don’t mistake your (our) inability to understand with a flaw in the writings. And…don’t be an ass.