Sex and marriage

[leelee]

So if the bible doesn't mention something specifically, it's permissible, irregardless of clear principles?


I have a feeling you would say Genocide is morally wrong, however, if you have a verse that says, "thou shalt not commit genocide" that's news to my ears/eyes.

If the bible were to give us specific answers to every little specific question, it would be he size of the library of congress.


When it comes to matters of "is this a sin?" often it's a matter of principles.

Genocide is mass murder.The bible does mention specifically that, quite a few times.
A fetus doesn't even have a heartbeat till week 5, so by that logic its not a person yet. However if we go only by the heartbeat making someone a person then I guess I and everyone hear should stop eating meat.
(and before you point out that abortions can happen for much longer than that refer to my previous posts.)

And just to cover something from before..the reason you think abortion was less common in those times is because there was no regulation of it and no statistical evidence, that couple with the fact that it was done by herbalists or amateur surgeons means that most women died.

 

[MissCris]

And just to cover something from before..the reason you think abortion was less common in those times is because there was no regulation of it and no statistical evidence, that couple with the fact that it was done by herbalists or amateur surgeons means that most women died.

I would call that a fairly clear sign from God that He would quite like it if people would stop killing their unborn children.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The Bible teaches the unborn are persons and that murder is wrong throughout the Bible. If you took the time to read it, you would find that you answered your own question.

so where in the bible does it say, for example, the unborn must be born? where does it say; the woman must have the child no matter the consequence?

 

[Maddog]

A fetus doesn't even have a heartbeat till week 5, so by that logic its not a person yet.

Could you elaborate? What logic is involved in defining personhood as directly related to whether or not they have a heartbeat?

 

[dan1el]

Hi

I have three wonderful daughters, and I teach them in this approach. When God forbids premarital sex (or any other instructions in the bible), it is essentially to

1. Protect us (sexual diseases, unplanned pregnancy, emotional distress, physical abuse)
2. Bless us (long term physical enjoyment with the man they commit to, wholesome privacy and no unnecessary past sex experience to affect their intimacy)

Of course, it is easier said than done. They have friends (Christians and non-Christians) who rush into relationships, jumping from one guy to another guy, and worst of all, live life as though relationship with a guy is the only thing that matters in their age (teens).

I do not have a minimum age that they should start looking for lifelong partners. However, together with my wife, we encouraged them to strengthen their individual lives first:

1. Grow in the personal relationship with Jesus
2. Make lots and lots of wonderful and godly friends of the same sex
3. Discover their strengths and skills to be successful in this life (secular and spiritual)
4. Enjoy their singlehood life!!!

And help them to trust God for the future partner to connect with them eventually.

I really like the absolutely cut-and-dry message the Torah gave about God's feelings on the act of fornication (it leaves a lot less "confusion"/leeway for satan to deceive me, on the matter): if a girl was found to not be a virgin when she got married, she would be taken to the doorpost of her father's house, and stone her to death -- because, in her father's house, she committed fornication.

This is so clear a message on His feelings towards fornication -- in the Old Testament, the punishment was DEATH; in the New Testament, the punishment is DEATH (spiritual death -- separation from God, until you repent), and eventually (if you do not repent) eternal damnation in the lake of fire.

God is HOLY. Praise God!

 

[leelee]

Could you elaborate? What logic is involved in defining personhood as directly related to whether or not they have a heartbeat?

um, becuase before that they are a bunch of cells without a brain or a circulatory system or limbs...must i go on. at that stage they are a blob. a bean shaped blob. is a bean a person?

 

[Maddog]

um, becuase before that they are a bunch of cells without a brain or a circulatory system or limbs...must i go on. at that stage they are a blob. a bean shaped blob. is a bean a person?

Please do go on. I'm interested in the logic behind basing personhood on accidental criteria. I really don't know how it can be done without being utterly arbitrary. What makes a person a person? How much functionality must someone have for them to qualify as a human being? But more importantly, how do you know what attributes are required before someone/something is actually a human person with all the rights that that entails?

I'm genuinely curious, because I've never encountered a satisfying explanation. If it can be done, I want to know. Aristotle and St Aquinas keep telling me that a thing's substance is not contingent on its accidents. But maybe they're wrong.

 

[Possum]

Please do go on. I'm interested in the logic behind basing personhood on accidental criteria. I really don't know how it can be done without being utterly arbitrary. What makes a person a person? How much functionality must someone have for them to qualify as a human being? But more importantly, how do you know what attributes are required before someone/something is actually a human person with all the rights that that entails?

I'm genuinely curious, because I've never encountered a satisfying explanation. If it can be done, I want to know. Aristotle and St Aquinas keep telling me that a thing's substance is not contingent on its accidents. But maybe they're wrong.

By this logic though, you can't prove that anyone is a person. There has to be some line. It could be conception, heartbeat, being born, having thoughts...Heartbeat is an arbitrary line at which a foetus becomes a person, but so are all the other ones.
My personal belief is that the soul is infused at conception and that's when the baby is a person, but I understand that others have different views.

 

[Maddog]

By this logic though, you can't prove that anyone is a person. There has to be some line. It could be conception, heartbeat, being born, having thoughts...Heartbeat is an arbitrary line at which a foetus becomes a person, but so are all the other ones.
My personal belief is that the soul is infused at conception and that's when the baby is a person, but I understand that others have different views.

Yes, there is a point at which a human being begins, but conception is not an arbitrary line since there is a substantial difference between a sperm and egg, and a sperm and egg united. A sperm or egg will never develop; they will never be anything other than a sperm or an egg. But when they join together, the substances of the sperm and egg are obliterated, and a new substance is created (ie. that of a human person), which if allowed, will develop through all the stages of human growth.

Contrast this with, say, trying to draw a distinction between the substance of a 23 week old foetus and a 24 week old foetus and it should become clear why conception is the most (or only) rationally defensible point of when personhood begins.

 

[Michelle94]

sooo...nobody really commented on my thoughts...lol...so im reposting

Is God stupid? Shouldnt he know the difference between a silly piece of legal paper, and true love? "Marriage" is a metaphor for love so to speak. It doesnt exist in the confines of a silly piece of paper that can be ripped up. It's not some court document. If God exists and if he has a brain I sincerely hope he's not that crazy.... Marriage means aboslutely nothing. Emotions mean everything. You don't need some judge or priest to tell you that you love someone.

 

[MissCris]

...The 'silly piece of legal paper' wasn't God's idea, the UNION of a MAN and a WOMAN was. Man invented the piece of paper in order to tie two people together legally, not spiritually. Marriage, the way God intended it, means an awful lot to an awful lot of people, and I hope that when you're older you find it.

 

[Michelle94]

Marriage should be a concept, not a legal thing. If you are completely attatched and in love with your spouse, you are married. It's emotional.

 

[Maddog]

sooo...nobody really commented on my thoughts...lol...so im reposting

Fine.

Marriage means aboslutely nothing. Emotions mean everything.

Really? But aren't emotions frivolous and subject to change? Isn't love more than just an emotion but also an act of the will?

And isn't marriage a significant declaration of love between two people, love being not merely a nice warm fuzzy feeling or sexual excitation or fondness, but a commitment to stay with that person 'till death us do part'? Surely that means more than 'absolutely nothing'.

And if they believe in God, then it is certainly understandable why a couple would want to seek His blessing and exchange their vows before Him. Invoking God as a witness to one's marriage has a depth of certainty to it, which is surely what true love deserves.

And if they don't believe in God, well, getting married still maintains great significance, and not just legally. It's still a public statement that this couple intend to spend the rest of their lives together. It's pretty intense stuff.

And those that don't marry? Well why don't they? Do they think they might change their mind later down the road? Then it's not really love, it's merely one of those aforementioned frivolous emotions.

 

[Michelle94]

Fine.


Really? But aren't emotions frivolous and subject to change? Isn't love more than just an emotion but also an act of the will?

And isn't marriage a significant declaration of love between two people, love being not merely a nice warm fuzzy feeling or sexual excitation or fondness, but a commitment to stay with that person 'till death us do part'? Surely that means more than 'absolutely nothing'.

And if they believe in God, then it is certainly understandable why a couple would want to seek His blessing and exchange their vows before Him. Invoking God as a witness to one's marriage has a depth of certainty to it, which is surely what true love deserves.

And if they don't believe in God, well, getting married still maintains great significance, and not just legally. It's still a public statement that this couple intend to spend the rest of their lives together. It's pretty intense stuff.

And those that don't marry? Well why don't they? Do they think they might change their mind later down the road? Then it's not really love, it's merely one of those aforementioned frivolous emotions.

I don't know about emotions being frivolous. I think that you are frivolous without emotions. But emotions tend to be feelings you feel strongly about, which indeed include love. And I agree love is also an act of the will.

Marriage is supposed to mean all those things you mentioned, but it doesnt anymore. And I'm not sure if it ever truly did anyway. Most of the time, it's more of a poetic Shakespearian concept. "Together as one, against all others" and Bonnie and Clyde style. The divorce rate is pretty insane.

But thats a little abstract and vague. My point was supposed to be something along the lines of "if you feel married to eachother, then you already are". You don't need a document or a ceremony or anything. It comes down to love. If you and your spouse love eachother, what does it matter? God won't acknowledge your love if you don't get the court document? He should know better.

Love is the greatest thing in the world. It's beyond the confinements of "marriage". It's so beautiful. If it's true love, it's so strong. It's monogomy.

It's all spiritual and mental and emotional. You can be "married" unofficially, I think.

 

[MissCris]

Marriage should be a concept, not a legal thing. If you are completely attatched and in love with your spouse, you are married. It's emotional.

Marriage IS a concept. It's also a commitment, and a contract. The 'legal' part of it is little more than to have proof of the marriage, which is necessary in some situations.

Being married myself, I can tell you that the more you let your emotions control your marriage, the less likely that your marriage will succeed. Same goes for ANY relationship.

Love is a decision as much as, and often more than, an emotion.

 

[Possum]

Okay, so yeah heartbeat and thoughts etc are arbitrary. But the two main ones are conception and birth. I believe it's conception but others believe it's birth.

Michelle - there is civil marriage and religious marriage. The two aren't the same thing. There is marriage in the eyes of God which is the two people making their vows before Him, then the civil one is between the couple and the state. That's the difference. It's fine if it isn't what you believe but it's quite disrespectful to call what others believe stupid or call God crazy on a Christian forum. Please ask your questions with a little more respect and eloquence then people may actually respond. Maybe if you had written it as:
"I don't understand why God differentiates between true love and marriage, and why a piece of paper makes a difference" or something like that.

 

[Possum]

Marriage is supposed to mean all those things you mentioned, but it doesnt anymore. And I'm not sure if it ever truly did anyway. Most of the time, it's more of a poetic Shakespearian concept. "Together as one, against all others" and Bonnie and Clyde style. The divorce rate is pretty insane.

Marriage does mean all those things to some people, just not to everyone

 

[Maddog]

Okay, so yeah heartbeat and thoughts etc are arbitrary. But the two main ones are conception and birth. I believe it's conception but others believe it's birth.

Okay, but as before, there really is no substantive difference between a baby 1 second before birth and 1 second after birth so it cannot compare to conception.

 

[Maddog]

I don't know about emotions being frivolous. I think that you are frivolous without emotions. But emotions tend to be feelings you feel strongly about, which indeed include love. And I agree love is also an act of the will.

Marriage is supposed to mean all those things you mentioned, but it doesnt anymore. And I'm not sure if it ever truly did anyway. Most of the time, it's more of a poetic Shakespearian concept. "Together as one, against all others" and Bonnie and Clyde style. The divorce rate is pretty insane.

But thats a little abstract and vague. My point was supposed to be something along the lines of "if you feel married to eachother, then you already are". You don't need a document or a ceremony or anything. It comes down to love. If you and your spouse love eachother, what does it matter? God won't acknowledge your love if you don't get the court document? He should know better.

Love is the greatest thing in the world. It's beyond the confinements of "marriage". It's so beautiful. If it's true love, it's so strong. It's monogomy.

It's all spiritual and mental and emotional. You can be "married" unofficially, I think.

I see what you're saying. However, humans are communal beings which is why some kind of public statement is beneficial, even necessary. It can surely only serve to strengthen the commitment you're making. I think most of us can be pretty weak and our will to stay together can diminish. Some external influence, such as the fact that you got married in the sight of God can help us remember the vows we made.

As for "if you feel married to eachother, then you already are", then what happens if your feelings change? Are you no longer married if you 'stop feeling it'?

The divorce rate is tragic, but I don't believe in divorce anyway - literally. Marriage is for life full stop, and a valid marriage cannot be liquidated. People who get 'divorced' aren't really divorced because their marriage was confirmed and sealed by God and they are thus inseparable. And that's the bottom line: if marriage is based on or primarily about feelings that it is inherently unstable because feelings change. But if it is based on God who changes not, then it really will last a lifetime - whether we continue 'feeling it' or not.

 

[leelee]

Ok, I believe that while its a zygote its not a people, and I don't really believe it is a person while it is an embryo. I do believe it is a person when it is a fetus. I am not going to type out why, if you want to know pick up a book and read about it.