Debating Christianity and Religion

Christians, you contend we are not supposed to have sex before we are MARRIED.

What is wrong with a couple who have been together for a long time having sex before they get married?

If you buy a car, or a house, dont you want to check it out before you buy it?

What if you are moving towards getting married? Dont you want to know what the person you will spend the rest of your life with looks like naked? And there's practical issues too. I dont want to get too graphic here, but the tightness of the female v***** varies from individual to individual, and the thickness of the male p**** varies from individual to individual. Dont you want to make sure your organs are compatible and not mismatched? Dont you want to know what your partner smells and tastes like? Dont you want to know if the female is or isnt allergic to your semen? Dont you want to know if your partner is frigid and non expressive or vibrant and expressive? Dont you want to know if your partner is down for trying a lot or is not open to much more than missionary?

Oh but no, you and God tell us we are supposed to basically do a blind buy with respect to one of the most important aspects of a normal marriage.

Yeah, sorry, but im going with reason here.

agnosticatheist wrote:
Mutha*****s just got told. BOOM!

Moderator Warning


You may have edited out the offending word, but it's still just as offensive and against forum rules.

Your reply also breaks other rules in that it is a one liner and adds nothing to the debate. A post can be appreciated by giving an MPG donation or clicking on like.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

agnosticatheist wrote: What if you are moving towards getting married? Dont you want to know what the person you will spend the rest of your life with looks like naked? And there's practical issues too. I dont want to get too graphic here, but the tightness of the female v***** varies from individual to individual, and the thickness of the male p**** varies from individual to individual. Dont you want to make sure your organs are compatible and not mismatched? Dont you want to know what your partner smells and tastes like? Dont you want to know if the female is or isnt allergic to your semen? Dont you want to know if your partner is frigid and non expressive or vibrant and expressive? Dont you want to know if your partner is down for trying a lot or is not open to much more than missionary?

Interesting that every single one of your concerns about compatibility are physical. Appearance, the fit of the organs of joining, taste and smell, possible allergies, the rate and type of physical actions during sex. Not one concern about whether the other person is willing to talk through problems, willing to accept one's close kin, willing to change priorities when sickness or misfortune strike, willing to stick it out and grow old together. Striking to the point of being stereotypically male.

Talishi wrote:

agnosticatheist wrote: What if you are moving towards getting married? Dont you want to know what the person you will spend the rest of your life with looks like naked? And there's practical issues too. I dont want to get too graphic here, but the tightness of the female v***** varies from individual to individual, and the thickness of the male p**** varies from individual to individual. Dont you want to make sure your organs are compatible and not mismatched? Dont you want to know what your partner smells and tastes like? Dont you want to know if the female is or isnt allergic to your semen? Dont you want to know if your partner is frigid and non expressive or vibrant and expressive? Dont you want to know if your partner is down for trying a lot or is not open to much more than missionary?

Interesting that every single one of your concerns about compatibility are physical. Appearance, the fit of the organs of joining, taste and smell, possible allergies, the rate and type of physical actions during sex. Not one concern about whether the other person is willing to talk through problems, willing to accept one's close kin, willing to change priorities when sickness or misfortune strike, willing to stick it out and grow old together. Striking to the point of being stereotypically male.

I would argue stereotypically someone who is not or has never been in a long term relationship. Lumping that poorly contrived list of concerns as something only males would care about is insulting to males in general. The rest of your point is spot on. Good sex is only possible with good communication and good communication can overcome most concerns around sex.

agnosticatheist wrote: So basically ttruscott and jwitness, because God says you shouldnt have sex before you are married, you are going to blind buy on one of the most important aspects of a marriage? You are going to go into it with almost no idea what you are getting into?

Some might say that if the sexual component of the marriage is the most important then something is off balance anyway...

agnosticatheist wrote:

Oh but no, you and God tell us we are supposed to basically do a blind buy with respect to one of the most important aspects of a normal marriage.

Yeah, sorry, but im going with reason here.

Apart from the relationship issues brought up by others, there is also the question of what you mean by "sex"? Varying degrees of intimacy result in varying degrees of significance in a relationship. Generally, greater intimacy communicates greater commitment, primarily due to health risk and psychological attachment associated with stimulation of the pleasure centers of the brain. There is also the social risks associated with indigent children. Marriage is a social construct. Societies establish rules regulating intimate contact to avoid the amount of disease and indigent children, as well as social discord caused by disagreements associated with ill defined commitment.

agnosticatheist wrote: Christians, you contend we are not supposed to have sex before we are MARRIED.

Not all Christians hold to that concept.

The biggest problem is the production of unwanted children that are aborted. The shedding of innocent blood is an abomination to Yah.

If that pre-marital sex leads to abortion, it is a major problem. If not, well the man just took a concubine instead of a wife. That was allowed under the actual law of Yah but any children conceived were still the responsibility of the man.

Yes, many modern day Christians put a fence around any sexual activity outside of a religion sanctioned marriage as a form of control and equate it as sin. It is a form of Phariseeism, adding additional traditions of man on top of the actual laws of Yah and equating violates of those traditions as sin. Yeshua was against the added traditions of man being equated as equal to the laws of Yah. He also equated the Pharisees as a nest of vipers and children of their father the devil for attacking those that violated their traditions.

So I am assuming you are against those christians that would attack anyone that violates their modern day religious traditions. In that case, you are actually in agreement with the teachings of Yeshua.

It was actually the random and highly promiscuous sexual activity of the pagan sexual worship that was opposed by the laws of Yah. The ritual prostitution and people engaged in sexual activities solely to satisfy lust outside of relationship was the target of the sexual laws. So one night stands are more in line with what is against Yah's sexual laws. They have nothing to do with people within a relationship with the exception of taking a girl's virginity. In that case, you were required to take her as a wife.

To many ignorant christians would try to hinder or stop a sexual relationship when a girl gives up her virginity as opposed to trying to get them to marry.

agnosticatheist wrote:And there's practical issues too. I dont want to get too graphic here, but the tightness of the female v***** varies from individual to individual, and the thickness of the male p**** varies from individual to individual.

That isn't an issue if the woman hasn't been sleeping around or destroying herself with 'images of men'. All virgins (and near virgins) should be tight and will open up to the size of their partner.

That is one reason women were not to be promiscuous so they would not destroy the pleasure of their new husband and why the pagan sexual practices intentionally destroyed that tightness to cause problems in a later marriage. That was the purpose of the Asherah Poles, to loosen a woman to decrease her fitness as a wife.

JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2016 6:10 am [Replying to post 1 by agnosticatheist]

No couple living together without being legally married can become one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Further reading
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989268

Suits me just fine!

If the JWs produced a spicy sex manual, along the lines of the Kama Sutra, I might be tempted to change my mind. Meanwhile, I resent anyone, religious or not, poking their nose into my private affairs.

Best wishes, 2RM.

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:33 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2016 6:10 am [Replying to post 1 by agnosticatheist]

No couple living together without being legally married can become one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Further reading
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989268

Suits me just fine!

If the JWs produced a spicy sex manual, along the lines of the Kama Sutra, I might be tempted to change my mind. Meanwhile, I resent anyone, religious or not, poking their nose into my private affairs.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not produce sex manuels; the Kama Sutra is related to the HINDU religion.

As for personal sex matters are you suggesting *I* or any Jehovahs Witness for that matter has ever poked "their nose into your private affairs"? If not I cannot think why you share that particular thought with me.

Respect


JW

The ancient Old Testament patriarchs all had concubines and mistresses. There were no ceremonials before they engaged in sex.