is this right that Pre-marital sex is ok

Forgive the late reply, I just finished finals. holiday

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, so you don't refute determinism, but our ability to objectively know reality. That's more reasonable, but I think you take it too far. I don't claim anything with certainty, but I do believe we can understand the nature of the universe to a certain extent. If we can't, then we're just flailing around in a dream world. The fact that we can and have manipulated scientific findings to change the world around us, and those principles hold without exception in human experience, suggests a consistent, causal reality.

No, I reject determinism because it does not allow for any logic based theories or ideas, which ends up rejecting the very theory or idea that claims it. I don't deny that we can sense and experience the universe. The problem comes with what we do with that data and the conclusions we draw from it.

Originally posted by Digi
I also think the robot analogy still doesn't work. The robot has no awareness of its autonomy. The cognition isn't the same. Our opinions can change because we've decided to mold them to the evidence. In your scenario, there is no means by which the robot's hypothesis gets any more accurate.

The robot thinks it does. The robot thinks that idea is a pretty accurate explanation for what is happening.

Originally posted by Digi
So let's say person A has decided to believe in the alien hypothesis. Person B has decided to only believe what there is empirical evidence to suggest. Both of these choices are determined. So far, so good. Now...We can only trust the opinions of person B on this matter because that is the only person whose opinions are based on what reality shows us through empirical study. Basically, if you want to say everyone's choice is determined, great. The empirical test is determined as well; but that is its power. Because it has to tell the truth about the universe. Thus, the people who have decided to trust such tests know more about reality than those who do not. Their understanding is imperfect and their interpretations may be flawed, but the fact that they work with the empirical, de-facto-truthful data, means they're closer to the truth than those who don't.

But in my hypothetical the robot WAS basing his theory off of truthful data. The point isn't what conclusion either person comes to, it's HOW they come to the conclusion. Even if person B only uses truthful data, which my robot was doing also, he would still run into the same problem as the robot if he were in the same situation. Namely, if I was controlling the conclusions he was drawing from the data instead of him.

Originally posted by Digi
So just to be clear, do you hold to a Christian concept of magical free will? Or do you think reality, and human beings by extension, is determined and causal?

The former, but I've been avoiding bringing it up because I firmly believe it is not relevant to my rejection of the latter. Furthermore, I do not think that belief in the former suggests a collapse of universal laws or a spiral into a chaotic universe. But once again, my views as to that particular subject are completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Pre-marital sex is a choice of an individual. Dispite what old time Christians think, and some other chaste individuals, there is nothing wrong with it. That being said its not right for a man to spread his seed like wildflowers, nor is it right for women to make children they will kill (abort) or not take care of. Use protection and get yourself checked out regularly. And remember if you contract AIDS and continue to have unprotected sex, or any relations without informing your partner of your AIDS you can be sentence for premeditated murder,

Originally posted by Irrylath23
Pre-marital sex is a choice of an individual. Dispite what old time Christians think, and some other chaste individuals, there is nothing wrong with it. That being said its not right for a man to spread his seed like wildflowers, nor is it right for women to make children they will kill (abort) or not take care of. Use protection and get yourself checked out regularly. And remember if you contract AIDS and continue to have unprotected sex, or any relations without informing your partner of your AIDS you can be sentence for premeditated murder,

No! We are to put fornication away for marriage. Without it, sin and poverty sits at the door. POVERTY is not fun by any means. God wants to protect us from that but it's easy to fall into the trap of sex.

Originally posted by atv2
No! We are to put fornication away for marriage. Without it, sin and poverty sits at the door. POVERTY is not fun by any means. God wants to protect us from that but it's easy to fall into the trap of sex.

Christian couple maintains abstinence through first two years of marriage

TOPEKA — Jon and Darla Crocker, who dutifully abstained from sex during their 14-month courtship, have remained abstinent after marriage and plan to do so indefinitely.

“If it was holy before, it must be double-holy afterwards,” Darla says.

They have now completed 25 months of marriage without any sexual contact, going about their normal lives, jobs and social calendar with no hint of relational strain.

Sometimes after dinner they will kiss in the kitchen and “start having bedroom thoughts,” Darla says, but they never fail to pull back. Darla breaks away to spray cool, misted water on her face. Jon eats a whole raw potato to take himself out of the mood.

They don’t know when they’ll finally break the pledge, and they feel no pressure. After abstaining so long before marriage, “a few extra years is nothing,” says Darla.

“Of course, we don’t lord it over any other couple who decides to have sex after marriage, but for us it’s about staying faithful to the abstinence message and the holiness involved with that,” says Jon who seems unbothered. “For us, true love waits, and waits, and waits.”

If that's their thing then good for them.

Perhaps they are asexual.

Or very repressed.

The only thing that concerns me is that they'll probably bring up their children (if they ever have children) to hold their same views regarding sexuality. There's also the fact that I doubt most Christians would approve of their notion of extreme celibacy--to Christians the purpose of marriage is to conceive and bring up children, I don't see what their marriage accomplishes from a Christian perspective.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If that's their thing then good for them.

Agreed, if they're happy not ****ing, let them not ****.

Just found the "double-holy" and the raw potato eating comments hilarious.

It's a step up from flogging oneself or taking baths in icecubes.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The only thing that concerns me is that they'll probably bring up their children (if they ever have children) to hold their same views regarding sexuality. There's also the fact that I doubt most Christians would approve of their notion of extreme celibacy--to Christians the purpose of marriage is to conceive and bring up children, I don't see what their marriage accomplishes from a Christian perspective.

It may be more common than you think

Mind you, this was from Kinsey, so pre-sexual revolution and I forget the exact number, but he found some non-trivial amount of Christian couples so sheltered from sex-ed that they were astonished they weren't producing children even though both were still virgins.

Originally posted by Oliver North
It may be more common than you think

Mind you, this was from Kinsey, so pre-sexual revolution and I forget the exact number, but he found some non-trivial amount of Christian couples so sheltered from sex-ed that they were astonished they weren't producing children even though both were still virgins.

Well god did drop a baby into the virgin Mary so I really don't see why not.

The guy must feel pain in his balls.