Is fornication sinful?

[Never]

Yes, fornication is inherently sinful.

[Never]

Why are you guys assuming that sex will result in pregnancy?  Ever heard of birth control?  Gay people?

As for using the Bible to say that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, that's thoroughly misguided.  The Bible was written in an entirely different context when people treated women like chattel, lived in small villages and had no birth control.  In that context, it makes sense from a societal  point of view to restrict sex to married couples. 

Today, it's perfectly normal and healthy to have pre-marital sex.  In fact, it's quite strange to abstain from pre-marital sex.  Did you know the average age of first marriage is 27?  Who is going to wait until they're 27 to have sex?  That's nuts.  Sex and relationships are so important to being happy and having a good quality of life.  It's waaay too important to sacrifice at the altar of Taliban-like religious asceticism.

Wait, so we shouldn't cite the Bible as the basis for our views in the Religion & Philosophy section?

Women were fairly treated in the New Testament, with Jesus viewing them as mentally equal to men.

Yes, the Bible was written in a culture very different from the one we live in, but right and wrong transcend cultural boundaries.

Just because it is common for a society to allow premarital sex doesn't mean that it is right. Infanticide (as in babies being killed after birth), was common and tolerated in the Roman Empire and a great deal of the ancient world, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable in their culture or ours.

[Never]

Why are you guys assuming that sex will result in pregnancy?  Ever heard of birth control?  Gay people?

As for using the Bible to say that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, that's thoroughly misguided.  The Bible was written in an entirely different context when people treated women like chattel, lived in small villages and had no birth control.  In that context, it makes sense from a societal  point of view to restrict sex to married couples. 

Today, it's perfectly normal and healthy to have pre-marital sex.  In fact, it's quite strange to abstain from pre-marital sex.  Did you know the average age of first marriage is 27?  Who is going to wait until they're 27 to have sex?  That's nuts.  Sex and relationships are so important to being happy and having a good quality of life.  It's waaay too important to sacrifice at the altar of Taliban-like religious asceticism.

Wait, so we shouldn't cite the Bible as the basis for our views in the Religion & Philosophy section?

Women were fairly treated in the New Testament, with Jesus viewing them as mentally equal to men.

Yes, the Bible was written in a culture very different from the one we live in, but right and wrong transcend cultural boundaries.

Just because it is common for a society to allow premarital sex doesn't mean that it is right. Infanticide (as in babies being killed after birth), was common and tolerated in the Roman Empire and a great deal of the ancient world, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable in their culture or ours.

You're not supposed to take the Bible as literal rules that apply to every situation.  It's an ancient book written by fallible people.  Whether you're a Christian or not, you ought to look at the spirit of what the Bible means in the context of modernity, and not the letter of what it says.  Trying to follow everything to the letter is called being a religious fundamentalist and you see how that turns out when you look at the Middle East right now. 

I agree that infanticide is terrible, but not because God thinks so.  After all, I'm almost certain there's no such thing as a God.  But, in any case, we need to decide what's just, fair and moral in our social relations ourselves.  God is a concept that ought to give you spiritual solace and a place to eat donuts at a church every now and then, it should't be a handbook for your life.  Sex is way too complicated a subject to abdicate our reasoning and our lives to fundamentalist religion.

Well, if you don't believe that there is a God, I don't think that you can guide a Christian like me on how to interpret the Bible... though you are definitely entitled to your own opinions about fornication. As a Christian, I do in fact view the Bible as a handbook for my life that is applicable to a significant number of situations, and if that makes me a religious fundamentalist, so be it. You said that I should look at the "spirit of the Bible", but the Bible would mean nothing to me if there is no such thing as God. I do understand that I am to apply the Bible based on the setting I face as a twenty-first century American, but that doesn't mean that I should accept fornication because America is a different culture from the one in which the Bible was written. Saying that we should accept fornication because it is common practice in America is what I consider moral relativism, and I cannot endorse that as I consider doing so to be a threat to my relationship with God.

You said that you agree infanticide is terrible, but if you aren't basing that on a higher power, what are you basing it on? Your own reasoning? It's a good thing to think for yourself, but something isn't terrible just because an individual feels that it is.

If as a human race we decide what is morally just by ourselves, we will inevitably make mistakes. There are no morally perfect people. For me, sex is too important of a life issue to assume that I don't need any spiritual guidance from Christ on it.  God is way more than donuts and orange juice on Sunday morning at church.

[Never]

Well, if you don't believe that there is a God, I don't think that you can guide a Christian like me on how to interpret the Bible... though you are definitely entitled to your own opinions about fornication. As a Christian, I do in fact view the Bible as a handbook for my life that is applicable to a significant number of situations, and if that makes me a religious fundamentalist, so be it. You said that I should look at the "spirit of the Bible", but the Bible would mean nothing to me if there is no such thing as God. I do understand that I am to apply the Bible based on the setting I face as a twenty-first century American, but that doesn't mean that I should accept fornication because America is a different culture from the one in which the Bible was written. Saying that we should accept fornication because it is common practice in America is what I consider moral relativism, and I cannot endorse that as I consider doing so to be a threat to my relationship with God.

You're misconstruing what I said. 

The Bible is relevant to any situation, but not specifically in a rule-based way.  You ought to take the spirit of Christianity, which is kindness, caring for poor and disadvantaged people, honesty, egalitarianism, loving your family, etc.  You shouldn't take the specific ancient rules and apply them to your life.  After all, God didn't write the Bible.  Nobody believes that, right?

And, no, I'm not a moral relativist.  I believe in fixed morality, but with every morality judgement taking into account the facts and circumstances of the situation. 

You said that you agree infanticide is terrible, but if you aren't basing that on a higher power, what are you basing it on? Your own reasoning? It's a good thing to think for yourself, but something isn't terrible just because an individual feels that it is.

I'm not the only person that thinks murder is generally wrong. 

If as a human race we decide what is morally just by ourselves, we will inevitably make mistakes. There are no morally perfect people. For me, sex is too important of a life issue to assume that I don't need any spiritual guidance from Christ on it.  God is way more than donuts and orange juice on Sunday morning at church.

Whatever people do, they'll make mistakes.  But, I don't believe in these ironclad rules and lawmaking done by deities.  A practical morality that is based on modern understandings of sexuality, health and family is always debatable and fraught, but it's superior to the barbarism and puritanism of the Bible.  And, we see that today.  If you look at these so-called religious people, they tend to be the biggest sexual deviants.

Oh, I didn't mean to take anything that you said out of context; I do try to keep a discussion civil and balanced, especially when discussing serious matters like spirituality.

God didn't sit down and write the Bible, but I do believe that He inspired it all without error through the men He used to write the specific books comprising the Bible in its original text.

I would like to hear more about your view of fixed morality if that's fine with you. For instance, what do you base it on? Why do you consider morality to be fixed?

You do make a good point on murder being detested by society (I'm assuming you mean ours in America), but there are other societies where murder is/was acceptable, like Sparta in ancient times and some tribal groups like those of Papua New Guinea. If murder is wrong just because most people rightfully say it is, how do we account for those societies?

I agree that modern perspectives on some issues are flawed. If our practical morality is based on "modern [likely secular] understandings of sexuality, health, and family", then it is be based on the understandings of individuals, who will inevitably make mistakes in their reasoning. Since this practical morality cannot be 100% flawless, then it is not 100% moral, which could lead one to justifiably question whether it is superior to the moral code of the Bible.

[Never]

God didn't sit down and write the Bible, but I do believe that He inspired it all without error through the men He used to write the specific books comprising the Bible in its original text.

Even so, the Bible still needs to be interpreted.  Some of it is obviously allegorical and mythical.  Some of it is poetic.  There's no reason you need to take everything 100% as literal commands. 

I would like to hear more about your view of fixed morality if that's fine with you. For instance, what do you base it on? Why do you consider morality to be fixed?

I think right and wrong in any situation is ascertainable.  I don't think morality for me is different from morality for you.  That's all I mean. 

You do make a good point on murder being detested by society (I'm assuming you mean ours in America), but there are other societies where murder is/was acceptable, like Sparta in ancient times and some tribal groups like those of Papua New Guinea. If murder is wrong just because most people rightfully say it is, how do we account for those societies?

That's just nonsense.  There's never been a society where murder was generally considered acceptable behavior. 

I agree that modern perspectives on some issues are flawed. If our practical morality is based on "modern [likely secular] understandings of sexuality, health, and family", then it is be based on the understandings of individuals, who will inevitably make mistakes in their reasoning. Since this practical morality cannot be 100% flawless, then it is not 100% moral, which could lead one to justifiably question whether it is superior to the moral code of the Bible.

I would take the morality of modern day educated Americans over the morality of the Bible any day of the week.

You said that you think morality for me and you would be the same, but what if I opppose something that you find acceptable, like fornication, as we are discussing? Of course, from having a lively discussion with you, I assume that there are many things we would both consider moral, like saving a person's life, not murdering, and not stealing, but there could be some moral issues where you and I don't line up.

No, it is not nonsense that murder is or was acceptable in some tribes of Papua New Guinea. Please read here, here, and here. There were tribes where murder was a common practice, barbaric as that is. In fact, the Asmat tribe required that people be named after deceased individuals, and if there weren't any available, they would kill someone in order to name the person after them. It's up to you whether you believe this or not, but the evidence is solid.

[Never]

You said that you think morality for me and you would be the same, but what if I opppose something that you find acceptable, like fornication, as we are discussing? Of course, from having a lively discussion with you, I assume that there are many things we would both consider moral, like saving a person's life, not murdering, and not stealing, but there could be some moral issues where you and I don't line up.

We have different opinions, but in a given specific situation, one of us is more right and one is more wrong.

No, it is not nonsense that murder is or was acceptable in some tribes of Papua New Guinea. Please read here, here, and here. There were tribes where murder was a common practice, barbaric as that is. In fact, the Asmat tribe required that people be named after deceased individuals, and if there weren't any available, they would kill someone in order to name the person after them. It's up to you whether you believe this or not, but the evidence is solid.

Those tribes still have a taboo against murder, but they have different exceptions than we do to killing.  We allow self-defense killing and killing in war.  Similarly, they allow killing for human sacrifice. 

How do you justify societies having different exceptions to murder? Is it "more right" for some tribal people to sacrifice humans, and "more wrong" for us? Human sacrifice should be considered unacceptable regardless of setting. Similarly, fornication should always be considered unacceptable, no matter what the circumstances.  

[Never]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

Well, I for one haven't, and in all honesty sex has become less and less appealing to me as time goes on, probably because I'm becoming less idle than I used to be and have better goals to think about.  So, whether I die a virgin or not is of zero concern to me.  I don't see how that discredits an honest, personal opinion, though.

As someone who was in your camp until recently, let me say that when someone special invades the camp of celibacy and drags you away into the camp of intimacy, I think you'll likely find that your only regret at that time will be that you weren't invaded sooner.

That sounds romantic and cute and all but I think the Bible, not to mention the Church, is very clear about this. It'd be nice and all but I think it's all very cut and dry. Very cut and dry.

Do I like it? Not particularly. Am I morally upstanding about this? I don't know. It's a conflict.

Note this. Just because you want to do something does not make it right. Would I, given the chance, bludgeon Mengistu Hailemariam to death with a concrete block? I would. Does that make it the moral thing to do? Of course not. Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

[Never]

You said that you think morality for me and you would be the same, but what if I opppose something that you find acceptable, like fornication, as we are discussing? Of course, from having a lively discussion with you, I assume that there are many things we would both consider moral, like saving a person's life, not murdering, and not stealing, but there could be some moral issues where you and I don't line up.

We have different opinions, but in a given specific situation, one of us is more right and one is more wrong.

No, it is not nonsense that murder is or was acceptable in some tribes of Papua New Guinea. Please read here, here, and here. There were tribes where murder was a common practice, barbaric as that is. In fact, the Asmat tribe required that people be named after deceased individuals, and if there weren't any available, they would kill someone in order to name the person after them. It's up to you whether you believe this or not, but the evidence is solid.

Those tribes still have a taboo against murder, but they have different exceptions than we do to killing.  We allow self-defense killing and killing in war.  Similarly, they allow killing for human sacrifice. 

How do you justify societies having different exceptions to murder? Is it "more right" for some tribal people to sacrifice humans, and "more wrong" for us? Human sacrifice should be considered unacceptable regardless of setting. Similarly, fornication should always be considered unacceptable, no matter what the circumstances. 

I don't justify human sacrifice, that's wrong and would be in any culture or era.  That would include the ultimate supposed human sacrifice, Jesus of Nazareth dying for our sins.

But, there's a world of difference between something inherently evil like killing and something morally neutral like having sex.  Fornication could be all kind of things, right?  It could be rape.  Would you say that a rape victim has committed a moral offense by being raped?  I hope not.  I similarly would condemn fornication if it's an act of rape.  I would condemn fornication if it's unsafe-sex or part of a sex addiction behavior.  I would say usually adultery is wrong. 

But, some "fornication" is two people in a healthy committed relationship having safe, consensual sex.  It's ridiculous to call that wrong.  There's nothing even morally questionable about that. 

Jesus is much more than just a man; we must remember that when discussing human sacrifice. After his sacrifice on the cross for our sins, even animal sacrifices aren't necessary (though it is worth noting that human sacrifices were condemned in the Old Testament - Jesus being the Messiah is a very special and isolated exception). You aren't saying that it is a bad thing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, are you? I am of the understanding that you question the actuality of the crucifixion and resurrection (I believe both, FWIW). If Jesus never did die on the cross, then everyone would be subject to an eternity in hell.

Rape victims do not merit any blame. They are not the ones at fault; they aren't the ones who want to have sex. The rapist, on the other hand, could have a sick mind and enjoy the action they are taking.

So you disagree with adultery, as do I. Am I correct in inferring that the main form of fornication that you accept is premarital sex? Sure, two unmarried individuals could consent to fornication and enjoy it, but that does not make it morally acceptable.

For the record, I have known people who cohabited for years and had sex outside of the confines of marriage, and they were some of the nicest folks I have met, but that doesn't make their action morally acceptable.

[Never]

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

So you are saying that something is moral because it is pleasurable? In other words, if it feels good, do it? That sounds hedonistic to me. Considering that fornication has various disadvantages and can cause damage, even if the full extent of that damage isn't readily seen, I question the narrative that fornication is good for all parties involved.

[Never]

Jesus is much more than just a man; we must remember that when discussing human sacrifice. After his sacrifice on the cross for our sins, even animal sacrifices aren't necessary (though it is worth noting that human sacrifices were condemned in the Old Testament - Jesus being the Messiah is a very special and isolated exception). You aren't saying that it is a bad thing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, are you? I am of the understanding that you question the actuality of the crucifixion and resurrection (I believe both, FWIW). If Jesus never did die on the cross, then everyone would be subject to an eternity in hell.

If God existed, I don't think human sacrifice would ever be legitimate, including sacrificing Jesus.  Someone else being punished can't repay whatever I've done wrong.  But obviously, I don't believe that Jesus came back to life at any point and he was a normal human being like anyone else. 

Rape victims do not merit any blame. They are not the ones at fault; they aren't the ones who want to have sex. The rapist, on the other hand, could have a sick mind and enjoy the action they are taking.

That's an exception to fornication being immoral, but I suppose for you it's one of intent. 

So you disagree with adultery, as do I. Am I correct in inferring that the main form of fornication that you accept is premarital sex? Sure, two unmarried individuals could consent to fornication and enjoy it, but that does not make it morally acceptable.

Usually adultery is wrong, but not always. 

For the record, I have known people who cohabited for years and had sex outside of the confines of marriage, and they were some of the nicest folks I have met, but that doesn't make their action morally acceptable.

What is wrong with it, specifically?

If Jesus didn't die on the cross, my Christian faith means nothing. We aren't supposed to be happy that the Romans killed Jesus about two thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean that we can't be grateful for Jesus for giving every person an opportunity to spend eternity in heaven.

Yes, for me it is intent. Similarly, I don't think it would be acceptable for me as a Christian to quickly judge an individual without control of their faculties for committing fornication. If someone is experiencing fornication against their will, they should not be branded as a willful fornicator.

What are the exceptions for adultery? It's either okay or not. Yes, I am being rigid here, but circumstances do not make it fine for one individual to have sex outside of their marriage while another individual can only be sexually active within the confines of their marriage. For instance, a person might be in dire need of some food, but does that mean they have a right to steal some bread, whereas an individual who is not hungry doesn't have a right to steal some ice cream? In other words, it is reasonable to argue that stealing is wrong in any case.

Are you referring to cohabitation or fornication when asking me why I thought they were wrong? I wasn't sure, so I'll answer to both for your benefit.

Cohabitation with sexual activity is wrong because God's moral code does say that you have to be married in order to have sex (Mark 10:7-9). Now, I will say that there are probably instances where the rules should be bent on this, like when African-American slaves were not married in the eyes of the law in our nation's early days (this also leads us to the understanding that racism and the American system of slavery are or were not acceptable), but even in this case there were ceremonies to make it clear to others that the two slaves were "married".

I think I've made it pretty clear about my position on fornication, but I oppose it because God says through the Bible that it is wrong, and that it has disadvantages.

[Never]

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

So you are saying that something is moral because it is pleasurable? In other words, if it feels good, do it? That sounds hedonistic to me. Considering that fornication has various disadvantages and can cause damage, even if the full extent of that damage isn't readily seen, I question the narrative that fornication is good for all parties involved.

No, I didn't say that.  I said "fornication" is morally acceptable in the abstract because there is nothing inherently wrong about consensual safe-sex. And that list you provided is thoroughly ridiculous.  Basically it boils down to, "God said so," and watch out for STDs!!!/unwanted children.  We've dealt with both of those issues.

Can you give me a reason, besides a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the Bible or the idea that sex is inevitably dangerous, that pre-marital sex is morally wrong? 

Do I really need to give you a reason other than my interpretation of the Bible, which I accept as truth, when discussing an topic in the Religion & Philosophy section? I think not, but I will give you a secular argument if that is what you desire...

Premarital sex cheapens sex itself. If you can have sex from anyone without committing to them, where is the value? Sometimes people will use another individual just for sex, and if the person being taken advantage of realizes this, wouldn't he or she be justified in arguing that pre-marital sex was wrong, at least for themself?

There are other complex emotional arguments against pre-marital sex, but since I am not a fornicator, I don't think I will go there.

Here is an interesting source from someone other than me with useful secular arguments against pre-marital sex. 

[Never]

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

So you are saying that something is moral because it is pleasurable? In other words, if it feels good, do it? That sounds hedonistic to me. Considering that fornication has various disadvantages and can cause damage, even if the full extent of that damage isn't readily seen, I question the narrative that fornication is good for all parties involved.

No, I didn't say that.  I said "fornication" is morally acceptable in the abstract because there is nothing inherently wrong about consensual safe-sex. And that list you provided is thoroughly ridiculous.  Basically it boils down to, "God said so," and watch out for STDs!!!/unwanted children.  We've dealt with both of those issues.

Can you give me a reason, besides a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the Bible or the idea that sex is inevitably dangerous, that pre-marital sex is morally wrong? 

Do I really need to give you a reason other than my interpretation of the Bible, which I accept as truth, when discussing an topic in the Religion & Philosophy section? I think not, but I will give you a secular argument if that is what you desire...

Premarital sex cheapens sex itself. If you can have sex from anyone without committing to them, where is the value? Sometimes people will use another individual just for sex, and if the person being taken advantage of realizes this, wouldn't he or she be justified in arguing that pre-marital sex was wrong, at least for themself?

There are other complex emotional arguments against pre-marital sex, but since I am not a fornicator, I don't think I will go there.

Here is an interesting source from someone other than me with useful secular arguments against pre-marital sex. 

Most people aren't religious fundamentalists.  Most religious people here seem to be either religious fundamentalists or sex-phobic, but I think in America most people take a moderate view of religion and sex.  Those moderate people are no less Christian or Islamic or Jewish than you are.  They just live in the real world and they take the specific rules of their religion with a grain of salt.

As for your supposed reason, that's again trying to simplify life with sanctimonious sex-phobic platitudes. 

Maybe you are right, perhaps most people aren't religious fundamentalists, but most people are not going to go to heaven either (Matthew 7:13-14 - NIV: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) It does not matter if only a few people believe something as long as it is truthful. Anyhow, there are a great deal of conservative Christians in America, at the very least. The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest religious denomination in America with several million adherents, and it holds very many fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path.

I would never shape my worldview on the conventional wisdom of Americans, because I find it necessary to think for myself. I didn't become a conservative Christian overnight. It took quite some time for me to understand how Christ wanted me to view the world after I placed faith in Him as my Savior. I cannot in good conscience write off something because my culture doesn't like it.

It is pretty clear that this is a good place to end our discussion. I am glad that we had this debate, and I hope that we will both take something from it.

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

So you are saying that something is moral because it is pleasurable? In other words, if it feels good, do it? That sounds hedonistic to me. Considering that fornication has various disadvantages and can cause damage, even if the full extent of that damage isn't readily seen, I question the narrative that fornication is good for all parties involved.

No, I am not saying that something is moral just because it is pleasurable (the Hedonists wouldn't have said that either, for what it's worth). I am saying that before something is declared "immoral", some harm inherent to that thing should have to be proven. That's why I appreciate your attempt to provide examples of the potential harms of premarital sex, even if the examples named on the websites that you linked to were either dubious, avoidable, or only applicable to practicing Christians.

Thank you for saying that you appreciated my cited sources, even though you basically took a backhanded swipe at them. I honestly am unfazed whether you don't care for Christian websites, even ones like About.com (which has been owned by the New York Times, not exactly a hotbed of prudes on sexual issues).

Although I believe that premarital sex is harmful, and you don't seem to hold that view, I am glad that we were able to have this conversation.

[Never]

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path. 

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

You realize there are tons of Christians who believe this, right? You may find it disgusting, but it's hardly unique to this guy. I'm pretty sure most large Christian denominations teach that view.

And an increasing number of them are not.

Even if 99% of Christian churches taught it, why should that change my perspective?  We're only going by what we think is right here, are we not?

Sure, I'm just pointing out that Never doesn't believe that stuff because he's a demented weirdo. He believes it because it's what mainstream Christianity teaches.

Thank you, Speaker Deus.

Yes, I believe hell is a very real place, but I don't want anyone to go there. Honestly, I am unhappy at the thought of Scott being condemned to hell for not becoming a Christian, and knowing that any of my current non-Christian friends and family (like my grandmother and several of my aunts, uncles, and cousins) will be condemned to hell because they did not accept salvation before they die.

I don't believe that Islam and Judaism are paths to heaven; only Christianity is. I can be a very forward person, and I will let someone know that I am a Christian upfront and that I believe faith in Christ is the only way to heaven if asked about my religious beliefs. I can never back down from that, because I want as many people as possible to go to heaven. If that makes me a "sad excuse of a human being", so be it. I am not trying to start a flame war here.

Maybe you are right, perhaps most people aren't religious fundamentalists, but most people are not going to go to heaven either (Matthew 7:13-14 - NIV: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) It does not matter if only a few people believe something as long as it is truthful. Anyhow, there are a great deal of conservative Christians in America, at the very least. The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest religious denomination in America with several million adherents, and it holds very many fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path.

I would never shape my worldview on the conventional wisdom of Americans, because I find it necessary to think for myself. I didn't become a conservative Christian overnight. It took quite some time for me to understand how Christ wanted me to view the world after I placed faith in Him as my Savior. I cannot in good conscience write off something because my culture doesn't like it.

As a Universalist I hold to a radically different interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14.  Jesus there is not proclaiming that only a few will be saved.  Rather he is proclaiming that only a few are able to find the way on their own without some form of guidance.  Jesus is certainly one guide to the narrow path, yet as he himself states in that passage, he is not the only potential guide, as those few others who find the narrow path on their own are also available as guides to the one true Way that Christ the Mediator shows us humans.

Well, I do not fully understand Universalist views on some issues, I do believe that I may defend my own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 by pointing out Jesus' response to a question by Thomas in John 14:5-6 (NIV):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, after reading that, I believe it clears up Jesus' comments on the narrow path to heaven by saying in the Gospel of John that he is the only guide and the only way to heaven. Jesus didn't say that he is a way, rather, Jesus said he is the way. It is my belief that Jesus is saying few will accept Christ as Savior in Matthew 7:13-14.

[Never]

Maybe you are right, perhaps most people aren't religious fundamentalists, but most people are not going to go to heaven either (Matthew 7:13-14 - NIV: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) It does not matter if only a few people believe something as long as it is truthful. Anyhow, there are a great deal of conservative Christians in America, at the very least. The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest religious denomination in America with several million adherents, and it holds very many fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path.

I would never shape my worldview on the conventional wisdom of Americans, because I find it necessary to think for myself. I didn't become a conservative Christian overnight. It took quite some time for me to understand how Christ wanted me to view the world after I placed faith in Him as my Savior. I cannot in good conscience write off something because my culture doesn't like it.

As a Universalist I hold to a radically different interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14.  Jesus there is not proclaiming that only a few will be saved.  Rather he is proclaiming that only a few are able to find the way on their own without some form of guidance.  Jesus is certainly one guide to the narrow path, yet as he himself states in that passage, he is not the only potential guide, as those few others who find the narrow path on their own are also available as guides to the one true Way that Christ the Mediator shows us humans.

Well, I do not fully understand Universalist views on some issues, I do believe that I may defend my own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 by pointing out Jesus' response to a question by Thomas in John 14:5-6 (NIV):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, after reading that, I believe it clears up Jesus' comments on the narrow path to heaven by saying in the Gospel of John that he is the only guide and the only way to heaven. Jesus didn't say that he is a way, rather, Jesus said he is the way. It is my belief that Jesus is saying few will accept Christ as Savior in Matthew 7:13-14.

I take it that Jesus here is speaking metaphorically, identifying himself with the Way that his life was a prime example of.  Hence I take it that he is emphasizing that his way is the only way.

Yet clearly, the ministry of Jesus was not about getting people to pay homage to him.  Consider the remainder of what he says in Matthew 7:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’ “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!”

One knows the value of a tree not by its name, but by its fruit.  Doing good works in the name of Jesus does not gain salvation.  The principle difference between our views seems to be that you consider the Persona of Jesus to be the principal thing we should revere whereas I believe the Way that Jesus taught and exemplified via his persona is the principal thing we should revere.

Just to be clear, I do not believe in faith by works. I think you are right that Jesus did not have a self-centered ministry; through his actions, we can tell that he wanted to have a positive impact on the spiritual lives of others, and through his death on the cross, he wanted everyone to have a chance to accept salvation and spend eternity in heaven.

Do I appreciate the Persona of Jesus? Yes, but I also appreciate the Way of Jesus as you do. I don't think it would be a good idea to just have one without the other. If we only had Jesus' persona, I suspect he would just be very good person, as individuals like Gandhi felt, but if we only had the Way of Jesus, it would be practically identical to God the Father.

[Never]

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path. 

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

You realize there are tons of Christians who believe this, right? You may find it disgusting, but it's hardly unique to this guy. I'm pretty sure most large Christian denominations teach that view.

And an increasing number of them are not.

Even if 99% of Christian churches taught it, why should that change my perspective?  We're only going by what we think is right here, are we not?

Sure, I'm just pointing out that Never doesn't believe that stuff because he's a demented weirdo. He believes it because it's what mainstream Christianity teaches.

Thank you, Speaker Deus.

Yes, I believe hell is a very real place, but I don't want anyone to go there. Honestly, I am unhappy at the thought of Scott being condemned to hell for not becoming a Christian, and knowing that any of my current non-Christian friends and family (like my grandmother and several of my aunts, uncles, and cousins) will be condemned to hell because they did not accept salvation before they die.

I don't believe that Islam and Judaism are paths to heaven; only Christianity is. I can be a very forward person, and I will let someone know that I am a Christian upfront and that I believe faith in Christ is the only way to heaven if asked about my religious beliefs. I can never back down from that, because I want as many people as possible to go to heaven. If that makes me a "sad excuse of a human being", so be it. I am not trying to start a flame war here.

And many of those religious people you say are going to hell, quite ironically, think you are going to hell for being a Christian and not embracing their religion.  But that's beside the point.

I think I've made it plainly obvious on here that I am a Christian.  I would never compromise on what I say I believe, but I realize my beliefs deviate so far from what the fundamentalists believe that, in some circles, I would not be considered a Christian.  And I am absolutely fine with that.  If I don't pass a person's litmus test, I don't care what group they want to lump me with that isn't Christian.  If I need to be excluded from that person's vision of Heaven for them to feel more righteous and more secure about themselves, who am I to say they can't?  I might not return the favor, but, hey, such is why we have freedom of religion.

Just don't expect horror stories, empty threats, or cherrypicked Bible verses to sway me to your side, because they won't.

I don't really know what you stand for and what you consider to be Christian beliefs. Someone can say that they are a Christian and not be one, but since you say that you are a Christian and I am not aware of your beliefs, I will not pass any judgment on you.

Based on your response, I don't think you would want me to advance this conversation any further, so I won't. You are entitled to your beliefs while you are here on earth, but at the end we are all going to be accountable for what we stood for during our lives.

[Never]

Well, I'm sure that's the majority opinion here as well- just that not a lot of people are taking part.

Possibly, there could be people here who automatically assumed that there was nothing to debate on fornication being a sin and simply didn't participate, but Atlas seems to be a very liberal discussion board on social issues...