Is there scriptual support against premarital sex? I dont think so.

[Elok]

Somebody refresh my memory; wasn't Agathon formerly a halfway-rational human being, as opposed to being more psychotically anti-faith than Sava? I seem to remember something like that, less than a year ago now...okay, either way, I'm officially introducing a supplement to Godwin's Law.

ELOK'S LAW: Anyone who advises the destruction or suppression of literature or other media of communication, by burning or any other means, is probably best ignored, simply because the end of society's discussion or exchange of ideas will ultimately lead to the end of human civilization.

Maybe this should be called "Voltaire's Law." Nah, screw him, he should have staked the claim while he was alive, in some more concrete form than that one whiny quote the ACLU always drags up.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's not about us helping you get into the sack with your girlfriend?

I'm already in, but she is feeling guilty and wants to stop. And yes, that is my primary concern - wanting to prevent that from happening, but the whole thing has made me want to examine the church's position on premarital sex more closely. In the past, I have just ignored the church position, now I want to fight it.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Agathon
we should just burn all copies of the bible: the world would be a better place for it.

book burning

[Agathon]

Why shouldn't we burn pernicious books? I've never been one of these simpering anti-book burners. I can think of a million bad books the world would be better off without.

I guess I've become more opposed to religion in the last year, simply because it has a pernicious influence on society. I used to think it was harmless - now I think it is an excuse for the gullible, bigoted and ignorant to foist their sexual neuroses on everyone else.

[lord of the mark]

seriously - BFG, if the lady is a fundie Protestant, and her church and her understanding of her religion make her unwilling to "make whoopee" with you, the best option is probably either to accept that or to find another girlfriend. Religious debates make lousy foreplay, IMHO.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by bfg9000

I'm already in, but she is feeling guilty and wants to stop.

You don't mean this literally do you!!?!?!

I mean there's posting for advice before or after the deed, but during makes me wonder how you are managing to avoid typos.

[Elok]

And who gets to decide what books to burn, and by extension gets to control the flow of thoughts and beliefs in the world? I don't think that's anyone's place to decide.

It's easy for you to tell the world what a hero you'd be, when you have no power to act on those claims. I'm willing to wager that, given the power to really destroy books, you would soon become just as great an evil as the enemy you claim to oppose. I do not agree with these ideas, therefore there should be no discussion of them, huh? Any destruction of literature is in the end an opposition to free speech, which is the absolute death and stagnation of the human intellect.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
seriously - BFG, if the lady is a fundie Protestant, and her church and her understanding of her religion make her unwilling to "make whoopee" with you, the best option is probably either to accept that or to find another girlfriend. Religious debates make lousy foreplay, IMHO.

Possibly. Even if I build a convincing argument, she may not be open to discussing the matter in depth. However, the real issue might be that she sees herself regressing spiritually in a sexually active relationship. So maybe if I go to church with her more often or read the bible with her more often, this will be enough to make her feel like the relationship is worthwhile.

Churches are a goldmine of sexually repressed females. If you can find one who is not overly zealous, you can tap into those repressed feelings and unleash a torrent of passion. This is my second time at the well at this particular church...

[Agathon]

And who gets to decide what books to burn, and by extension gets to control the flow of thoughts and beliefs in the world? I don't think that's anyone's place to decide.

People who are prepared to allow their beliefs to be tested.

It's easy for you to tell the world what a hero you'd be, when you have no power to act on those claims. I'm willing to wager that, given the power to really destroy books, you would soon become just as great an evil as the enemy you claim to oppose. I do not agree with these ideas, therefore there should be no discussion of them, huh? Any destruction of literature is in the end an opposition to free speech, which is the absolute death and stagnation of the human intellect.

Blah blah blah... you sound just like John Stuart Mill. Meanwhile in the real world, people aren't particularly nice or reasonable and are prone to fanatical beliefs that do serious damage.

Your Enlightenment liberalism has been a dead duck since Nietzsche.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
There are various references in the Hebrew bible to "harlotry" but exactly what is meant is unclear, IIRC.

I always understood harlotry to mean female prostitution. In the Old Testament, the word harlot is often used to mean a prostitute.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by bfg9000

Possibly. Even if I build a convincing argument, she may not be open to discussing the matter in depth. However, the real issue might be that she sees herself regressing spiritually in a sexually active relationship. So maybe if I go to church with her more often or read the bible with her more often, this will be enough to make her feel like the relationship is worthwhile.

If you actually went to her church you would both get a better sense of how much this is rooted in her religion, and how much its a personal/familial thing. You might also get a better sense of her and her faiths approach to scripture, which likely doesnt match that of folks here, myself included (I doubt they chant the Torah in Hebrew there, forex).

Churches are a goldmine of sexually repressed females. If you can find one who is not overly zealous, you can tap into those repressed feelings and unleash a torrent of passion. This is my second time at the well at this particular church.

Pardon, but this doesnt sound like a really healthy approach to a relationship. Maybe it would be better to seek out someone who shares your values?

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Churches are a goldmine of sexually repressed females. If you can find one who is not overly zealous, you can tap into those repressed feelings and unleash a torrent of passion. This is my second time at the well at this particular church.

Pardon, but this doesnt sound like a really healthy approach to a relationship. Maybe it would be better to seek out someone who shares your values?

If she allows herself to be seduced by me, she shares my values. If she is that open to a sexual experience, she will have one. And it might as well be with me instead of someone else.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by bfg9000



. And it might as well be with me instead of someone else.

You and Billy Joel.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



You and Billy Joel.

I was thinking of that song after I wrote that line.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
Blah blah blah... you sound just like John Stuart Mill. Meanwhile in the real world, people aren't particularly nice or reasonable and are prone to fanatical beliefs that do serious damage.

Your Enlightenment liberalism has been a dead duck since Nietzsche.

Is that so? Then tell me, given the evidently large numbers of people who believe differently from you, why should they not rise up and kill you just to shut you up to keep you from disupting society further? There are different measures of good and bad, and you give me no reason to suppose yours should be imposed over mine rather than vice versa, even supposing there should be such an imposition at all. If you want to convince us that yours is not a "fanatical belief," you're not doing a bang-up job of it so far.

I do find the Enlightenment naive in many ways, but the basic precept of encouraging free speech with all its negative repercussions always appeared to me to be self-evident. That is to say, if you believe dangerous ideas should be repressed, am I agreeing or disagreeing with you when I have you killed to shut you up?

Personally, as you might have noticed if you think back on just about anything I ever wrote, I do not believe people are nice and reasonable. Quite the opposite. I believe humanity is insane and prone to brutality, and my view of human nature has been dubbed obscenely pessimistic by roughly half of the people I ever debated with here at poly. But I believe that also obligates us all the more to watch our own conduct first and foremost, as we are in the best position to do so. People won't stop being insane and brutal until they decide not to themselves, and one person is a start.

Finally, please don't mention Nietzsche to me. If hateful screaming of ad hominems and pitiful amateur psychoanalysis of your opponents made you a philosopher, Ann Coulter would be considered the new Socrates. But it doesn't, she ain't, and Nietzsche was a delusional incompetent who still holds an audience only by virtue of his appeal to the spirit of pointless adolescent rebellion. Kind of like Catcher in the Rye, only with bigger words, and in German.