Is Sex before marriage immoral?

[CWH]

If sex before marriage immoral? I think so. Let's discuss.

God Blessed.:pray:

[CWH]

I am thinking around these questions, my answer is in red, This may help you all to vote:

1. Is the Bible against pre-marital sex? Yes, many scriptures in the OT seems to imply so.

2. Is virginity important? Yes, the hymen is there to protect young girls till a certain mature age.

3. Will encouragement of premarital sex leads to promiscuity? I believe so as it progressively encourages the young to experience sex at a younger age and with multiple partners leading to sexually transmitted diseases and abortions

4. Is premarital sex ok if done out of love instead of out of lust? It seems ok if done out of love. But how can one differentiate between sex done out of love or lust especially in the heat of romance? It may provide a pretext for free love = free sex.

5, Premarital sex with many girlfriends or boyfriends any different from fornication? Yes, it is fornication according to the definition. And fornication is lust.

6. Is one obliged to marry the one that you first have sex with? Yes, whenever possible as that will be fair especially for the girl who gave her virginity out of love to the man. Both have a mutual understanding that it was done out of love with a promise of a future marriage.

7. Is consensual sex with underage girls ok? No, it will be consider as constituitional rape. The law is there to protect vulnerable underage pre-mature girls.

8. Do men prefer their future bride to be a virgin? Of course, if possible.


God Bless:pray:

[Beck]

If sex before marriage immoral? I think so. Let's discuss.

God Blessed.:pray:

CWH,

This is a great question, but first lets determine the standard rule and that would be what?

[Rose]

I am thinking around these questions, my answer is in red, This may help you all to vote:

1. Is the Bible against pre-marital sex? Yes, many scriptures in the OT seems to imply so.

2. Is virginity important? Yes, the hymen is there to protect young girls till a certain mature age.

3. Will encouragement of premarital sex leads to promiscuity? I believe so as it progressively encourages the young to experience sex at a younger age and with multiple partners leading to sexually transmitted diseases and abortions

4. Is premarital sex ok if done out of love instead of out of lust? It seems ok if done out of love. But how can one differentiate between sex done out of love or lust especially in the heat of romance? It may provide a pretext for free love = free sex.

5, Premarital sex with many girlfriends or boyfriends any different from fornication? Yes, it is fornication according to the definition. And fornication is lust.

6. Is one obliged to marry the one that you first have sex with? Yes, whenever possible as that will be fair especially for the girl who gave her virginity out of love to the man. Both have a mutual understanding that it was done out of love with a promise of a future marriage.

7. Is consensual sex with underage girls ok? No, it will be consider as constituitional rape. The law is there to protect vulnerable underage pre-mature girls.

8. Do men prefer their future bride to be a virgin? Of course, if possible.


God Bless:pray:

1. Is the Bible against pre-marital sex? In keeping with the male bias of the Bible premarital sex is only wrong for the female, a man can visit a prostitute whenever he wants before he marries.

2. Is virginity important? Again, according to the Bible virginity is only important for the woman, it doesn't matter if a man is a virgin or not.

3. Will encouragement of premarital sex leads to promiscuity? Biblically speaking it doesn't matter because men could have as many wives and concubines as they wanted.

4. Is premarital sex ok if done out of love instead of out of lust? Once again, according to the Bible it's fine either way for the man, he can lust after a captured woman and keep her for sex if he wants and then get rid of her once he is tired of her.

5. Premarital sex with many girlfriends or boyfriends any different from fornication? It doesn't matter what it's called because Yahweh has a double standard for men and women. Men can have premarital sex whenever they want by visiting a prostitute, but a woman must remain a virgin or get stoned to death. Duet.22:13-14

6. Is one obliged to marry the one that you first have sex with? In the Bible a man must marry a woman that he rapes, but then he can divorce if he doesn't like her.

7. Is consensual sex with underage girls ok? The Bible doesn't specify the age a girl needs to be to marry as long as the father is willing to sell his daughter to a man for a wife...remember the girl has no say in the matter.

8. Do men prefer their future bride to be a virgin? Of course men demand a virgin bride, but it doesn't matter if the man is a virgin according to the Bible.

[CWH]

I regret flaring up Rose's obsession on male bias. My thread is more related to modern issues than those in the Bible. OK, I am going to respond in both Biblical AND modern issues in relating to is premarital sex immoral. Here's my reply in red:

[QUOTE=Rose;43796]1. Is the Bible against pre-marital sex? In keeping with the male bias of the Bible premarital sex is only wrong for the female, a man can visit a prostitute whenever he wants before he marries.
Biblical: In the Bible, there is no mention of premarital sex is wrong except that if a man have sex with a virgin, he will need to marry her. And there were temple prostitutes and the hospitality gesture of offering their daughters for sex. Neither does the ten commandments say "Thou shall not have sex before marriage".

Modern: So can a female visit male prostitutes if she wanted or have sex with any man if she wanted if she is promiscuous.

2. Is virginity important? Again, according to the Bible virginity is only important for the woman, it doesn't matter if a man is a virgin or not.
Bible: The reason why female virginity is important is because of purity which is more preferable by the men but that did not mean a non-virgin cannot marry.

Modern: Are you saying that virginity in the modern world is not important? It may be less important from the purity point of view but still men prefers virgin women.

3. Will encouragement of premarital sex leads to promiscuity? Biblically speaking it doesn't matter because men could have as many wives and concubines as they wanted.
Bible: Man can have any wives as he can but that depends on whether he can afford financially. I see polygamy in the Bible not as lust but as a need to ensure procreation as most of these men died young due to wars and hard labors and infant mortality was high. Polygamy is not equals to promiscuity.

Modern : Polygamy is allowed in certain cultures and it is also based on affordability. However those men who live in a single marriage society overcome the limitation of single marriage by many ingenious ways by seeking prostitutes, adultery, divorce and remarry, one-night-stand, wife swapping etc. That modern behavior is equals to promiscuity.

4. Is premarital sex ok if done out of love instead of out of lust? Once again, according to the Bible it's fine either way for the man, he can lust after a captured woman and keep her for sex if he wants and then get rid of her once he is tired of her.
Bible: It is not lust as I have explained but the need to ensure procreation as these men will die young and infant mortality was high. If the man is tired of her and "rid" her, he usually has to ensure her well-being such as some compensation etc.

Modern: If a man wants to "rid" his wife, just went to the lawyer or the marriage counselor and asked to be divorced. It is done with mutual agreement with the wife or be individually separated for a few years for the divorce to be granted. Another way in which some irresponsible men do to rid the wife is to just leave the wife and family or have adulterous relation with another woman. Same goes with the wife if she wanted to leave the husband. It is as easy as that depicted in the Bible.

5. Premarital sex with many girlfriends or boyfriends any different from fornication? It doesn't matter what it's called because Yahweh has a double standard for men and women. Men can have premarital sex whenever they want by visiting a prostitute, but a woman must remain a virgin or get stoned to death. Duet.22:13-14
Bible: Not necessary so that woman will be stoned if she is not a virgin. There are some examples in the Bible in which men married non-virgins.

Modern: Men and women are now more open to sex which is why we are seeing more cases of adultery, fornication, divorce and remarry, prostituition, mistress, venereal diseases, AIDS etc. Is this trend good or bad? Is this considered as fornication?

6. Is one obliged to marry the one that you first have sex with? In the Bible a man must marry a woman that he rapes, but then he can divorce if he doesn't like her.
Bible: This shows that the law provided that man must be responsible to the lady he has sex with. Divorce comes with the responsibility to ensure her well being by paying compensation to the ex-wife.

Modern: We are seeing almost all cases of "irresponsibilty" in which men do not marry the woman they first have sex with. Is this trend good or bad?

7. Is consensual sex with underage girls ok? The Bible doesn't specify the age a girl needs to be to marry as long as the father is willing to sell his daughter to a man for a wife...remember the girl has no say in the matter.
Bible: But that does not mean the girl cannot illegally leave the man she marries. There is no law in the Bible that says the woman who left her husband must be killed. They can only marry off the child when she reached puberty.

Modern: sex with an underage girl constitutes rape. This is to prevent vulnerability of underage girls.

8. Do men prefer their future bride to be a virgin? Of course men demand a virgin bride, but it doesn't matter if the man is a virgin according to the Bible.
Same with modern society isn't it in which men prefer virgin ladies? But I believe that some women(a rarity) prefer their man to be a virgin also.

God Blessed. :pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I regret flaring up Rose's obsession on male bias.

I regret your obsession with calling Rose's valid and insightful observations an "obsession."



My thread is more related to modern issues than those in the Bible. OK, I am going to respond in both Biblical AND modern issues in relating to is premarital sex immoral. Here's my reply in red:

1. Is the Bible against pre-marital sex? In keeping with the male bias of the Bible premarital sex is only wrong for the female, a man can visit a prostitute whenever he wants before he marries.
Biblical: In the Bible, there is no mention of premarital sex is wrong except that if a man have sex with a virgin, he will need to marry her. And there were temple prostitutes and the hospitality gesture of offering their daughters for sex. Neither does the ten commandments say "Thou shall not have sex before marriage".

Modern: So can a female visit male prostitutes if she wanted or have sex with any man if she wanted if she is promiscuous.

Biblical: So Lot's offering of his daughters to be raped by a mob was a "hospitality gesture." How nice!

Modern: So what?



2. Is virginity important? Again, according to the Bible virginity is only important for the woman, it doesn't matter if a man is a virgin or not.
Bible: The reason why female virginity is important is because of purity which is more preferable by the men but that did not mean a non-virgin cannot marry.

Modern: Are you saying that virginity in the modern world is not important? It may be less important from the purity point of view but still men prefers virgin women.

Biblical: You got it! The virginity was "more preferable to the men" and that's proof that men, not God, wrote the Bible. :thumb:

Modern: Yes, men are still biased. They do not see women as equals. And the Bible didn't help, did it? Nope. It made things much worse. That's why women began to be free and have equal rights only after the Bible was rejected. The Bible leads to bondage.



3. Will encouragement of premarital sex leads to promiscuity? Biblically speaking it doesn't matter because men could have as many wives and concubines as they wanted.
Bible: Man can have any wives as he can but that depends on whether he can afford financially. I see polygamy in the Bible not as lust but as a need to ensure procreation as most of these men died young due to wars and hard labors and infant mortality was high. Polygamy is not equals to promiscuity.

Modern : Polygamy is allowed in certain cultures and it is also based on affordability. However those men who live in a single marriage society overcome the limitation of single marriage by many ingenious ways by seeking prostitutes, adultery, divorce and remarry, one-night-stand, wife swapping etc. That modern behavior is equals to promiscuity.

Biblical: The money is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And you justification of polygamy just shows that you would justify anything the Bible says. That's why the Bible corrupts the minds and the morals of those who believe it. If your excuse were true, then it would be in the Bible. But the Bible says nothing about polygamy being needed because of war widows. And besides, it directly contradicts that fact that the Israelis captured 32,000 virgins and took them for "wives" - unless, of course, you believe that they all had many wives.

Modern: Irrelevant, as usual.



4. Is premarital sex ok if done out of love instead of out of lust? Once again, according to the Bible it's fine either way for the man, he can lust after a captured woman and keep her for sex if he wants and then get rid of her once he is tired of her.
Bible: It is not lust as I have explained but the need to ensure procreation as these men will die young and infant mortality was high. If the man is tired of her and "rid" her, he usually has to ensure her well-being such as some compensation etc.

Modern: If a man wants to "rid" his wife, just went to the lawyer or the marriage counselor and asked to be divorced. It is done with mutual agreement with the wife or be individually separated for a few years for the divorce to be granted. Another way in which some irresponsible men do to rid the wife is to just leave the wife and family or have adulterous relation with another woman. Same goes with the wife if she wanted to leave the husband. It is as easy as that depicted in the Bible.

Biblical: Yes, as you "have explained" which means you just made it up.

Modern: Irrelevant, again.



5. Premarital sex with many girlfriends or boyfriends any different from fornication? It doesn't matter what it's called because Yahweh has a double standard for men and women. Men can have premarital sex whenever they want by visiting a prostitute, but a woman must remain a virgin or get stoned to death. Duet.22:13-14
Bible: Not necessary so that woman will be stoned if she is not a virgin. There are some examples in the Bible in which men married non-virgins.

Modern: Men and women are now more open to sex which is why we are seeing more cases of adultery, fornication, divorce and remarry, prostituition, mistress, venereal diseases, AIDS etc. Is this trend good or bad? Is this considered as fornication?

Biblical: You failed to answer Rose's point. Again.

Modern: Irrelevant, like all the other "modern" applications you have suggested. Why don't you try to engage us in real conversation instead of mechanically producing long lists of questions with silly answers?



6. Is one obliged to marry the one that you first have sex with? In the Bible a man must marry a woman that he rapes, but then he can divorce if he doesn't like her.
Bible: This shows that the law provided that man must be responsible to the lady he has sex with. Divorce comes with the responsibility to ensure her well being by paying compensation to the ex-wife.

Modern: We are seeing almost all cases of "irresponsibilty" in which men do not marry the woman they first have sex with. Is this trend good or bad?

Biblical: The Bible says nothing about paying compensation. On the contrary, when an Israeli soldier captured a woman he found "desirable" he could screw her and toss her out like a dirty rag.

Modern: The "trend" of modernity is infinitely better than the nightmare of dogmatic religion that we've only recently escaped from.



7. Is consensual sex with underage girls ok? The Bible doesn't specify the age a girl needs to be to marry as long as the father is willing to sell his daughter to a man for a wife...remember the girl has no say in the matter.
Bible: But that does not mean the girl cannot illegally leave the man she marries. There is no law in the Bible that says the woman who left her husband must be killed. They can only marry off the child when she reached puberty.

Modern: sex with an underage girl constitutes rape. This is to prevent vulnerability of underage girls.

Biblical: So you think the young girl is just going to "escape" and go ... where??? Have you no compassion at all? You answers just don't connect with reality.

Modern: And that shows how advanced the modern morality is compared to Biblical morality.

[CWH]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;43856]I regret your obsession with calling Rose's valid and insightful observations an "obsession."
Rose obviously have an obsessive compulsive personality. People with this problem are rather over-sensitive and stubborn to certain issues and will brood over them. Most of Rose threads and posts for the past one year are about male bias.


Biblical: So Lot's offering of his daughters to be raped by a mob was a "hospitality gesture." How nice!
Then how do you account for Lot's behavior? Homosexuals are not interested in the opposite sex anyway. He would have offer himself if he is a young man then, what better choice did he have?


Modern: So what?
So what? You approve promiscuity? where is your sense of morality RAM?
God is against premarital sex but if it is already done consensually or not then they should be married and not go screwing around as some teenagers are doing. This is to prevent promiscuity because once they are married they cannot be screwing around as that will constitute adultery.


Biblical: You got it! The virginity was "more preferable to the men" and that's proof that men, not God, wrote the Bible. :thumb:
So you agree that virginity of female is not important?
Where is your sense of morality? The question is, is it moral to be a virgin or a non-virgin before marriage? As I said before, the hymen is a protective membrane believe to prevent infection until the girl reaches puberty. If not, why is the hymen there for? and why male do not have a hymen?


Modern: Yes, men are still biased. They do not see women as equals. And the Bible didn't help, did it? Nope. It made things much worse. That's why women began to be free and have equal rights only after the Bible was rejected. The Bible leads to bondage.
I don't know what you are talking about. The simple fact why men prefers virgin is to ensure that the first child born is his. This male behavior is in all races and cultures and has nothing to do with the Bible or equal human rights.


Biblical: The money is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And you justification of polygamy just shows that you would justify anything the Bible says. That's why the Bible corrupts the minds and the morals of those who believe it. If your excuse were true, then it would be in the Bible. But the Bible says nothing about polygamy being needed because of war widows. And besides, it directly contradicts that fact that the Israelis captured 32,000 virgins and took them for "wives" - unless, of course, you believe that they all had many wives.
If polygamy is not justified, then explain to me why many men are not satisfied with having only one wife?...and some keep screwing around before and after marriage.


Modern: Irrelevant, as usual.
No reason given for irrelevancy as usual; this is not helpful.



Biblical: Yes, as you "have explained" which means you just made it up.
If it is easy to rid a woman during Biblical times, it is equally easy to rid a woman during modern times. See the number of BGR breakups and divorce! Not to mention the number of widowhood during wars. What difference does it makes between Biblical times and modern times?


Modern: Irrelevant, again.
No reason given for irrelevancy as usual; this is not helpful.


Biblical: You failed to answer Rose's point. Again.
I have already answered that God allows polygamy but also allows divorce for the women so that they can get remarry again. Isn't this what is happening in the modern world, divorce and remarry multiple times. What difference is polygamy compare with divorce and remarry multiple times? Where is that male bias as claimed?


Modern: Irrelevant, like all the other "modern" applications you have suggested. Why don't you try to engage us in real conversation instead of mechanically producing long lists of questions with silly answers?
No reason given for irrelevancy as usual; this is not helpful. Why not relevant, then explain to us why there is an explosion of venereal diseases, AIDS in the modern times if the world has not become so open to sex?


Biblical: The Bible says nothing about paying compensation. On the contrary, when an Israeli soldier captured a woman he found "desirable" he could screw her and toss her out like a dirty rag.
There is paying of compensation for divorce in the Bible as seen with Abraham but is it possible to pay monetary compensation during war times? If women are toss out like a dirty rags so are men when they are tossed out in wars like a dirty rags. If the Israelite men kept them, they will soon become widows.


Modern: The "trend" of modernity is infinitely better than the nightmare of dogmatic religion that we've only recently escaped from.
What? Where is your sense of morality? Is it good to have sex with a girl with sweet talk of marriage and then got rid of her and get another one and do the same? What difference is that compare to fornication or lust? What difference is that compare with "screwing the girl and tossing her out like dirty rag"? It is fair that promise of marriage as promised is adhere to, if not it is consider as cheating.


Biblical: So you think the young girl is just going to "escape" and go ... where??? Have you no compassion at all? You answers just don't connect with reality.
Go where? stays with the in laws! Have you also no compassion at all that the girl stays with the husband whom she don't like or who ill treated her?


Modern: And that shows how advanced the modern morality is compared to Biblical morality.
What modern morality you are talking about? Look at the numbers of adulteries and divorce and prostituition and pornography and...... compare to the numbers in the Bible.

God Blessed. :pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose obviously have an obsessive compulsive personality. People with this problem are rather over-sensitive and stubborn to certain issues and will brood over them. Most of Rose threads and posts for the past one year are about male bias.

You would do well to apply your psychology to yourself, my friend. You write like a robot.

But more to the point: You have never indicated that you understand the point Rose is making, despite the fact that she has repeated it dozen's of times. Her point is simply that the Bible cannot be considered to be the "Word of God" because it biased in favor of males from beginning to end. That's her point. Do you understand that now? Will you now respond to it?



Then how do you account for Lot's behavior? Homosexuals are not interested in the opposite sex anyway. He would have offer himself if he is a young man then, what better choice did he have?

I don't know how to account for Lot's behavior except to say that he is a fictional character in a book written by some men with primitive and defective morality. We see the same thing in Judges 19 when the Levite PRIEST offered his concubine to the mob who then raped her till she died. That's some very sick behavior.



So what? You approve promiscuity? where is your sense of morality RAM?
God is against premarital sex but if it is already done consensually or not then they should be married and not go screwing around as some teenagers are doing. This is to prevent promiscuity because once they are married they cannot be screwing around as that will constitute adultery.

Your mechanical mimicry of my words makes you look like a robot that doesn't understand what it is saying. I have written nothing to justify your question about my morality. I am the one who has the high moral standards. You are the one who is justifying all the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible.

And I said nothing about "approving" promiscuity.



?
Where is your sense of morality? The question is, is it moral to be a virgin or a non-virgin before marriage? As I said before, the hymen is a protective membrane believe to prevent infection until the girl reaches puberty. If not, why is the hymen there for? and why male do not have a hymen?

There you go again. Mechanically mimicking my words without any good reason.

The hymen may indeed have the purpose of preventing infections in young girls. The scientists don't really know. Your question "why male do not have a hymen?" is pretty silly. Where exactly would you think it should go?




Modern: Yes, men are still biased. They do not see women as equals. And the Bible didn't help, did it? Nope. It made things much worse. That's why women began to be free and have equal rights only after the Bible was rejected. The Bible leads to bondage.
I don't know what you are talking about. The simple fact why men prefers virgin is to ensure that the first child born is his. This male behavior is in all races and cultures and has nothing to do with the Bible or equal human rights.

You don't know what I'm talking about? How could I make it any plainer? It has everything to do with the Bible because the Bible promotes male domination over women and so it cannot be from God. Simple as that.




Biblical: The money is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And your justification of polygamy just shows that you would justify anything the Bible says. That's why the Bible corrupts the minds and the morals of those who believe it. If your excuse were true, then it would be in the Bible. But the Bible says nothing about polygamy being needed because of war widows. And besides, it directly contradicts that fact that the Israelis captured 32,000 virgins and took them for "wives" - unless, of course, you believe that they all had many wives.
If polygamy is not justified, then explain to me why many men are not satisfied with having only one wife?...and some keep screwing around before and after marriage.

The fact that some men want multiple women has nothing to do with the justification for polygamy that you suggested. My point was that your justification was just made up and is not supported by anything in the Bible.



No reason given for irrelevancy as usual; this is not helpful.

If you can't see it for yourself, no explanation will help.



If it is easy to rid a woman during Biblical times, it is equally easy to rid a woman during modern times. See the number of BGR breakups and divorce! Not to mention the number of widowhood during wars. What difference does it makes between Biblical times and modern times?

The difference is that using a women for sex and then rejecting her because she didn't please you is an immoral law established by God in the Bible.



I have already answered that God allows polygamy but also allows divorce for the women so that they can get remarry again. Isn't this what is happening in the modern world, divorce and remarry multiple times. What difference is polygamy compare with divorce and remarry multiple times? Where is that male bias as claimed?

No one is presenting the moral behavior of people in of modern societies as a divine revelation. That's why all your comments are irrelevant and reveal the you have yet to understand what we are talking about. The morals in the Bible are supposed to be from God, but they turn out to be nothing but the defective morals of primitive men who set themselves up as rulers over women. This conversation would be much more interesting if you would deal with the topic.



There is paying of compensation for divorce in the Bible as seen with Abraham but is it possible to pay monetary compensation during war times? If women are toss out like a dirty rags so are men when they are tossed out in wars like a dirty rags. If the Israelite men kept them, they will soon become widows.

We are talking about the laws attributed to God in the Bible. What Abraham did is irrelevant to the discussion because they are not normative.

And yes, I agree that God abused the Israeli soldiers by commanding them to commit genocide.



Modern: The "trend" of modernity is infinitely better than the nightmare of dogmatic religion that we've only recently escaped from.
What? Where is your sense of morality? Is it good to have sex with a girl with sweet talk of marriage and then got rid of her and get another one and do the same? What difference is that compare to fornication or lust? What difference is that compare with "screwing the girl and tossing her out like dirty rag"? It is fair that promise of marriage as promised is adhere to, if not it is consider as cheating.

Modern morality does not approve of "sex with a girl with sweet talk of marriage and then got rid of her." Ask anyone - they'll tell you it is wrong. And since you think it is wrong, I presume you agree that the morality taught in the Bible is wrong, and therefore the Bible is not God's Word. Is that correct?




Modern: And that shows how advanced the modern morality is compared to Biblical morality.
What modern morality you are talking about? Look at the numbers of adulteries and divorce and prostituition and pornography and...... compare to the numbers in the Bible.

I'm talking about the modern morality that treats women as equal to men. I get the impression you have not been paying attention to anything I've written.

[throwback]

There is no hard and fast answer to this. This is yet another subject that must be approached on a case by case basis. In many circumstances it may well be immoral to engage in sexual activities outside of marriage while in other situations the act of unmarried sex is neither moral or amoral.

A bigger queston to ponder is that of marriage and its true value. Many would say marriage is something that is holy and ordained by a higher power, but realistically if we really examine it, what we find is that it was a construct that evolved in order to help promote the survival of the human race and particularly the perpetuity of the male gene pool into the next generations.
If mankind were to somehow figure a way to harness and transfer the neural network that seemingly enables the individual to be self aware so that that network does not meet its end with the demise of the human body, what we would discover is that marriage, along with other things we value, is of far less importance than we believe it to be. Marriage is more a survival mechanism than it is a matter of innate morality.

[CWH]

[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;43877]You would do well to apply your psychology to yourself, my friend. You write like a robot.
It applies to you as well RAM.


But more to the point: You have never indicated that you understand the point Rose is making, despite the fact that she has repeated it dozen's of times. Her point is simply that the Bible cannot be considered to be the "Word of God" because it biased in favor of males from beginning to end. That's her point. Do you understand that now? Will you now respond to it?
And I have been repeating a dozen times that there is nothing biased against the male in the Bible. It is just an error perception. If a father gave more food to his son rather than his daughter, is he biased to his son? It obviously seems do but it is not because the son is hyper-active and requires more energy. Therefore what is perceived as male bias in the Bible is not what is seems to be.


I don't know how to account for Lot's behavior except to say that he is a fictional character in a book written by some men with primitive and defective morality. We see the same thing in Judges 19 when the Levite PRIEST offered his concubine to the mob who then raped her till she died. That's some very sick behavior.
I seems to be that anything sickening to you in the Bible is fictional, what logic is this? You can't account for Lot's behavior because you cannot accept such "sickening" behavior. I have asked a question, would you offer yourself as an alternative if President Obama is about to be raped by a mob in your house?


Your mechanical mimicry of my words makes you look like a robot that doesn't understand what it is saying. I have written nothing to justify your question about my morality. I am the one who has the high moral standards. You are the one who is justifying all the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible.
So am I with high oral standards. Please answer the following questions if you are a man with high moral standards?
Is premarital sex immoral?
Is promiscuity immoral?
Is fornication immoral?
Is adultery immoral?
Is teenage sex immoral?
Is watching pornorgraphy immoral?
Is divorce and remarry multiple times immoral?
Is free love and free sex immoral?
Is taking narcotics immoral?


And I said nothing about "approving" promiscuity.
Fine, then answer why do you hate promiscuity?


There you go again. Mechanically mimicking my words without any good reason.


The hymen may indeed have the purpose of preventing infections in young girls. The scientists don't really know. Your question "why male do not have a hymen?" is pretty silly. Where exactly would you think it should go?
You talk so much about male and female equality, then tell me why God created a hymen for female but no hymen for male? A hymen for male would be a proof of male virginity.


You don't know what I'm talking about? How could I make it any plainer? It has everything to do with the Bible because the Bible promotes male domination over women and so it cannot be from God. Simple as that.
That's a wrong perception. There are scriptures in the Bible in which female dominates over males such as in the praises of women in Proverbs and Psalms and in Esther. If the Bible is written by men over women's domination, why sing such praises?


The fact that some men want multiple women has nothing to do with the justification for polygamy that you suggested. My point was that your justification was just made up and is not supported by anything in the Bible.
My point is that given a choice, a man will want more than one wife. Just asked any man (yourself included), Christian and non-Christian and most will admit that one wife is not enough. I know Rose will vomit over this comment but it is something realistic.
Ask any men Christian or non-Christian and they will tell you they prefer virgin wife. Therefore, the value of female virginity has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity or race or culture.


The difference is that using a women for sex and then rejecting her because she didn't please you is an immoral law established by God in the Bible.
What is the difference between man divorcing his wife and marrying another multiple times? What is the difference between teenagers after having sex with his girlfriend and then rejecting her and then go for another? What difference is that compare to fornication?


No one is presenting the moral behavior of people in of modern societies as a divine revelation. That's why all your comments are irrelevant and reveal the you have yet to understand what we are talking about. The morals in the Bible are supposed to be from God, but they turn out to be nothing but the defective morals of primitive men who set themselves up as rulers over women. This conversation would be much more interesting if you would deal with the topic.
It is not what it seems to be.


We are talking about the laws attributed to God in the Bible. What Abraham did is irrelevant to the discussion because they are not normative.


And yes, I agree that God abused the Israeli soldiers by commanding them to commit genocide.
If you agree that people like Hitler, Stalin, Osama, Mao should be killed, I see no reason why genocide of evil people should not be allowed.


Modern morality does not approve of "sex with a girl with sweet talk of marriage and then got rid of her." Ask anyone - they'll tell you it is wrong. And since you think it is wrong, I presume you agree that the morality taught in the Bible is wrong, and therefore the Bible is not God's Word. Is that correct?
It is not what it seems to be in the Bible.


I'm talking about the modern morality that treats women as equal to men. I get the impression you have not been paying attention to anything I've written.
Is everything male and female equality always good?

God Blessed male and female.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You would do well to apply your psychology to yourself, my friend. You write like a robot.
It applies to you as well RAM.

No, it does not apply to me in any way at all. I respond intelligently to the specific statements you make. You often do not respond to what I say, but rather change the subject. And when you do respond, you often merely repeat things I said like a child saying "I am rubber you are glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."




But more to the point: You have never indicated that you understand the point Rose is making, despite the fact that she has repeated it dozen's of times. Her point is simply that the Bible cannot be considered to be the "Word of God" because it biased in favor of males from beginning to end. That's her point. Do you understand that now? Will you now respond to it?
And I have been repeating a dozen times that there is nothing biased against the male in the Bible. It is just an error perception. If a father gave more food to his son rather than his daughter, is he biased to his son? It obviously seems do but it is not because the son is hyper-active and requires more energy. Therefore what is perceived as male bias in the Bible is not what is seems to be.

First, you got it backwards. Rose is saying the Bible is biased in favor of the male, not against the male.

Second, your assertion that the male bias is merely an "error of perception" is entirely false. The bias is real and you have never shown it is not. For example, the value of women in the Bible is literally half that of a male:
Leviticus 27:5 'and if from five years old up to twenty years old, then your valuation for a male shall be twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels;

Likewise, giving birth to a female child makes a women twice as "unclean" as giving birth to a male child:
Leviticus 12:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. ...5 'But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.

And there are hundreds of other examples of a male bias in the Bible. Your assertion that there is no such bias is entirely false.

Furthermore, the Bible plainly states that women are to be in subjugation to men. They are not allowed to teach, and Paul connects this back to the story of the fall, saying that it is because it was the woman who was deceived. And then to top it all off, Paul establishes the male dominance over women by linking it to the very nature of God and his relation to humans, saying that the man is the head of the woman, just like Christ is the head of the man. The Bible is totally sexist from beginning to end.

If you really want to see how the Bible teaches sexism, listen to this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NeFhA_sL38c

Here's a snippet from the transcript of what he said (courtesy of this site (http://www.womanist-musings.com/2012/05/for-rev-jesse-lee-peterson-women-are.html)): "I want to say goodbye to America; it's over. My America is gone. It's unfortunate but it's over and short of God intervening, I don't see any turn around. I still have hope, I'm not hopeless, but I don't see any turnaround. I realize that one of the primary reasons that it is over for America, is because women are taking over. Women are taking over - they're in high, so-called powerful positions now. They're running companies, they're making decisions, and not all, not all, not all, let me say not all - see they're running to give me a funny face now. When I say not all, she's like yeah thank you. But not all, they are a few out there - there are some that are logical women can make sound logical decisions, but must cannot. The unfortunate thing is that they're in powerful positions, they're running businesses and things like that and the one thing I know for sure without a doubt, women cannot handle power. It's not in them to handle power in the right way - they don't know what to do with it."




I don't know how to account for Lot's behavior except to say that he is a fictional character in a book written by some men with primitive and defective morality. We see the same thing in Judges 19 when the Levite PRIEST offered his concubine to the mob who then raped her till she died. That's some very sick behavior.
I seems to be that anything sickening to you in the Bible is fictional, what logic is this? You can't account for Lot's behavior because you cannot accept such "sickening" behavior. I have asked a question, would you offer yourself as an alternative if President Obama is about to be raped by a mob in your house?

Where did you get that idea? I have not said that everything sickening in the Bible is fiction. For example, the stoning of people is sickening, but I never said it was fiction.

I said I could not account for Lot's behavior because no rational or loving person would offer his daughters to a mob.

Your question is irrelevant because Lot did not offer himself! He offered his daughters. So the correct question is "Would you offer your daughters to be raped by a mob to protect President Obama. My answer is NO.




Your mechanical mimicry of my words makes you look like a robot that doesn't understand what it is saying. I have written nothing to justify your question about my morality. I am the one who has the high moral standards. You are the one who is justifying all the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible.
So am I with high oral standards. Please answer the following questions if you are a man with high moral standards?
Is premarital sex immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is promiscuity immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is fornication immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is adultery immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is teenage sex immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is watching pornorgraphy immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is divorce and remarry multiple times immoral? No.
Is free love and free sex immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex has is not the essence of morality.
Is taking narcotics immoral? Finally! A different topic! The answer is obviously "no" since doctors use narcotics.

My answers in red, of course.




And I said nothing about "approving" promiscuity.
Fine, then answer why do you hate promiscuity?

I didn't say I hated promiscuity. Why are you so obsessed with sex as if it were the only moral question in the universe?




The hymen may indeed have the purpose of preventing infections in young girls. The scientists don't really know. Your question "why male do not have a hymen?" is pretty silly. Where exactly would you think it should go?
You talk so much about male and female equality, then tell me why God created a hymen for female but no hymen for male? A hymen for male would be a proof of male virginity.

I told you the scientists don't have answer to that question. So no one knows. And it is irrelevant to the question of male bias in the Bible.




You don't know what I'm talking about? How could I make it any plainer? It has everything to do with the Bible because the Bible promotes male domination over women and so it cannot be from God. Simple as that.
That's a wrong perception. There are scriptures in the Bible in which female dominates over males such as in the praises of women in Proverbs and Psalms and in Esther. If the Bible is written by men over women's domination, why sing such praises?

A few instances of women being praised does not undo the institutional domination of men over women that we see in the Bible and which has dominated Christian history for two thousand years. Women only began to be free when we as a society began to get free from the Bible.




The fact that some men want multiple women has nothing to do with the justification for polygamy that you suggested. My point was that your justification was just made up and is not supported by anything in the Bible.
My point is that given a choice, a man will want more than one wife. Just asked any man (yourself included), Christian and non-Christian and most will admit that one wife is not enough. I know Rose will vomit over this comment but it is something realistic.
Ask any men Christian or non-Christian and they will tell you they prefer virgin wife. Therefore, the value of female virginity has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity or race or culture.

It appears you have never been in a meaningful monogamous relationship. It seems you know nothing of the bonding and sexual pleasure that can be found by being faithful to one woman. That's a real pity.




The difference is that using a women for sex and then rejecting her because she didn't please you is an immoral law established by God in the Bible.
What is the difference between man divorcing his wife and marrying another multiple times? What is the difference between teenagers after having sex with his girlfriend and then rejecting her and then go for another? What difference is that compare to fornication?

The difference is that the women was not captured in war after watching her "husband" slaughter everyone she ever loved.




And yes, I agree that God abused the Israeli soldiers by commanding them to commit genocide.
If you agree that people like Hitler, Stalin, Osama, Mao should be killed, I see no reason why genocide of evil people should not be allowed.

Your phrase "the genocide of evil people" indicates that you don't know what genocide means. There is no moral problem if you are acting to save innocent people by killing people like Hitler. The problem is if you target all the innocent women and children and deliberately kill them all when there was no need. That is why God's genocidal commands in the Bible are so wrong. He order the murder of every man, woman, and child in the promised land ... except the 32,000 sexy virgins, of course.




Modern morality does not approve of "sex with a girl with sweet talk of marriage and then got rid of her." Ask anyone - they'll tell you it is wrong. And since you think it is wrong, I presume you agree that the morality taught in the Bible is wrong, and therefore the Bible is not God's Word. Is that correct?
It is not what it seems to be in the Bible.

That's not an answer.



Is everything male and female equality always good?

Total equality in the sense of absolutely equal rights and freedom and respect - ABSOLUTELY YES!

[CWH]

[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;43929]No, it does not apply to me in any way at all. I respond intelligently to the specific statements you make. You often do not respond to what I say, but rather change the subject. And when you do respond, you often merely repeat things I said like a child saying "I am rubber you are glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."
Are we talking about the same thing?


First, you got it backwards. Rose is saying the Bible is biased in favor of the male, not against the male.
What difference doe it makes; it's still male bias.


Second, your assertion that the male bias is merely an "error of perception" is entirely false. The bias is real and you have never shown it is not. For example, the value of women in the Bible is literally half that of a male:[INDENT]Leviticus 27:5 'and if from five years old up to twenty years old, then your valuation for a male shall be twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels;
So does this prove male bias? I can give you a hundred reasons why a male seems more valuable than a female but that does not mean a female is not valued equally. It's equal work for equal pay. A male life is expected to be much shorter than a female due to wars and hard labor. Therefore their lifespan worth is shorter compare to a female. The higher value is to compensate for the shorter life expectancy of a male. It's like a fair employer paying higher for someone who can only work 10 years and paying someone lesser but with a guarantee of lifetime employment.


Likewise, giving birth to a female child makes a women twice as "unclean" as giving birth to a male child:[INDENT]Leviticus 12:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. ...5 'But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.
So this prove male bias? There is a scientific explanation for this and perhaps other things that we may not have known. Obviously, a longer time is needed to rest and take care for a female baby:

But there are even more benefits in these instructions. While a new mother was unclean (7–14 days), she was free from the duties of cooking and ordinary housework—giving her time to regain her strength after delivering a baby. During the purification period (33–66 days), she remained in semi-isolation, thus avoiding crowds and contact with disease germs that could harm her or her newborn child. She was not required to travel to a place of worship to make an offering until the end of her purification period. Since travel was often arduous, this gave a nursing mother time for her breast milk to come in, to establish a feeding routine and for the baby to build antibodies and gain strength. The longer period for female babies was not due to male chauvinistic bias. Even today, female babies often have lower birth weights and higher mortality rates, so this longer period at home with the mother was meant to give them a better start in life.


And there are hundreds of other examples of a male bias in the Bible. Your assertion that there is no such bias is entirely false.
Show me all the hundred examples and I can show you there is no male bias.


Furthermore, the Bible plainly states that women are to be in subjugation to men. They are not allowed to teach, and Paul connects this back to the story of the fall, saying that it is because it was the woman who was deceived. And then to top it all off, Paul establishes the male dominance over women by linking it to the very nature of God and his relation to humans, saying that the man is the head of the woman, just like Christ is the head of the man. The Bible is totally sexist from beginning to end.
Funny, there were also female prophetess and preachers in NT, what was Paul talking about?

Where did you get that idea? I have not said that everything sickening in the Bible is fiction. For example, the stoning of people is sickening, but I never said it was fiction.
I have asked a question that goes unanswered, is swording equally "sickening" than stoning? Please answer.

I said I could not account for Lot's behavior because no rational or loving person would offer his daughters to a mob.
Was Lot's daughter of clean "character"? Why were they not married off? Why didn't the mob have sex with them? Why didn't anyone want them and they have to resort to incest? Would incest initiated by the daughters something any rational daughter would do? So it must be fictional right?


Your question is irrelevant because Lot did not offer himself! He offered his daughters. So the correct question is "Would you offer your daughters to be raped by a mob to protect President Obama. My answer is NO.
Your answer is No is correct but unfortunately you are playing a gamble by saying No, they might also raped you and your daughters as well. Isn't that worse? A better way is to negotiate with them which Lot did but to no avail. The purpose was to buy time for the angels to escape or be rescued. Obviously, Lot has trust in the Lord that they including his daughters and himself will be saved and that came true when the angels blinded the mob. Can't imagine what the mob will do next if they can't get the angels then....Lot and his daughters will be raped!


My answers in red, of course.
What nonsensical answers are these? - "You are obsessed with sex, sex is the essence of morality".


I didn't say I hated promiscuity. Why are you so obsessed with sex as if it were the only moral question in the universe? If you do not hate promiscuity and you don't approve of it, then what is your stand? I am not obsessed with sex but I am asking questions pertaining to the thread, "Is premarital sex immoral?"


I told you the scientists don't have answer to that question. So no one knows. And it is irrelevant to the question of male bias in the Bible.
I do not know the answer either. But it is certainly an interesting question, "why no hymen in males?". Perhaps, it is not important to prove male virginity as they will have many wives but important to prove female virginity to ensure to the man that the child is his.


A few instances of women being praised does not undo the institutional domination of men over women that we see in the Bible and which has dominated Christian history for two thousand years. Women only began to be free when we as a society began to get free from the Bible.
Is it funny that such trait happens not only in the Christian world but all over the world when the female was view as the weaker sex? It has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity, if not why did it occurs in every religion and race, be it Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, Indians, Negroes etc. It may prove male dominance but it does not prove male bias. Well, the saying goes, you are free to do anything you want as long as you are not caught.


It appears you have never been in a meaningful monogamous relationship. It seems you know nothing of the bonding and sexual pleasure that can be found by being faithful to one woman. That's a real pity.
Funny if meaningful monotonous relationship is good, why did you divorced from your first wife? What difference is divorce and remarry compare to polygamy and polyandry?



The difference is that the women was not captured in war after watching her "husband" slaughter everyone she ever loved.
I am not sure if that love of their husband you mentioned ever existed, remember, most of them were married against their will. What difference was that to rape?


Your phrase "the genocide of evil people" indicates that you don't know what genocide means. There is no moral problem if you are acting to save innocent people by killing people like Hitler. The problem is if you target all the innocent women and children and deliberately kill them all when there was no need. That is why God's genocidal commands in the Bible are so wrong. He order the murder of every man, woman, and child in the promised land ... except the 32,000 sexy virgins, of course.
Were the men, women and children innocent, that is the question? What if the children and women behaved or will behave like Hitlers?
We see lions, leopards killed young antelopes, zebra and their youngs, including pregnant ones, is this a moral question? If this is a moral question, let's kill all lions and leopards and all carnivores and see what will happen. Sometimes, what we see and do as moral without thinking of the consequences may results in disasters. That is worse than morals. I have asked the question, what will become of the world if the moral of not destroying Hitler and the Nazis was kept?



Total equality in the sense of absolutely equal rights and freedom and respect - ABSOLUTELY YES!
Agree but equal rights and freedom and respect to females does not mean everything must be equal. Equal rights, freedom and respect can come in other equal forms such as you look after the children, I'll protect the family; You do the house chores, I maintained them; you do the cooking, I provide the food... Each playing their roles unequally but towards the same goal. Imagine wife and husband doing everything, this is chaotic ...look after the children, do the house chores, home maintenance, cooking, getting food, work on their own....where is the organization and teamwork, where is the bondage and efficiency?

God Blessed.:pray:

[Alternate]

There is no hard and fast answer to this. This is yet another subject that must be approached on a case by case basis. In many circumstances it may well be immoral to engage in sexual activities outside of marriage while in other situations the act of unmarried sex is neither moral or amoral.

A bigger queston to ponder is that of marriage and its true value. Many would say marriage is something that is holy and ordained by a higher power, but realistically if we really examine it, what we find is that it was a construct that evolved in order to help promote the survival of the human race and particularly the perpetuity of the male gene pool into the next generations.
If mankind were to somehow figure a way to harness and transfer the neural network that seemingly enables the individual to be self aware so that that network does not meet its end with the demise of the human body, what we would discover is that marriage, along with other things we value, is of far less importance than we believe it to be. Marriage is more a survival mechanism than it is a matter of innate morality.

Hmm. Such a cynical view. Still, it hits some important matters.

The case is, if you think about it more thoroughly, moral acts help promote the survival or the human race and in my view there is nothing wrong with that. In a way morality is related to survival. And what if morality is a survival mechanism? That does not negate the value of morality. In a way, morality helping the survival of humanity give it more value.

If things don't have value because they are survival mechanisms... so what now? You want the human species to be extinct? It's ok to live in chaos and anarchy? You want death and destruction?

Then to the original topic; the value of marriage. I'm not a religious person. I don't believe in the holiness of the holy scriptures. I don't almost believe in God. Still, I value marriage highly. As, I value love, and friendship. As, I value my parents. It doesn't matter to me if they are survival mechanisms. I don't care if marrying my woman is an instrument for me us to have babies and care for them together. I don't care if love and friendship is a mechanism for us to help each other survive. I don't care if my parents love and affection for me is so to ensure that their gene that they passed to me would flourish. I know that, but that facts would not degrade these things in my eyes. They are good and that for me is a big enough value.

[sylvius]

Hmm. Such a cynical view. Still, it hits some important matters.

The case is, if you think about it more thoroughly, moral acts help promote the survival or the human race and in my view there is nothing wrong with that. In a way morality is related to survival. And what if morality is a survival mechanism? That does not negate the value of morality. In a way, morality helping the survival of humanity give it more value.

If things don't have value because they are survival mechanisms... so what now? You want the human species to be extinct? It's ok to live in chaos and anarchy? You want death and destruction?

Then to the original topic; the value of marriage. I'm not a religious person. I don't believe in the holiness of the holy scriptures. I don't almost believe in God. Still, I value marriage highly. As, I value love, and friendship. As, I value my parents. It doesn't matter to me if they are survival mechanisms. I don't care if marrying my woman is an instrument for me us to have babies and care for them together. I don't care if love and friendship is a mechanism for us to help each other survive. I don't care if my parents love and affection for me is so to ensure that their gene that they passed to me would flourish. I know that, but that facts would not degrade these things in my eyes. They are good and that for me is a big enough value.


It is just that I was crazy about her, not to have together babies with, or to promote the survival of the human race, but to have sex with her. It might be that I am an exception in that.
I still don't bother much about the survival of the human race, although I did father four children.

[Alternate]

It is just that I was crazy about her, not to have together babies with, or to promote the survival of the human race, but to have sex with her. It might be that I am an exception in that.
I still don't bother much about the survival of the human race, although I did father four children.

Hahaha. I don't bother much about survival of the human race too.

Well, you did brought up an important facet of the matter of marriage and morality, and you give an implication that this makes them less important because of that facet. That is rather a big thing as it is applicable to all good things about humanity.

I also understand the desire for sex... who don't?

What I find almost ridiculous about all this marriage stuff is that they value the celebration and the paper but fail to value what was celebrated and what was represented by the paper. Its like celebrating a birthday party with the celebrators not knowing whose birthday it is; the celebrant could be on the other side of the world for all they know. For me the very act of sex itself is a form of marriage. Sex, no matter what you think it is, in essence is an act of procreation, thus for me sex carries heavy responsibility. The couple engaging in it should take that responsibility seriously. That for me is a very large part of what marriage is.