<p>Quote:
what if people don’t want to get married?
How on earth could I be any clearer?</p>
<p>Quote:
No pre- or extra-marital sex in any circumstance at any point ever.
I mean, the answer is right there. You don’t have to infer everything. Literally all relevant information is right there. Where is the ambiguity?</p>
<p>Quote:
People have also been having sex without marriage for hundreds of thousands of years.
No duh. So clearly people can have successful marriages after egregious errors in judgment. That doesn’t change the fact that couples that do not have sex prior to marriage can work out sexual issues that may arise during the marriage. </p>
<p>You’re not serious right? Thousands of years before the religious and social construct of marriage was coined, people had premarital sex with partners. Before the idea of premarital sex was bad, these people lived normally for their time. Please come up with a better claim.</p>
<p>I’m not a Biblical literalist, nor am I a fundamentalist. If you want specific answers to questions like this, here you go: [Vatican:</a> the Holy See](<a href=“http://www.vatican.va/]Vatican:”>http://www.vatican.va/) Two thousand years of Biblical analysis at your disposal. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hardly. Laws are morals by which society has to live. If I think, say, sexual assault is morally acceptable, then I don’t think there should be a law against it. Laws are reflections of moral beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please, I’m not even trying to debate – that’s not fun! At this point, I’m just posting things. But I happen to believe them. So consider it an exposition of a viewpoint, not an apologetics session thereof.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s true. But things change. That’s why we have temporal markers of B.C. and A.D.</p>
<p>If you’re going to lecture on what God wants me to do or how He defines marriage, please at least know what you’re talking about. Don’t refer me to a website. If you’re going to use God as a source of attack, at least have more information than what you can put on a bumpersticker.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Things change? If the law comes from God then does that mean that God changes? Did you just call God a “thing”?</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? I do know what I’m talking about – I’ve met enough people who don’t even know what they believe. That website IS my belief system on this matter, so I am going to defer to people who can explain it to you more eloquently than I. Why would I give you a worse explanation of my beliefs when a more articulate version is available?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Things” as in the state of affairs. God is eternal, so no, he does not change – although you should look up Modalism and Adoptivism if you are interested in Trinitarian philosophies that do adopt views of a changing God. The most prominent example thereof is, of course Arianism. God’s covenant with the people goes through updates, if you will – Jesus was the last such update.</p>
<p>Then I reiterate, Did He also tell you why polygamy was perfectly acceptable in the Old Testament but not today? Did He tell you what age you could get married at? Tell me more about what He has told you about marriage.</p>
<p>Please, tell me. I don’t care how ineloquent it is. I want to know what He has told you about marriage. I don’t want it from a website.</p>
<p>If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn’t believe what I do (this goes for any viewpoint). So that possibility can be ignored as irrelevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do care about how eloquent it is. Again, I see no reason why I should type this all out (it would require hundreds of pages of text) when you have access to a far greater resource that answers all of these questions in the most excruciating detail possible. Again, just search for marriage or love: <a href=“http://www.vatican.va%5B/url%5D”>www.vatican.va</a></p>
I think you have the common sense to judge for yourself whether or not laws = morality. If everyone just blindly followed laws and did not question the morality of some laws, then we would live in a very twisted world.</p>
<p>Your prior statements consisted of using God’s “morals” to back up yourself up. But now I get the feeling that you’re equating laws to infallibility. Especially seeing as you capitalize “Law”.</p>
<p>No I’m not. You are misunderstanding me on two points:</p>
<p>1) Law is the institution of laws, laws are the laws. The capital simply designates the concept – Truth versus truth, for example</p>
<p>2) I said the laws are moral judgments, not that they are correct ones. So I do not accept the infallibility of our laws, I simply recognize that they are their creators’ moral beliefs.</p>
<p>Hmm. I’ve just never seen it used that way. Thanks for clarifying though.</p>
<p>
You did state that laws are a system of morality that everyone in society should live by. From that, anyone would assume that you thought that they should be accepted without question.</p>
<p>0.0 Again, if I didn’t believe my morals were correct, I wouldn’t have them at all, would I? So why on earth would I not apply what I think is correct for everyone to other people?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where? I remember saying that laws are by definition a system of morality by which society must abide (within the construct of the State). Maybe that last part – that “must” means the State requires its citizens to – clarifies it.</p>