sex before marrying ?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Hm, so you call it 'hedonism.' I always just called it.... "human biology."

See, thats' normal in the paradigm you're supporting, Alex. Ancient socieites had human biology, too, and they acted on it without hesitation, or conscious. It is our higher selves that are attracted to discipline and commitment, our lesser selves that spurn it. Religion was sent to guide us away from our basest instincts so that we could form societies that allow us to order our lives with discipline rather than desire. That is what separates us from less evolved life forms, and nothing to take lightly.

All right. I respect your right not to have sex before marriage, but you've insinuated more than once now that it makes you superior or comes from a superior place. Can't say I'm OK with that. We're not going to agree based on your idea of the purpose of religion; for example, it is my opinion that more evolved life forms than we are would probably not have or need religion at all.

What is superior about acting on your impulses?

1. I don't think any position is superior. I just resent you claiming your position is.

2. I wouldn't advocate humping strangers' legs, obviously. People should make informed sexual decisions, especially considering the number of STDs you can get even using a condom.

3. People can make those informed decisions and have a code of ethics without the framework of religion. Life is not a choice between being a Muslim or running around naked pounding your chest.

I never used the word superior, and it's my perspective that seeing a claim of that sort is an expression of a lack of confidence that one's own view is lacking in merit. Perhaps, unconsciously, you agree that it is best to wait, but not having done so, cannot give the religious position th enod it deserves. I am extemely confident of my position, which is why I could never say that proponents of the opposite view seems superior, nor resent it. It doesn't even occur to me.

You wrote

______

I was expecting this defensive type of response, it is so predictable when discussing this subject in a mixed group. I'm always amazed how religious proponents are seen as provacative while the "if it feels good, do it" crowd is viewed as non-judgmental. But, it never fails to produce such a response, as if there is only room for one inoffensive perspective which cannot be the religious one.

Wow sounds like your the one being a bit defensive. The "if it feels good, do it" crowd as you refered to them (at least from what I read) offered their advice on what they believe. You on the other hand offered your advice on what you believe and then started making sweeping broad generalizations to market your beliefs as the only right path. I have never been one for instant gratification and I have been in this country all of my life, I do not discard something looking for the next coolest thing. Most of the people I know are similar to me with respect to your sweeping generalizations.

Please see my response above.

[garya505 2]

I believe in waiting until after marriage, that was I have done myself and that is what I advocate. It is also part of Islamic teachings. Not everyone is from the US consumer society where most things are readily available to satisfy our need for instant gratification, only to be discarded for the next cool thing. The divorce rate in the US is 50%, appalling because, despite lips service to the contrary, there is little value to love, sex or marriage. This is also reflected in the common venacular and casual attitude toward pre-marital sex.

Not everyone who has premarital sex does it for "instant gratification" or because we are from the US consumer society. Some of us do it because we think it's healthy and normal.

There is a source for the belief that premarital sex is healthy and normal. Since that source is not faith, it is hedonism, a need to satisfy one's individual desires. Hedonism is a major element of the secular, consumer paradigm. Nothing, including sexual attitudes, is formed in a vacuum.

Hm, so you call it 'hedonism.' I always just called it.... "human biology."

It is hedonism, but your objection obviously comes from the fact that "hedonsim" has a negative connotation, while "human biology" does not.

[mrsushi66 0]

I do this with a friend of mine, I ask him are we debating on an intelectuall level or a faith based level. You can not debate with someone who only sees faith especially when they use broad sweeping generalizations to make their beliefs supperior to anothers point of view. You may not have ever used the words but to say my religion says it is best to wait then turn and generalize that everyone in the states is about instant gratification and discarding something for the next coolest thing it sure sounds supperior to me. The fact that you do not recognize nor admit how blatently devicive this is leaves with one conclusion, you are blind to all reason and live your life by faith. Which is fine by me but please be ready for posts calling you on it when you use these broad sweeping generalizations to hold your faith up on high.

[garya505 2]

szsz, you have a way with words. Often you write almost the same thing I'm thinking but can't seem to write as clearly. B)

[Yodrak 7]

szsz,

I have to disagree that the onlye alternative explanation to faith is hedonism. Life is more complex than 'black and white'.

Yodrak

There is a source for the belief that premarital sex is healthy and normal. Since that source is not faith, it is hedonism, a need to satisfy one's individual desires. .....

szsz,

Don't forget fully opposable thumbs.

Yodrak

..... Religion was sent to guide us away from our basest instincts so that we could form societies that allow us to order our lives with discipline rather than desire. That is what separates us from less evolved life forms, and nothing to take lightly.

[garya505 2]

szsz,

I have to disagree that the onlye alternative explanation to faith is hedonism. Life is more complex than 'black and white'.

Yodrak

There is a source for the belief that premarital sex is healthy and normal. Since that source is not faith, it is hedonism, a need to satisfy one's individual desires. .....

But wouldn't you agree that hedonism has replaced religion, as a way to live, for many people in the US? Or at least that it has worked it's way into the lives of otherwise religious people, who often stradle the line between "it's all about me" and "it's all about God".

[Yodrak 7]

MarilynP,

I disagree - there are more than a few faces and bodies out there that would stop a lot of couplings.

We would however, have a lot more diaper wearers.

Yodrak

Most people control their biological urge somewhat... if we didn't, we would go around having sex with anybody and everything at any time...

....

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I do this with a friend of mine, I ask him are we debating on an intelectuall level or a faith based level. You can not debate with someone who only sees faith especially when they use broad sweeping generalizations to make their beliefs supperior to anothers point of view. You may not have ever used the words but to say my religion says it is best to wait then turn and generalize that everyone in the states is about instant gratification and discarding something for the next coolest thing it sure sounds supperior to me. The fact that you do not recognize nor admit how blatently devicive this is leaves with one conclusion, you are blind to all reason and live your life by faith. Which is fine by me but please be ready for posts calling you on it when you use these broad sweeping generalizations to hold your faith up on high.

I have made no broad, sweeping generalizations. It benefits you to say so, but saying so doesn't make it so. That my presentation of my views is taken by a few as "superior" is a subjective view, not an objective view, and depends a great deal on your own mindset. I did ask the question how is acting on impulse superior, which has been ignored. Probably because it is indefensible.

Still, I'm not only writing on a faith based level, but a philosophical level. Actually, I mentioned my religion only in passing; it is you who is expanding it in a way I have not. Still, it is an accepted fact that hedonism is a biological imperative. Gary correctly stated, it is the same thing as human biology. Hedonism is the opposite of philosophy and the cultural developmental mode. I am arguing for the advancement of philosophy and cultural development over the base instincts that define human biology aka hedonism. It is biology that supports the consumerist, secular, hedonist imperative behind the need for instant gratification and impulsiveness that you advocate. it would not be incorrect for me to say that because you fail to see that, then you must be blind to all reason and live your life on impulse. Would I be correct, or can you also be accused of making sweeping generalizations, as well?

It would seem so.

[Yodrak 7]

garya,

No. Religion is not the only foundation for a sense of social responsibility. (And some of the world's great religions that do promote a sense of social responsibility do not have a god, so it's not an 'all about me - all about God' thing.)

Yodrak

szsz,

I have to disagree that the onlye alternative explanation to faith is hedonism. Life is more complex than 'black and white'.

Yodrak

There is a source for the belief that premarital sex is healthy and normal. Since that source is not faith, it is hedonism, a need to satisfy one's individual desires. .....

But wouldn't you agree that hedonism has replaced religion, as a way to live, for many people in the US? Or at least that it has worked it's way into the lives of otherwise religious people, who often stradle the line between "it's all about me" and "it's all about God".

[Yodrak 7]

szsz,

What is superior about acting on your religion when the act is people of one religion going to war against people of another? Or against people of the same religion but of a differenct denomination or sect?

Superiority comes not from the inspiration for an action, but from the results and consequences of the action. And it is a highly subjective concept.

Yodrak

What is superior about acting on your impulses?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

But wouldn't you agree that hedonism has replaced religion, as a way to live, for many people in the US? Or at least that it has worked it's way into the lives of otherwise religious people, who often stradle the line between "it's all about me" and "it's all about God".

The most prevasive export of the US is its culture, at lease its culture as media producers see it. That culture glamorizes and celebrates hedonism, the biological imperative to indulge oneself in all matters, and it does so with little acknowledgment of consequences. When it is one's own culture, it is not easy to see it outside of your own incorporation in it. Others, not so easily influenced, find it easier to make the distinction.

szsz,

What is superior about acting on your religion when the act is people of one religion going to war against people of another? Or against people of the same religion but of a differenct denomination or sect?

Superiority comes not from the inspiration for an action, but from the results and consequences of the action. And it is a highly subjective concept.

Yodrak

What is superior about acting on your impulses?

You would like to introduce a red herring as a diversion from the original topic, yodrack, but I'm not buying it. Please have the integrity of intellect to stay on point.

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

Hm, so you call it 'hedonism.' I always just called it.... "human biology."

i call it hormones and alcohol

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

1. I don't think any position is superior. I just resent you claiming your position is.

personally, i think doggie style is superior to any other position

[mrsushi66 0]

I do this with a friend of mine, I ask him are we debating on an intelectuall level or a faith based level. You can not debate with someone who only sees faith especially when they use broad sweeping generalizations to make their beliefs supperior to anothers point of view. You may not have ever used the words but to say my religion says it is best to wait then turn and generalize that everyone in the states is about instant gratification and discarding something for the next coolest thing it sure sounds supperior to me. The fact that you do not recognize nor admit how blatently devicive this is leaves with one conclusion, you are blind to all reason and live your life by faith. Which is fine by me but please be ready for posts calling you on it when you use these broad sweeping generalizations to hold your faith up on high.

I have made no broad, sweeping generalizations. It benefits you to say so, but saying so doesn't make it so. That my presentation of my views is taken by a few as "superior" is a subjective view, not an objective view, and depends a great deal on your own mindset. I did ask the question how is acting on impulse superior, which has been ignored. Probably because it is indefensible.

Still, I'm not only writing on a faith based level, but a philosophical level. Actually, I mentioned my religion only in passing; it is you who is expanding it in a way I have not. Still, it is an accepted fact that hedonism is a biological imperative. Gary correctly stated, it is the same thing as human biology. Hedonism is the opposite of philosophy and the cultural developmental mode. I am arguing for the advancement of philosophy and cultural development over the base instincts that define human biology aka hedonism. It is biology that supports the consumerist, secular, hedonist imperative behind the need for instant gratification and impulsiveness that you advocate. it would not be incorrect for me to say that because you fail to see that, then you must be blind to all reason and live your life on impulse. Would I be correct, or can you also be accused of making sweeping generalizations, as well?

It would seem so.

The above I actually find enlightening and intellegent minus your denial of the generalization.

Compared to the the following.

I believe in waiting until after marriage, that was I have done myselfand that is what I advocate. It is also part of Islamic teachings. Not everyone is from the US consumer society where most things are readily available to satisfy our need for instant gratification, only to be discarded for the next cool thing. The divorce rate in the US is 50%, appalling because, despite lips service to the contrary, there is little value to love, sex or marriage. This is also reflected in the common venacular and casual attitude toward pre-marital sex.

Call it subjective if you like but I think most would agree the bold is a generalization. Say it isnt if it makes you feel better. If you can not see how this post is different from the first one quoted I am amazed.

Had you posted something more along the lines of the first quoted post in the beginning I would not have taken such issue with it but you didn't you posted the second. Again if you cant see the difference, wow.

[Yodrak 7]

szsz,

I've answered your question. Just not in the direct way that you might want it to be answered. But I am very much on point, which is a point you raised - the original topic was 'sex before marrying', not acting on impulse as opposed to restraint by religion.

Yodrak

szsz,

What is superior about acting on your religion when the act is people of one religion going to war against people of another? Or against people of the same religion but of a differenct denomination or sect?

Superiority comes not from the inspiration for an action, but from the results and consequences of the action. And it is a highly subjective concept.

Yodrak

What is superior about acting on your impulses?

You would like to introduce a red herring as a diversion from the original topic, yodrack, but I'm not buying it. Please have the integrity of intellect to stay on point.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Yodrak