See what JBH has said about men and women. See what I have said. If you don't like the description 'second class' how about the description, 'inferior' or 'lower status'. They all mean the same thing. If class is a modern concept then we need to use more appropriate ones. whatever you name it does not alter the fact that throughout society, women have always been regarded as inferior to men. Only in recent years has 'equality' become a meaningful word. Great strides have been made but there is still a long way to go. As I've said before, Muslim women have to walk along behind their men. That isn't 'Old Testament' it happens today. Why not apply to your local Catholic Church to enter training for the prisethood? You won't because you know the answer will be no even before you have started to explain why you think you would be good at that job. I'm sure an intelligent and articulate lady like you would make a great priest, we have them here in England in our Anglican Church, as well as Methodist ministers and equivalents. Not sure about the USA but it seems likely that you also have women in equivalent positions - but NOT, no way, never, ever, in the Catholic Church because women are 'simply incapable' of doing that job (in their male-only opinion).

It's good that you accept your complimentary role in society and I'm sure you are happy doing what your man wants you to do without him expecing you to have an opinion of your own. If you didn't you would no doubt be one of those feminist campaigners trying so hard to get the equality that common sense tells me should be the case. I fully support their efforts and have a number of friends in that movement here in the UK.

sex u

In August 2000 the Irish Catholic Church proposed dropping seven texts from a proposed new Lectionary because they "give an undesirably negative impression regarding women.

The New Testament is a collection of early Christian literature, which together with the Old Testament forms the Holy Scriptures of the Christian churches.

The origin of the New Testament was a multi-stage process. Much of the New Testament is anonymous and was written by unknown authors. Reliable? NO.

Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds.Consider a few more statistics. Of the 27 books and letters forming the New Testament, 21 quote the Old.

Colossians 3:18:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Corinthians 11:3-10

A man ought not cover his head, since he is in the image and the glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man.
Neither was man created for women, but women for man.
For this reason, a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.


HOW can you say the bible doesn’t degrade women?

Once again, alot of reading into what things mean. I guess I do too. I read that Christ loved us. and our partner is to love us the same. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. That does not make me feel inferior or second class, it makes me feel Cherished, in fact. And it makes me feel like we work better together. IF we are trying to be TOGETHER, there is no first or second, we complement each other.

Let me state again, we all have the CHOICE to do whatever we want. We can use a car in many ways beyond transportation. I trust in the users manual my creator gave in terms of his purpose and design for his creation.

Equal, to me, does not mean the SAME as. Men and women are different and when trying to work TOGETHER, they work best with complementary roles, WHEN the man loves the way Christ did (selflessly) and the woman loves the way the church did (with trust and faith).

Women should have felt and been treated EQUALLY without needing to work in the SAME manner as men do to do so. You are right. I am not a feminist in the sense of needing to be LIKE a man in order to feel EQUAL to a man.

How did people get married before the marriage certificate came into play by the states? Can we say "misagination"?

However the regional authority required them to. I don't know what misagination is.

For people for who’s calling in life it is more sensible to remain single, thinking about sex is a vice. It can easily upset sexual health which is very minimalistic and not much connected with love.

For other people, it is a procreation of the human race or even a form of worship of the same God and/or a source of love. To call it a sin robs these people of their dignity.

I think risky or risqué, depending on how you view it (or your “vue,” to use the term coined earlier) is a better colloquial term, as that is a little more detached and less condescending.

I agree that the least offensive terms would be risky.

As to sin, however, as taken from the Bible, the idea of 'sin' is defined as such:

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” or, as was mentioned before, being against a 'law', when law is defined in the Bible.

and in that definition of sin regarding biblical law: there are many things for which laws were set, including sexual behavior like fornication, or sex outside of marriage.

Where it comes together for me, personally, with the idea of sin, is that ALL are sinners, just like ALL of us have broken laws, whether intentionally or knowingly, because man has also many laws. I have crossed outside of crosswalks, which is technically against a law. I have gone through light that just turned red, which is technically against a law. Just as no one is following mans laws perfectly, no one is following Gods either.

The difference, personally, is that whereas mans laws can go broken without anyone being held accountable or finding out. God knows all of what we do and dont do and everyone is held accountable. Which brings out the significance of the gift of repentence and forgiveness. To be able to fall and get back up with sincerity allows us growth and humility, two things that for me personally, bring us closer to spiritual health and relation with God.

^^^This

The entire OP is predicated on the idea that sex without marriage is a sin.
You can't sin if you do not consider what you do as a sin.
The idea of sin is that someone convinced you a specific action is a sin and has consequences.
If you do not acknowledge sin, there is no consequences.
Thus, no sin can be committed.

There are religions that persecute anyone for the sins according to that religion without considering that the individual may not consider it a sin.
"Kill The Infidels"
"Hang The Heathens"
Religions require conformity and alliance.

Didn't Christianity have a period where many were killed for non-compliance?
Even when Christianity has a commandment not to kill.
To the Crusaders, the Holy Warriors, killing the infidels is not a sin.
Killing is only a sin, sometimes.

The only significance this OP has is when both parties are under the same conviction of sin.

Is sex without marriage a sin?
Only if YOU think it is.

In Christianity, fornication is considered a transgression, or 'sin'.

I am not studied on the divine law from other faiths.

I agree.
In Christianity.
As a Christian, you are governed by the doctrine as to the religion in which you subscribe.
To YOU, it is a sin.

The issue is not how Christianity classifies sex without marriage.
The issue is if "sex without marriage" is a "sin".

I feel like I am pointing out the obvious here.
Most of the religion is based on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
A testement written by the people of the 'world' based on their beliefs and experiences.
Before Christ, Christianity did not exist.
It couldn't right?
Christianity requires Christ.

Consider where the scrolls were found.
The Dead Sea.
At best, the accounting of any history is going to be based on the region that influenced the writings.
Why are those specific scrolls any more valid than the accounting of the Aztec or the Austrailian aboriginies?
Is sin a fundamental aspect to everyone's existence everywhere?
In a world that did not have global awareness.

What constitutes a sin to one part of the world may or may not constitute as sin to other parts of the world.
Thus, why would one religious doctrine have precidence to all people, everywhere?

When Christ formed that Easter Sunday, did the entire world experience it?
Or, after 2,000 years, did global communication allow an idea of a religion to take control of people?
If the crusaders never spread Christianity, would Christianity be so wide spread?
Would sin mean the same thing?
Would sin even exist at all?

What does sin do?
Sin is there to make you feel guilty about things someone else wants you to feel guilty about.
If you don't give an action any moral value, you can't feel sin about it.
Isn't sin the guilt trip that is placed upon you by an ideal generated as important by someone else?

If your actions are guided by guilt avoidance, are you truly acting in free will?
Should you be judged on your own actions or the actions that are directed to you by your own feelings of guilt from the sin that has been predetermined by others?

If you do not subscribe to the idea of sin, you can commit no sin.
You are only insane if others proclaim you as insane.

Until someone else told me sex without marriage was a sin, I had no idea it was a sin.
Until someone told me I was insane, I thought I was sane.

Tom, you're not insane! What you say is, in my opinion, excellent. On the subject of killing, it was deemed OK to kill other people in the two world wars (and in other wars since then) just so long as the 'other people' were the enemy. I don't remember the bible saying anything about not killing, unless it's a war. I don't think the concept of a 'just war' exists is the bible but as I'm no bible expert I'm sure someone will correct me if that gets a mention somewhere.

As you say, sex outside marriage is only a sin if you think it is, because you belong to a group of people who have told you that membership of their group comes with a set of rules and that is one of them. Other rules like don't steal and don't kill are also in the rule book, but as they are also in the state or government rule book, they shouldn't be broken.

It's also common sense and as a Humanist, I subscribe to that. If I was 'called up' to help in a war, I would be one of those people known in the World Wars as a 'conscientious objector' and would not fight because my own belief that you should not kill transcends any religious belief that seems to have a 'it depends' attached to it, written in invisible ink in the bible.

as it pertains to killing:

This is probably the least well understood of the Ten Commandments. The reason is that the Hebrew original does not say, “Do not kill.” It says, “Do not murder.” Both Hebrew and English have two words for taking a life — one is “kill” (harag, in Hebrew) and the other is “murder” (ratzach in Hebrew).

The difference between the two is enormous. Kill means:

1) Taking any life — whether of a human being or an animal.

2) Taking a human life deliberately or by accident.

3) Taking a human life legally or illegally, morally or immorally.

On the other hand, murder can only mean one thing: The illegal or immoral taking of a human life. That’s why we say, “I killed a mosquito,” not, “I murdered a mosquito.” And that’s why we would say that “the worker was accidentally killed,” not that “the worker was accidentally murdered.”

https://www.dennisprager.com/can-kill-not-murder-case-ten-commandments/


as to the other, technically, the discussion taken as a hypothetical depends upon belief. But generally, a law will be applied as law, rather one believes it is the law or not, by the body that enforces and defines the law.

Is marriage without sex a sin?

You're saying that 'kill' is the wrong interpretation, even though every version I have ever seen says 'kill' and none I have ever seen says 'murder'.

Both words above include the illegal or immoral taking of a human life. Which is it in wartime, when soldiers deliberately destroy other people, sometimes soldiers and sometimes non-fighting women and children? Is it illegal or immoral? In my book it is both illegal and immoral to take another life, for any reason. I saw that during the second world war, some priests were actually 'blessing' submarines, whose only purpose is to destroy other vessels, inevitably taking life when they do so. How far can 'religion' go before the believers realise it's just a scam invented by man for the purposes of control?

Whether 'kill' means 'kill' or 'murder' it is totally wrong to take another life for any reason whatsoever.

Not at all, there is (as far as I know) nothing in the bible's list of sins to say that is one of them. I stand to be corrected if a biblical scholar knows different!

I'm sure there are plenty of couples, for any number of reasons, who do not enjoy sex but remain a couple. Sometimes they wish they could part, but don't because of the children, or because they are Catholic and could be thrown out of their church (divorce is a sin). Or they might be happy but getting older and no longer interested in sex. One should not generalise as we're all different.

lol ... back on track, huh?

According to the Bible, it is a sexual sin to fornicate, along with adultery, bestiality, lust in one's heart, incest, same sex sex.

According to the bible, we are each prescribed to have our own (one) "husband" and one "Wife" for fulfilling sexual intimacy.

even for food or self defense(to prevent one from killing another)?

I am a pacifist in general, but I do believe there exceptions when killing may be necessary. For me, as a zero sum game in a way. to let a life be taken, through inaction, or to take a life to save that life, still ends on ONE DEATH. It is just a matter of whether one chooses complete inaction or one chooses to act to save a life.


I do however, have the perspective, that killing is not something one should feel 'good' or 'proud' about, even when it is necessary.