I predicted this thread would cause a little unease. I just didn't realise it would become this bad so fast.
in case I didn't mention it before, or if I did then was not clear enough; I am not here to listen to 'moral support'. I am not here to 'be reminded of the way it "should" be'.
I am here for no other reasons than this: to get
facts and define
truths.
that does not mean you say "premarital sex = sin. truth" and I say "oh, ok".
it means you say "premarital sex = sin because ..." and I say "no but ..." and you say " yes but ..." and
then I say "oh, ok"
this is because I am not
religouse person, per say. I am a
scientific person and only follow christianity because
science actually shows evolution to be a sham if you crunch enough numbers.
and thats what I do, I crunch numbers. I think things through logicly. I compare variables and I produce answers to questions. answers that are
proven to be right and not just said to be right.
have I made it clear enough for you? if yes... Good. lets continue
peterfarrington: A dowry is the wealth brought by a WIFE into the marriage. Therefore, in the case of a non-virgin in history, a much higher dowry would be required to encourage a man to marry a woman who was not a virgin.
to clarify this I looked up the definition on the web:
1.
Property or payment given by a wife or her family to a husband at the time of marriage. (In some cultures, it is the husband who pays the dowry to the wife’s family.)
so looks like we are both right

but since you probly know more about the Biblical times, and because even the definition only said that males pay it as a side note, I shall admit defeat here.
xariskai: Bump -is there some reason you chose not address the fact that the standard major academic resources contradict the position you are advocating on definition?
"the standard major academic resource". HA!
the reason I missed it was because I couldn't find the line between being witty and being degrading with my responce.
It strikes me as funny how you say "
the standard" is on
this site.
and I found it down right narrow minded of you to imply that this particular "major academic resource" is
the standard for all denominations. This site may not be The standard even for Orthodox christians. let alone all christians. let alone all other academic resources.
so in short; the reason I chose not to address this 'fact' is because it is nothing more than your own personal 'opinion'. next time you want to present a 'fact' then do just that. present a '
fact'
dzheremi: I cannot believe this thread
what about it can't you believe? you cant believe that someone would actually challange what they are taught? that they wouldn't just follow allong with blind faith?
I am
very tempted to go into a big speel about how bad blind faith is, but first I would like you to answer my question about what it is you can't believe. that way I won't be going off at a tangant unneccesarily.
I'm with that other person who wrote that you know that it is wrong. If you look for justifications, if you ask yes or no, then you are already far down the road of doing it.
do I know what is wrong? I have a pretty good idea that the teaching of the church may acttually be the ones who are wrong here...
and as for 'doing it'. If I am NOT wrong, then there is nothing wrong with doing it.
This talk of "loopholes"
I used the term 'loopholes' not because that is how I view it, but because that is how I see You seeing me view it... if that makes sense.
although I am not totally convinced on the matter, hence this thread, I am deffinatly sided toward that I am in the right. that this is not some 'loophole' but actually just the ways it is, and how it should always have been.
but like I said, I am not totally convinced. I still have that part of my brain that says "but this is different to what I was taught as a child". that is why I am giving you that chance to convince me other wise.
and before you say "that part of your brain is your conscience, listen to it". first remember, any converted evolutionist will have the same small part of their brain saying the same thing, only for a slightly different topic.
some of the people who come out into the desert to live as monks have a much harder time at it because they are tortured by the remembrances of their worldly lives and cannot escape their nostalgia for them
funny, this fits Perfectly to what I said above. that little part of their brain reminding them of their past.
are the monks better of as monks? was it the right thing for them to become monks? should they stick to their old ways just because that little part of their brain says they made a mistake?
Im sure you can to the convertions for these questions into the topic of this thread.
if you want to experience the things of the world, you are free to do so. You will die, but you are free to do so.
everyone will die some day. but I assume you ment die as in "go to hell". and the question here is
will I go to hell for premarital sex? if yes, then so far you still have done a poor job of convincing me. if no, then having premarital sex can still be considered the "upright decision"
What I'm about to tell you I would say directly to your face if we met in real life
a honest responce. I would not hold that against you ever. I don't care much for tact myself, so long as there is truth in it.
You're acting like a child who can't control his impulses and twisting Scripture and data to fit your own views
I'm twisting scripture to fit my own views? read on... I cover this point later in this post (and once or twice in earlier posts)
[...] it CRUSHES her heart. I bet you never even considered such a thing
wow, that is a little harsh. you don't even know me. or how I would treat a women.
you casually having sex with her and treating her heart like a plaything
again with the critisisim.
I wouldn't let a person like you come near her
what sort of person am I exactly? some evil devil spawn by the sound of things.
Let me tell you about a real sex life: it's difficult
Oooh.. I see now. you have problems with your sex life so you are taking it out on me.
no, thats not true. Im sorry I would stoop to your level. just making a point that attacking the oposition in a debate is not the way to make progress.
PeterTheAleut:- it doesn't matter what we say, you will only hear what you want to hear
Well, is that not true?
another person claiming that it is
me who only hears what I want to hear... you should also read on.
How, then, can we be confident that if we do engage you in debate, you won't take from our debate only what you want to hear, only those points that support your preconceived notions, while brushing aside the rest?
you think I won't listen, so you wont even try.
maybe if you presented me with a point that directly goes against my 'preconceived notions' we would know wheter or not I would listen.
so far any points you have persented that even attempt to do this I have been able to give a logical counter argument to. invalidating said points and validating said 'preconceived notions'.
primuspilus: Looks like you're trying to convince yourself bud.
too bad, if only you said "looks like you are giving us the chance to convince you that you are wrong, bud." then you would have been 100% dead on. you where close tho
Heorhij: I think I can sign after almost every sentence of this [Ninjaly Awesome's] post.
so you are another person who would rather attack the questioner and not the question.
I know this is
basic sociological information, but if you attack someone they will not like you. and because of this will go out of thier way to disagree with you. and this is not the way to convince someone of your side of an argument.
lucky for you I am a good, law abiding, and forgiving christian

Too bad the OP will hardly even listen, because he says he wants us to make counter-arguments only to HIS arguments "from Scripture."
here it is again. and again, read on...
NicholasMyra: Dude, you cannot have passionless sex.
yes, but you can have
lustless sex. prehaps you should look those two words up.
but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter."?
nice dodge of the question. in case you forgot the question is:
IS premarital sex against the will of the Father?
You are grasping at straws to justify your own desire for companionship
and all those who say "you know it is the wrong thing" as some kind of proof (or fact for that matter), aren't they "clutching at straws"
but nice dodge of the question by the way. denonceing my arguments without actually adressing them.
maybe I should make poiting out question dodging as a running theme... oh wait. we already have a running theme. the "only hear what he wants to hear" theme. read on ...
lord doog: First of all, good. I'm glad you want to find the right thing to do by asking others of the faith.
YAY, acknowagement
you're kind of implying you know premarital sex is wrong. At least that's the impression I'm getting.
aww. and you where of to such a good start.
at least this can be constrood as fact because you used the words "kind of implying" and "the impression I'm getting". so your still one up on everyone else.
St Paul says it's better to get married rather than give into your lusts and have sex outside of marriage
actually to more accurately quote St Paul he said "burn with passion". I am by no means "Burning with passion". it is all about the 'lesser of two evils' (marrage being one of the evils, so don't start the argument you where just thinking of).
and does the bible not also say "It is better to live in the desert than with a nagging, irritable wife" Proverbs 21:19. strictly speeking you should forgive your wife. turn the other cheek. go the extra mile. love and care for her.... etc. but it is saying to go live in the desert as the
prefrable option.
so it is prefrable to get married than to 'burn with passion'. but that is by no means saying that these are the only two options. (or that premarital sex is a sin... but you don't want to see this fact.)
please explain what you think the difference is between a bad thing and a sin?
oops. typo. should read 'bad idea'
anyway, it relates back to what I just said (highly conveniant). a bad idea is an idea that, if followed through with, is less benifitial than a good idea.
a sin on the other hand is an action (usually the product of a bad idea. but not the only possible product) that, if conducted, and if not repented for, will cause you to burn in the pits of hell. to put it simply
Aindriú: Perhaps we can benefit from a regression on the analysis of 'sin'.
What is it?
Why don't we want it?
Then we could re-attack with some baseline definitions.
YES!! a structured response designed to annalise the question in a methodical and logical manner.
everyone take note of this. this is A++ work. (sorry
lord doog, you are now in second place)
read one quote above and I have given an in-a-nutshell definition of sin. I shall let the oposition in this thead lead with the nits and grits answer.
FantaLimon: Deuteronomy 22 ...
*sigh. that was a close one. I almost missed an important word there. "seizes"
this is not talking about two consenting adults having a fun time. it is about rape.
I shall clarify this right now. I do not plan on raping anyone. Im glad we cleard that one up
neon_knights: I would like to have sex
Wouldn't we all...
well said brother. well said
Quinault: You skipped over my point;
no. I skipped to
the point. it
is possible to have an abortion without technicly killing anybody (and note that the technicly is in regards the the
Bibles definition). I believe it is called the morning after pill
I also repeated another point:
just_some_guy: •and even if you did convince me that abortions are wrong, I have already given other instances where sex is still possible without the introduction of a child into the equation.
I know that abortion clinics are not like Burger King where you can "have it your way" either. There is a process to getting an abortion, it isn't instantaneous.
these 'clinics' are for late abortions. because you have to kill the baby humanly. but once again you can kill the thing (no a baby yet) early on with other methods.
and just to repeat myself, I like doing that it seems:
just_some_guy: •and even if you did convince me that abortions are wrong, I have already given other instances where sex is still possible without the introduction of a child into the equation.
Jason.Wike: Belief is living according to the commandment of God not just something in our heads. Just thinking/saying Christ is Lord is not enough, (Matthew 7:21)
well said. but another dodge.
IS premarital sex against gods commandments?
but you are right about the easy missinterpritation of what I said before.
my point was if something that is physically less than sex is accounted as a sexual sin than actual sex outside of marriage must also be
a logical assesment, but a limited one. care to expand? give references? present evidence?
you made a good point. now all you need to do is back it up.
Timon: if you get a chick knocked up, youll be screwed. You dont want that.
no I don't. but I would like to know if Im
allowed. a small discrepency, but an important one
Achronos[...]
Well, I'd definitely recommend being careful. 
Well abstinence is only 99.9% preventable...
I still get the impression that these are ments as a joke (with subliminal messages). so allow me to respond: no coment
well... once again I have adressed all the posts presented to me dispite actual relevance to the topic .....no. wait. almost forgot.
read on...
it seems that it is a common beliefe that
I am only hearing what I want to hear. and that
I am only interpreting the scriptures the way I want to read them.
but I tell you now
"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Luke 6:42(you see what I did there. using scripture like that. Im so smart

)
lets start with one I have already covered. Jacob and Rachel (brought up by
Iconodule).
Just_some_guy: you will follow a objective translation of one sentance that Jacob said (ie: no premarital sex), yet you are against the over all life style that he lead (ie: Polygamy).
as we see hear you twist one part of scripture about Jacob to support your meaning, yet completly over look everything else scripture says about Jacob. even thou it goes against your own beliefs and traditions
next is this quote
Heorhij: Too bad the OP will hardly even listen, because he says he wants us to make counter-arguments only to HIS arguments "from Scripture."
this is nothing more than a blatant lie
not only am I listening to
ALL of your posts. I am responding to
ALL of your posts. I am adressing
ALL of the matters that you present. not just those that address
my arguments. not even just those about scripture.
and in addition to this, I do
NOT only want you to make counter-arguments to
only my points. in fact it is quite the opposite! I have acctually expressed dissapointment in needing to readress issues that I have already covered. need proof? Quotes from
just_some_guy:
•abortions are Not the topic of this thread
and yet I keep responding to abortion posts
Although as stated,
for this post I will adress the same issues that I addressed in my opening post. because it seems some people may have over looked them
OP point 2) the use of Fornication in the Bible
YAY. people seemed to listen to my points...
(see above for details)
I have now addressed these points for a Second time. unless you make a point that directly relates to my question and is not already made invalid by earlier posts, I will simply ignore them. My free time is not limitless.
to recap: what
Heorhij is quite simply a lie, and goes against everything I have said and done in this forum...
was this an intentional lie? or did he just naturally miss read each and every one of my posts? either way it is a good example of
you only hearing what
you want to hear.
shall I continue? I would if I could think of specific examples right now... but I have just written up this long post (see above).
however if anyone of you
do present me with another example, I will point it out.
so where was I? oh yes...
once again I have adressed all the posts presented to me dispite actual relevance to the topic. in the (near) future I may decide to just completely ignore anyone who is not partisipating in a constructive debate. please take a note of that fact.
signed Just_some_guy