RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive



Message


HunterS -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/22/2014 8:28:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


I can speak to the subject knowing most men think the same way. I suspect that is good enough for this subject.



Your suspicions become fact only in your mind not in reality.




HunterS -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/22/2014 8:34:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

The word being translated as "fornication" is pornia, not moicheia. The literal meaning is sex for material gain, commonly money (Gr. porne, "prostitute"), but in a theological context it includes engaging in sex for purely physical (i.e., material) pleasure. Fornication is a species of idolatry, in which the material replaces or is substituted for the spiritual. Adultery, on the other hand, is purely a legal matter.

Incidentally, this explains why people intuitively recognize "but we love each other" as a spiritually valid defense against the charge of fornication, doctrine to the contrary notwithstanding, and also why it is possible to engage in fornication even within an otherwise technically legal marriage.

Now, wasn't that fun? Thanks for playing.

K.


[/font][/size]


Not only was it not fun, it was not rational.
Your convoluted definition of fornication dismisses all dictionaries.
It is Mathew, Mark, Luke and John who decry fornication and not Jeasus.
No it is not possible to snivel ones way out of the charge of adultry if one is married and fucking someone they are not married to.




HunterS -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/22/2014 8:36:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

I have a higher regard for the moral compass we are born with.


This assumes facts not in evidence.




Kirata -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/22/2014 9:05:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

Not only was it not fun, it was not rational.
Your convoluted definition of fornication dismisses all dictionaries.

Most dictionaries give the modern English definition of the word, not its meaning in a Biblical context.

Most, that is, but not all:
[image]local://upfiles/235229/F59935ECFA49419EA8804CAD25A6A270.jpg[/image]
Source

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

No it is not possible to snivel ones way out of the charge of adultry if one is married and fucking someone they are not married to.

It is also not possible to find anywhere that I said someone could. You have a nice day now.

K.




HunterS -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/22/2014 11:17:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

Not only was it not fun, it was not rational.
Your convoluted definition of fornication dismisses all dictionaries.

Most dictionaries give the modern English definition of the word, not its meaning in a Biblical context.

Most, that is, but not all:
[image]local://upfiles/235229/F59935ECFA49419EA8804CAD25A6A270.jpg[/image]
Source

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

No it is not possible to snivel ones way out of the charge of adultry if one is married and fucking someone they are not married to.

It is also not possible to find anywhere that I said someone could. You have a nice day now.

K.




The "your" of my post refers to your post and it's contents so of course it is not possible that I think you said anything.
This was on the link you provided:

fornication (ˌfɔːnɪˈkeɪʃən)
— n
1. voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage
2. law voluntary sexual intercourse between two persons of the opposite sex, where one is or both are unmarried
3. Bible sexual immorality in general, esp adultery

This statement
"No it is not possible to snivel ones way out of the charge of adultry if one is married and fucking someone they are not married to."
and this statement
Incidentally, this explains why people intuitively recognize "but we love each other" as a spiritually valid defense against the charge of fornication, doctrine to the contrary notwithstanding, and also why it is possible to engage in fornication even within an otherwise technically legal marriage.

are equvilant statements.









Kirata -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/22/2014 3:25:18 PM)


Firstly you claimed that my exegesis of fornication constitutes a "definition," and secondly that my so-called definition "dismisses all dictionaries." But that wasn't true. You were just making shit up. And now you want to keep digging?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

This statement

"No it is not possible to snivel ones way out of the charge of adultry if one is married and fucking someone they are not married to."

and this statement

Incidentally, this explains why people intuitively recognize "but we love each other" as a spiritually valid defense against the charge of fornication, doctrine to the contrary notwithstanding, and also why it is possible to engage in fornication even within an otherwise technically legal marriage.

are equvilant statements.

No they're not. I didn't say anything about escaping a charge of adultery. You're just making shit up again. The Bible views idolatry broadly, and both fornication and adultery as forms of it. Thus for example...

Because Israel's immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood. ~Jeremiah 3:9

But while all adultery is fornication, not all fornication is adultery. That's shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, but if you require further assistance see here.

K.




RockaRolla -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/22/2014 4:50:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger


quote:

ORIGINAL: RockaRolla

Whether the Bible truly condemns premarital sex is irrelevant to it being against the OP's morals. She may or may not blame her faith, but the result will still be that she is not comfortable with sex and children before marriage, and this should be respected.


quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger

Human beings without the artificial constraints of religion would likely conduct themselves much more like our closest cousins, chimpanzees and bonobos.

My answer to your question is that you should spend a few years being a stupid, reckless kid just like most of the rest of us did and stop worrying about putting yourself or anyone else in that straitjacket.


1.) Complete bullshit. This is to say that atheists and other non-theists behave like animals when this isn't the case. In fact it's just as likely for a non-religious type to act uncivilized because of the lack of a God than it is for a religious person to commit the same crimes because "It's cool, Jesus died for my sins."

Religion is not the only source of morality in humans. And to say that you need religion to be a "good" person makes you NOT a good person.

2.) Perfect advice. Go ahead and compromise your morals, doing everything you think is wrong, because you don't really know what you want yet. Sounds like the OP at least has a clear idea of what she doesn't want, which is just as valid.


Did I really have to explicitly limit myself to sexuality and relationships in my reference to Homo Sapiens' primate cousins? I would have thought the context of the original post would have done that quite nicely without me having to hammer it home like Thor on a bender.

Maybe my second piece of advice was a bit too flippant, so I'll explain it without the sarcasm. How does a person know what they want without experimentation and experience with the wider world? That is the entire point to the maturation point from teenager to adult. In my opinion, and generally agreed upon by experts like psychologists who specialize in the area, that period extends from teens to late twenties. The OP is 20 and barely out of high school, apparently with almost no experience with anything outside of the insular world she was raised in. My advice was actually along the lines the more popular view of the Amish custom of Rumspringa. In short, all I was saying was that the OP should really get to know herself before making a decision that would affect the remainder of her life along with at least one other person's life in one way or another. Without greater life experience, the effects on her life and her intended husband's life (whoever that may be) are most likely going to be profoundly negative.


You replied with nothing new, only to rephrase what you posted in the first place. Don't insult my intelligence.

It is entirely possible for someone to know what they don't want out of life without experiencing it. She should not have to do things she does not want to do in order for her needs to be respected.




thompsonx -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/22/2014 6:22:17 PM)

nm




thompsonx -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/22/2014 6:27:54 PM)

nm




DesFIP -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/23/2014 10:23:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RockaRolla
It is entirely possible for someone to know what they don't want out of life without experiencing it. She should not have to do things she does not want to do in order for her needs to be respected.


QFT

Not to mention that Feline Ranger's assertion that everyone is actually poly and that monogamy is an artificial construct is not true.
Many of us are monogamous by nature. I'm sorry that you have to deal with people turning you down but stomping your feet and claiming they should fuck around when they don't want to isn't going to help.

Learn to accept what people say as fact. Which goes for Arty too. Nothing good ever comes from assuming you can change your partner. Have the decency to respect their ability to make up their own minds just as you want them to accept yours.

Don't do what Arty says, and assume you can break their hard limits.

Maybe in ten years she'll have changed her mind about things. And maybe she won't. But doing things that will make her feel badly about herself now is not the way to go.






HoneyBears -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/23/2014 10:35:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

... Thus for example...

Because Israel's immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood. ~Jeremiah 3:9

But while all adultery is fornication, not all fornication is adultery.



You are exactly right on this self-evident point.

The reason why Israel's "whoredoms" or infidelities were regarded as adultery is because in the Biblical model, the nation of Israel is considered to be God's wife
(just as the Church is Christ's Bride and He the Bridegroom who goes to make a place [mansion home] for her).




Arturas -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/24/2014 1:26:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

In the Gospels that word "fornication" is also used only in the context of sex with another man's wife. Try reading the Bible rather than doing Google searches if you wish to discuss it.

The word being translated as "fornication" is pornia, not moicheia. The literal meaning is sex for material gain, commonly money (Gr. porne, "prostitute"), but in a theological context it includes engaging in sex for purely physical (i.e., material) pleasure. Fornication is a species of idolatry, in which the material replaces or is substituted for the spiritual. Adultery, on the other hand, is purely a legal matter.

Incidentally, this explains why people intuitively recognize "but we love each other" as a spiritually valid defense against the charge of fornication, doctrine to the contrary notwithstanding, and also why it is possible to engage in fornication even within an otherwise technically legal marriage.

Now, wasn't that fun? Thanks for playing.

K.





I suppose if you cast your net wide enough you can justify anything.

However, we are NOT discussing general theology but being a Christian conflicted and therefore focus on what Christ says. Christ only speaks in the Gospels. In the Gospels he only uses the word fornication to describe adultery.

Here is a typical example where Christ uses "fornication" to describe divorcing a wife when she commits adultery, he describes her adulterous act as "fornication". He is not referring to sex for money as you suggest.

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, savingfor the cause of fornication causes her to commit adultery: andwhosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery".

So, it is clear that the literal translation is inappropriate in this context as is your position. Yes, it is fun. No need for you to play.




Arturas -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/24/2014 1:33:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Firstly you claimed that my exegesis of fornication constitutes a "definition," and secondly that my so-called definition "dismisses all dictionaries." But that wasn't true. You were just making shit up. And now you want to keep digging?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

This statement

"No it is not possible to snivel ones way out of the charge of adultry if one is married and fucking someone they are not married to."

and this statement

Incidentally, this explains why people intuitively recognize "but we love each other" as a spiritually valid defense against the charge of fornication, doctrine to the contrary notwithstanding, and also why it is possible to engage in fornication even within an otherwise technically legal marriage.

are equvilant statements.

No they're not. I didn't say anything about escaping a charge of adultery. You're just making shit up again. The Bible views idolatry broadly, and both fornication and adultery as forms of it. Thus for example...

Because Israel's immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood. ~Jeremiah 3:9

But while all adultery is fornication, not all fornication is adultery. That's shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, but if you require further assistance see here.

K.




The Bible also has rules for sacrificing animals. But not in the Gospels and not for Christians. Focus.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/24/2014 2:13:13 PM)

FR~

C'mon guys.... put the testosterone away please.
3 pages of waffle - mostly arguing about words.

PPFFFFFTTT!!!

Read the OP's first post.
They are strongly christian and believe sex before marriage is not right.
Their Dom wants sex but not marriage or a family.

So the OP is asking whether they should turn their back on their faith or drop their Dom.

...and we get 3 pages of waffle about certain words and what they mean to certain people.
Who gives a flying fuck?? It doesn't answer OP's dilema.




FightingChains -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/24/2014 4:05:24 PM)

This isn't a D/s issue - it's a relationship and faith issue. Do you violate your morals to keep your partner?

And the answer I'd give is: do what you believe you can live with. Your D isn't going to have to live with the guilt you may feel. And can you live with it if/when you lose your current dom?

Also, are you truly a good match if he would not marry you and you want that? That seems pretty massive in the course of life and to be so clearly divided on such a major life decision doesn't bode well.




RockaRolla -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/24/2014 5:12:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

FR~

C'mon guys.... put the testosterone away please.
3 pages of waffle - mostly arguing about words.

PPFFFFFTTT!!!

Read the OP's first post.
They are strongly christian and believe sex before marriage is not right.
Their Dom wants sex but not marriage or a family.

So the OP is asking whether they should turn their back on their faith or drop their Dom.

...and we get 3 pages of waffle about certain words and what they mean to certain people.
Who gives a flying fuck?? It doesn't answer OP's dilema.


It was really just a roundabout way of trying to convince the OP that she should compromise her morals and sleep around.




HoneyBears -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/24/2014 11:23:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RockaRolla

It was really just a roundabout way of trying to convince the OP that she should compromise her morals and sleep around.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, this is not how we interpreted this information.
OP is conflicted. She should most assuredly NOT compromise herself for a Dom who has no honorable intent towards her.
He is not planning to make a future with her as a life partner; he has no intention of settling down.
Under these circumstances, while her emotions are clouding her judgment, she needs to make a stand for herself.

She can do much better than this relationship-wise, and she deserves better.
No Dominant is worth sacrificing your Faith for, the point being she should not settle for less than what she wants from her pair-bonded mate.

One she has found her future husband, one who DOES want to make her his wife, then
what she needs to consider is that it would NOT be sinful to have sexual relations when both partners truly love one another.
It is enduring and abiding love which makes the difference, as opposed to fleeting lusts.

Not to steer this into a religious discussion, but Mary being with child while espoused to Joseph was not considered sinful fornication.
Neither was she subject to being stoned for adultery or cast out into the wilderness.
The question of Mary's small-village reputation has to do with whether she was with child with her future husband's legitimate seed or could have been perpetrating a deception with some other man's.




RockaRolla -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/25/2014 7:36:49 AM)

I think you missed every single one of my posts.

I was referring to the three pages of discussion on what fornication was according to the Bible.
It stemmed from someone insisting that premarital sex was not a sin, and in the same post encouraging her to experiment because she didn't know what she wanted.

Don't accuse me of steering the topic into religious territory when that was already done for me. In fact, I was one of the people encouraging her to stick to her guns.
quote:

ORIGINAL: HoneyBears


quote:

ORIGINAL: RockaRolla

It was really just a roundabout way of trying to convince the OP that she should compromise her morals and sleep around.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, this is not how we interpreted this information.
OP is conflicted. She should most assuredly NOT compromise herself for a Dom who has no honorable intent towards her.
He is not planning to make a future with her as a life partner; he has no intention of settling down.
Under these circumstances, while her emotions are clouding her judgment, she needs to make a stand for herself.

She can do much better than this relationship-wise, and she deserves better.
No Dominant is worth sacrificing your Faith for, the point being she should not settle for less than what she wants from her pair-bonded mate.

One she has found her future husband, one who DOES want to make her his wife, then
what she needs to consider is that it would NOT be sinful to have sexual relations when both partners truly love one another.
It is enduring and abiding love which makes the difference, as opposed to fleeting lusts.

Not to steer this into a religious discussion, but Mary being with child while espoused to Joseph was not considered sinful fornication.
Neither was she subject to being stoned for adultery or cast out into the wilderness.
The question of Mary's small-village reputation has to do with whether she was with child with her future husband's legitimate seed or could have been perpetrating a deception with some other man's.





HoneyBears -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/25/2014 11:13:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RockaRolla
I think you missed every single one of my posts.

I was referring to the three pages of discussion on what fornication was according to the Bible.
It stemmed from someone insisting that premarital sex was not a sin, and in the same post encouraging her to experiment because she didn't know what she wanted.

Don't accuse me of steering the topic into religious territory when that was already done for me. In fact, I was one of the people encouraging her to stick to her guns.


To tell you the truth, you brought up a cogent issue with what got quoted, because we have known many fundamentalist (not saying OP is, necessarily, not you either RR) Christians
who are similarly conflicted about matters pertaining to pre-marital sex, what constitutes fornication, and sinfulness.
OP has already received good advice - from yourself included - from posters on the issue of whether it is worth it to compromise one's faith, in or out of a Dominance/submission relationship.
(Fighting Chains' advice was splendidly put forth, we would like to commend.)
This larger issue of guilt or freedom from guilt is what was also being addressed, religious semantics aside.

Your quote was a springboard, not a personal critique.
In fact, it was an appropriately candid observation of what others could have concluded or misconstrued these gentlemen have been positing.
Whether conduct is considered fornication or not is not a license for licentiousness or to give OP a green light on caving in to her Dom's sexual lusts because he does not love her (in our opinion) and has no honorable intent towards her.

The reference to 'religious discussion' was in reference to what freedomdwarf1 posted, for this thread not to turn into a religious debate where egos would get involved.
That was where this particular comment was directed, not to your post(s).
If some of us were to continue down that path, the topic could conceivably shift to how literal is the prohibition for Onan not to spill his seed onto the ground.
(It is noteworthy that this would NOT pertain to women, heh. Biblically, we have free rein to masturbate all we want. [:D] Joke, people, joke.)




DarkSteven -> RE: Conflicted - PLEASE help! (6/25/2014 5:36:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HoneyBears

OP is conflicted. She should most assuredly NOT compromise herself for a Dom who has no honorable intent towards her.
He is not planning to make a future with her as a life partner; he has no intention of settling down.
Under these circumstances, while her emotions are clouding her judgment, she needs to make a stand for herself.

She can do much better than this relationship-wise, and she deserves better.
No Dominant is worth sacrificing your Faith for, the point being she should not settle for less than what she wants from her pair-bonded mate.



Perfectly stated. OP has made a choice. I would not myself have made it, but we need to respect the choice which SHE made for HERSELF. Personally, I admire her for being driven by morals and not solely hormones at her age.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1469727