The ones wherein you mention sex and unity of beliefs in regards to Christianity and Stoicism.

The ones wherein you mention sex and unity of beliefs in regards to Christianity and Stoicism. — anonymous66

I mentioned merely the fact that Christianity has a clear position on sex before marriage. There may be Christians who practice it for example, and still call themselves Christian, but they can't argue that fornication is morally permissible in Christianity. What they'll most likely say is that they fall into temptation because they are sinful, etc. etc.

Whereas Stoicism doesn't have clear and established guidelines with regards to sexuality that no one can question.

Is the main issue about what people are actually doing? Or is it merely a matter of whether or not there are rules in place?

How are you defining "fornication"? — anonymous66

The way everyone defines it. Fornication = sex before marriage.

And what makes you think the Bible has a clear position on sex before marriage? — anonymous66

Clear textual evidence? Leviticus, 1 Corinthians, Galatians?

Or is it merely a matter of whether or not there are rules in place? — anonymous66

My statements were merely about whether there are clear rules in place. I said one advantage of Christianity is that there are clear rules, unlike in Stoicism, where this is up for interpretation, as many modern Stoics deny it. Do you disagree about that?

Of course what people are actually doing is more important, but I wasn't talking about that.

Again... are you applying the same standard (the rules are up for interpretation) to your belief system (in this case Christianity)?

Of course what people are actually doing is more important, but I wasn't talking about that.

Then aren't there some things you ought to be saying to your fellow Christians?

Again... are you applying the same standard (the rules are up for interpretation) to your belief system (in this case Christianity)? — anonymous66

How I am not applying the same standard?

Then aren't there some things you ought to be saying to your fellow Christians? — anonymous66

Yes, I should tell them to respect the moral rules laid out in the Bible.

How I am not applying the same standard? — Agustino

Are there issues in Christianity that are open to interpretation?

Are there issues in Christianity that are open to interpretation? — anonymous66

Yes, of course. But not so much when it comes to moral behaviour. Things are up to interpretation in the sense of the role the Trinity plays, what a certain parable means, what is required for salvation, etc. Those kind of more abstract questions.

Yes, of course. But not so much when it comes to moral behaviour. — Agustino

Are attitudes about sexual orientation concerned with moral behavior? What about attitudes towards how to deal with strangers (I'm thinking about immigration)? [I'm in the US].

Are attitudes about sexual orientation concerned with moral behavior? — anonymous66

Sorry, but what exactly do you mean? What are you referring to by "attitudes about sexual orientation"?

Are Christians in agreement about what the Bible says about sexual orientation?

Are Christians in agreement about what the Bible says about sexual orientation? — anonymous66

Sexual orientations?! As in regarding being gay, lesbian, and stuff like that? Most are, but some obviously aren't.

I guess I'm confused. Is there unity among Christians about what the Bible says about sexual morality or isn't there?

Is there unity among Christians or isn't there? — anonymous66

No, obviously there isn't complete union. But Christianity does have a structure which helps in achieving unity. For example, finding sexually immoral people (those who engage in fornication, etc.) is rarer amongst Catholics than amongst atheists. No human structure is perfect, so of course there will never be a perfect result.

It is a true fact that religious people engage in less sexual licentiousness than atheists though. You're probably a prime example ;) :P

What survey method are we using for that?

Use Google. And your own personal knowledge of people. And your intuition ;)

That sounds pretty rigorous and reliable, haha.

You don't need to be rigorous and reliable 100%. You need quick and fast decisions, which can inform and guide your actions. There's not enough time to be 100% rigorous and reliable.

Let's see Terrapin. Would you be promiscuous and claim to be a Christian believer? Probably not. Why? Because most people would not engage repeatedly (maybe they would once or twice) in activities that are completely contrary to their fundamental beliefs (why? well who the hell wants to think of themselves as dishonest, lying snitches?). So people who are promiscuous would naturally gravitate towards cultures and beliefs systems which permit this. Just like you in fact ;)

If you care about statistics, for example a quick Google results in:
http://waitingtillmarriage.org/4-cool-statistics-about-abstinence-in-the-usa/

Let's see Terrapin. Would you be promiscuous and claim to be a Christian believer? Probably not. Why? Because most people would not engage repeatedly (maybe they would once or twice) in activities that are completely contrary to their fundamental beliefs (why? well who the hell wants to think of themselves as dishonest, lying snitches?). So people who are promiscuous would naturally gravitate towards cultures and beliefs systems which permit this. Just like you in fact — Agustino

I'm very promiscuous, definitely. But you know what? Most of the females I've been promiscuous with were religious. Most people in general are still religious. A couple of the wildest females I've known seemed to be the most religious--one was a minister's daughter, one was at church more days of the week than not, etc.

Isn't that reporting what people say? What people say is often different than what they do.

Most of the females I've been promiscuous with were religious. Most people in general are still religious. A couple of the wildest females I've known seemed to be the most religious--one was a minister's daughter, one was at church more days of the week than not, etc. — Terrapin Station

Mate of course there's even a lot of religious people who do that, because we live in a culture which promotes and encourages promiscuity as the cool thing. What I'm saying is that LESS religious people than non-religious are going to be promiscuous.

And by the way, did you ever ask them about how their religious views affected or were related to their behaviour? Many people are "religious" in name only.

What I'm saying is that LESS religious people than non-religious are going to be promiscuous. — Agustino

Right, but one thing you appealed to was anecdotal evidence. That doesn't suggest your conclusion here.

So what else do you got?

Right, but one thing you appealed to was anecdotal evidence. That doesn't suggest your conclusion here.

So what else do you got? — Terrapin Station

If you had to make a bet, would you bet against my conclusion or for it, and why?

If you had to make a bet, would you bet against my conclusion or for it, and why? — Agustino

Yes. I'd bet against your conclusion. Because religious views in this regard promote a repression that people seem to rebel against.

Yes. I'd bet against your conclusion. Because religious views in this regard promote a repression that people seem to rebel against. — Terrapin Station

And how do they rebel against it mate? By doing away with their religion generally - if not in name, then in deeds. What I'm telling is sensible.

Of course most of the girls you hooked up with would be religious - no doubts about it for the simple reason that as a whole population, the religious group is much larger than the non-religious. Bayesian probability mate. So you're of course more likely, granted you pick a random woman, that she will be religious and promiscuous, than that she would be atheist and promiscuous, simply because the pool of religious is much larger than the pool of atheists, even though the probability of her being promiscuous is greater in the atheist pool.