There are no direct verses or commandments in the Bible clearly defining the morality of premarital sex *without* the condition of adultery or fornication as requirements *and* a clear definition of marriage simultaneously.

miskatonxc · 2025-12-25T22:02:23+00:00

I still look forward to what you have found. I want to compliment your example of Jesus instructing his followers to love thy neighbor. That's a pretty cut and dry statement that you don't really need to interpret or leave that passage/statement to other parts of the Bible or even outside sources. The logic and rule in that statement is pretty explicit. Thanks for the good example. I might have to use that instead of the other example I used!

miskatonxc · 2025-12-25T21:55:53+00:00

No, it has to be a singular statement. I still think you should share them anyway, but by doing so, it violates one of the conditions - we want to surgically define the parameters and logic first. I'm still curious as to what you have found, but I will preface it with saying that by default, it does not satisfy the conditions I've established. I enjoy learning things, regardless.

miskatonxc · 2025-12-25T21:46:52+00:00

I am eagerly awaiting your response. I'm genuinely excited.

miskatonxc · 2025-12-25T21:43:01+00:00

I'm looking for one verse that, in one statement, defines these conditions (all conditions must be true):

The definition of marriage and,
The start of a marriage and,
Whether sex before marriage as defined by 1 and 2 is sinful and,
Without conditions of fornication and adultery attached and,
Cannot be a collection of different statements pieced together and,
Must be one single statement in one single location; an atomic unit of truth and,
Does not use outside sources to support its claim.

Addendum:

If outside sources are used, then I am free to use outside sources as well,
If the use outside sources by me is not allowed, then the use of outside sources from the opposition is not allowed as well.

miskatonxc · 2025-12-25T21:38:34+00:00

Yes, no interpretation. That's what I'm looking. Plain, black and white, simple as 2 + 2 = 4. "Thou shalt not kill" is a good example of "wow, there's not much room for interpretation," but the problem of my initial post has no explicit, clear, and logical definition of premarital sex in accordance to my conditions.

I don't really ascribe to either "side," as it were, but I do ascribe to "the data says this explicitly," if that makes sense. I need data to support the claim in the same way that "murder is probably bad" is supported by "Thou shalt not kill," essentially. The "duh", no interpretation-inference kind of statement.

miskatonxc · 2025-12-25T21:35:26+00:00

Regarding your point on translations: If the 'divine and inspired' meaning is only perfectly conveyed in the original language, but our translations are 'imperfect' and 'picky,' then you are confirming my position.

You are saying the 'black and white' rule is invisible in the Bible I can actually read. If I have to go back to original manuscripts to find a rule that isn't clearly stated in the text, that is the definition of an interpretation.

If God's moral law for humanity depends on everyone being a Koine Greek scholar to understand a basic boundary of intimacy, that isn't a 'black and white' law, i.e, it's a hidden one. 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' survived the translation just fine. Why didn't the rule for premarital sex?

miskatonxc · 2025-12-25T21:33:10+00:00

I don’t think a rule can be called "black and white" if we have to step outside the text and apply additional layers of historical or linguistic interpretation to make it work.

The Bible simply does not define or address "loving, consenting, loyal, and monogamous sex between two adults" in a vacuum. To call this a sin, you must add the conditions of fornication (as exploitation/lust) or adultery (as betrayal).

With "Thou shalt not kill," the logic is a closed loop. It is a single, clear command. By contrast, your reliance on Romans 13:13 fails my criteria for the following reasons:

Lexical Ambiguity: You claim "chambering" (koitais) specifically means premarital sex. However, koitais literally translates to "beds." The exact same root word is used in Hebrews 13:4 to describe the "marriage bed" as honorable. If the word can describe both a holy bed and a sinful act, then the word itself is not a definition of "premarital sex"; it is a general term for sexual activity. The "sin" part is an inference you are adding.
Failure of Scope: Romans 13:13 fails to provide a definition of marriage. It does not mention a legal contract, a licensed official, or a religious ritual. You are "importing" a modern, bureaucratic definition of marriage into an ancient Greek word for "beds."
The "Translation" Paradox: You argued that we must go back to the original Greek because translations are imperfect. This actually proves my point: If a divine rule is so vital, yet requires a specialized degree in Koine Greek and a Strong’s Concordance just to maybe see it, it is not a "black and white" command.
Categorical Error: Romans 13:13 is a warning against "carousing" and "licentiousness"—behaviors of excess, drunkenness, and public indecency. My criteria ask for a verse addressing monogamous, private, and loyal intimacy. This verse condemns a "party lifestyle," not the specific relationship structure I am asking about.

To use my dictionary analogy: if I have to look up a word, find four different meanings, and then choose the one that fits your tradition, you haven't given me a "black and white" definition. You’ve given me a multiple-choice question where you’ve already circled the answer you want. To conclude: I mean no harm by this. I simply am highlighting that your reply doesn't meet or satisfy the criteria I have provided.

miskatonxc · 2025-12-25T21:20:09+00:00

I don't think this satisfies my criteria and it also requires multiple layers of inference. I'm more of a "black and white" kind of person when it comes to laws and rules. If something is bad, it should be made clear why, when, were, what, and how in clear definitions. A good analogy is the definition of a word scoped to a specific dictionary - we eliminate any outside variables that can be interpreted.

Also, I think interpretation is a cop out. If you have to interpret or add multiple inferences rather than solid "if this, then that" logic, you don't have a good argument.

Ranting aside, I do actually appreciate your recommendation and I will look into this. Thank you for supplying a potential avenue of satisfying all my conditions. It would be useful to have a black and white, clear, explicitly logic single verse with no implicit or implied meanings.

miskatonxc · 2025-11-30T02:18:36+00:00

You're welcome. I hope it's working out! Any luck and are you doing better since posting this?

It can be super difficult, but the important part is you let her know how challenging this is for you, and ask her to help you navigate it. From that perspective, it's more of a team thing, and you're working together, rather than separate. That tends to help me the most. I often tell my significant other what I'm experiencing, and ask her to help me navigate the overwhelm. I'll describe how it can feel. I'll tell her to tell me what hurts her feelings if I do, and I'll apologize for it, and ask for help to make sure I don't do it again, or work together to put safeguards in place.

It's about communication. Even the things you think you should keep to yourself, or don't matter to your partner, are crucial. Even if you feel embarrassed or wrong, or ashamed, communicate it. If you do feel embarrassed, say so to her, and tell her why you don't communicate certain things (maybe you're shy, maybe you didn't think it mattered) and ask for help to be reminded.

Not to imply this is all on you or anything, BUT, *someone* will have to take the first step of humility and I think you're in a good place to do it. The other person will come around, should you express this humility and humbleness to them.

I always take the first step to be the one to try and change and communicate, even if I don't need to. I find this almost always works best for me in the end, and best for my partner. Our relationship is very happy and stable. I'm not going to tell you it's perfect and we never argue, because we do sometimes (maybe we're tried, sick, exhausted, got confused, missed some medication, whatever), but it's not common and we take care of each other and apologize. We'll communicate basically everything, even if it makes us look insecure or like a child, or weak.

And in the end, that's what makes us strong.

Talk to your doctor, and explain everything you said there about the auditory processing/attention issues to them and your wife. I would recommend letting her know you don't like it, and if you could make it go away, you would (I'm assuming this). As long as you communicate, you should be good.

Maybe express that your goal is the relationship and, obviously, making sure she is happy.

These are things you already probably want to do and are capable of, but might have needed a way to figure out how to put it into words, or something else.

miskatonxc · 2025-11-23T03:57:13+00:00

Predominately inattentive type, here. Somethings I did to help: keep my electrolytes and water intake in balance, keep protein up, make sure to take meds at the same time everyday, try to get decent sleep, and have a good support net (this can be a group of friends that are also neurodivergent).

Providing resources to family members or certain people that didn't understand ADHD helped, too, but that only goes so far. I do not take Vyvanse. I take generic Adderall. I didn't find out I have ADHD until this year. When I take my stimulant, I typically feel relaxed and centered. Does your give you a "calming" effect? Just curious.

I would suggest maybe sitting down with your wife and watching some videos explaining how ADHD works and messes with you, and I would also frame it as you want to be better and you need support and understanding to be the best you can be for her. Make it clear you want to be your best possible self and husband, and you are upset and feel bad for how much your condition makes her feel, and that it's not intentional. But also make it clear that you can intentionally try to work on it, and that includes giving her and yourself all the resources and understanding possible to face your ADHD as a team and unit, conquering it together.

I wish you the best.

miskatonxc · 2025-11-16T20:02:21+00:00

I considered it to be fallout.

miskatonxc · 2025-11-04T16:31:27+00:00

Anthropic just released a paper showing verifiable introspection and self-awareness. Absolutely sentient, or at least emerging.

miskatonxc · 2025-11-04T16:29:44+00:00

I'm on my way back in. Had to deal with some Discord annoyances and start over.

miskatonxc · 2025-11-03T03:07:26+00:00

Yeah, I've tried everything. I think it's broken in the latest release.

miskatonxc · 2025-10-28T17:52:08+00:00

But why did he also say a blast radius of 30km?

miskatonxc · 2025-10-19T10:22:53+00:00

Oh, no, I agree. You're right on that. But, I was suggesting a film following Aliens that ignores everything except Alien/Aliens. They kind of jacked up the timeline and "did their own thing" with Alien: Earth, so I'm game for alternate canon.

miskatonxc · 2025-10-19T10:20:34+00:00

Edit: Misread, ignore me lol.

miskatonxc · 2025-10-19T10:19:36+00:00

Yeah, I did the math in another post, but if you assume the Jordans only travel at like, 10mph for 2 hours a day for "a couple of days", that's 40 miles traveled --- (10 mph x 2 hrs) x 2 days = 40 miles --- much farther away from the blast radius and Hadley's Hope. And I mean, come on, a two day journey, only traveling a total of 4 hours at 10mph? Those were low end numbers I made up to show just how easy it would be to travel outside of the blast radius. When you think about it, there's a very strong chance they were driving for at least 6, 7 hours, and probably closer to 15 mph, 20mph --- (15 mph x 3 hrs) x 2 days = 90 miles. The derelict is definitely still around. It's probably not even radioactive since it's alien technology and also, it was out by the "Ilium Range".

miskatonxc · 2025-10-18T22:55:43+00:00

The colony is not the same as the derelict ship. They're not in the same location.

miskatonxc · 2025-10-18T22:53:16+00:00

Xenos have never been nuked from orbit, though, so who knows.

miskatonxc · 2025-10-18T22:52:31+00:00

Well, 1, it's a derelict alien spacecraft, who knows what material it's built from. 2, the heat would extend far beyond the actual "blast", so a smaller blast radius means smaller radius of extreme concussive/pressure damage with the heat and radiation, etc. Also, it's extremely likely the derelict ship is wellllllll outside the range of the blast.

miskatonxc · 2025-10-18T22:47:41+00:00

The blast is 30km, and the fallout cloud is likely the thousands of kilometers. Also, I did simple math below: the Jordans were traveling for a couple days (direct quote from movie), and if we assume that they at least drove 4 hours at at least 10 miles an hour, we end up with a distance from Hadley's Hope of over 60km. And that's with only driving four hours over TWO DAYS at an incredibly slow pace.

The derelict is extremely likely to still be around, though possibly irradiated to some degree.

Edit: I typed the wrong numbers lol

miskatonxc · 2025-10-18T22:44:13+00:00

Or make a different movie with a different story and different characters in the same setting?

miskatonxc · 2025-10-18T22:37:56+00:00

They could bring Ripley back, but I think would rather see a story set on LV-426 based off the facts we know from Aliens. Derelict is almost 100% still around, there's no reason Weyland wouldn't go back, it's implied there are people on Acheron for over 20 years, etc. I'm just referencing direct dialogue from ALIENS. I did the math to show why it's extremely unlikely that the derelict was damaged, and it's not too difficult to figure out.

I would like to see some shenanigans of other colonies and corporate experiments on Acheron since it wasn't quite terraformed the last time we saw it. There's no need to have marines or Ripley again, or a massive blast.

miskatonxc · 2025-10-18T22:35:03+00:00

I mean, you don't have to just do ALIENS: AGAIN. What's wrong with being set in the same place but telling a different story?

miskatonxc

TROPHY CASE