@Mercer I am tired of explaining my position on premarital sex, but I will do it again, I expect this to be for the last time.
As I pointed out in the other thread, 99% of the population of modern day America, who gets married at an age older then 20, will have premarital sex. Even in the 1950s, 82% of the population had premarital sex. I found a paper earlier, which showed that even in the 1920s, 50% of college students had had premarital sex. In Colonial America, 35% of all weddings were already pregnant when getting married. If 35% were actually pregnant, how high was the percentage of people who had premarital sex then but didn't fall pregnant from it? How far back does one have to go to find a time period in which people having premarital sex were actually in the minority?
https://books.google.com/books?id=LU8EA ... &q&f=false
https://academic.oup.com/maghis/article ... ogin=false
If I am a Satanist for having premarital sex, then according to you, 82% of people in the 1950s were also Satanists. The majority of people in the 1920s were apparently Satanists too. Cornfed seems to think you must insist on a woman being a virgin, which, again looking at the article from the 1920s, only 12% of men back then insisted on their wife being a virgin. So 88% of men in the 1920s were leftist Satanists according to Cornfed's rules because they didn't consider a woman to be a ruined slut just for having premarital sex. The position you and Cornfed are taking requires you to take the position that 82% of Americans in the 1950s were liberals. If you have to defend the position that 82% of Americans in the 1950s were liberals, then that means you have an excessively strict definition of conservative because 99% of the population agrees that the 1950s was an era of overwhelming cultural/social conservatism. If 82% of people in the 1950s had premarital sex, however, then it stands to reason that having premarital sex is not contrary to being a conservative. This is because the essence of being a traditionalist is replicating the behavior, mindset, and values of people from cultures of the past. You are not obligated to replicate the behavior of hyperconservatives from the 1950s, you only need to behave as an average person would have to authentically embody the era's mindset. The real prohibition was always against hookups and NSA casual sex. Those behaviors were legitimately uncommon in the 1950s... But premarital sex was already done by the overwhelming majority of the population.
Is the requirement expected of me that I put up fake opposition to premarital sex, and say it is unacceptable, but do it anyway? Quite frankly, I think that's stupid. Why should I claim to support a position I have no intentions of following through on? Even if 75% of the population in the 1950s said premarital sex was morally unacceptable, hardly any of them actually followed through on their own beliefs. If the vast majority of people who say premarital sex is wrong are not willing to follow through on their belief that premarital sex is morally unacceptable, then what's the point of taking that position? Belief needs to be followed through by action or else it is useless. I think one night stands and NSA sex are morally unacceptable. And I do not do those things.
I am a reactionary traditionalist. A reactionary traditionalist seeks to restore the cultural norms of certain time periods. My ideal would be restoring the cultural norms of Western Europe in the 1400s. However, I don't believe this is realistic for American society so I am not actively pursuing that as a goal for America. Therefore, in the context of American society. What I push for is 1950s based reactionary traditionalism. I support restoring the cultural norms of 1950s America because I view the culture of the 1950s as being the best functioning culture in American history. In the 1950s, having premarital sex was the norm. So I am not obligated, nor is any 1950s focused reactionary obligated to oppose it. I believe Renaissance reactionarism is more realistic for Eastern Europe or East Asia then it is for American society. So I am not pushing for a return to Renaissance Europe in America, rather I support returning America to the 1950s because of how powerful America is on a global level. An ideologically 1950s-like American culture would not attempt to crush ultra-traditionalism in foreign nations the way America does right now. Therefore, America returning to an ideologically 1950s like society would allow for all types of conservatism to flourish around the globe without interference from current day globalist, liberal interventionists. I believe that the battle must be fought in America, and that running away to other countries is not a sustainable strategy because if America becomes fully conquered by leftist ideology, then the leftist interventionists in America will eventually eradicate traditionalism in every country on Earth. The only way to save traditionalism is if the American federal government stops devoting itself to its destruction. The easiest way to accomplish that goal, is obviously to restore traditionalism in America which would create strong natural opposition to such a goal.
As far as the religious angle goes. I believe the Bible does contain the instructions on how to live a morally perfect life... However, I do not believe it is realistic for someone to follow every single instruction in the Bible to the letter and never ever violate what the Bible tells us to do. The Bible instructs us to refrain from a lot more actions then just fornication... Being quarrelsome, being too angry, being too prideful, being jealous or envious, wishing ill will on your neighbor, being a lover of money and riches, and countless other actions are warned against in the Bible. If you beat yourself up over every instance you ever do something that violates the Bible's instructions, you will go insane. Almost nobody can do it, that's why the very few people who can do it are called Saints, and even a lot of the Saints had a dark past before finding Jesus. Even the Saints are not believed to have lived their entire lives without committing a single sin.
Trying to get a perfect score according to the Bible's instructions is impossible. I do think a big part of why our religion has suffered so much in recent times is because too many religious people become extremely paranoid that every slip up of theirs is going to condemn them to hell despite the fact that Jesus makes it very clear that he does not expect us to be perfect. That he expects us to forgive one another for our transgressions and that ultimately faith and love are what make you a good Christian. I cannot do everything the Bible tells me to, nor can I stop myself from doing everything the Bible tells me not to do, but I am very glad that the instructions are all there and we know what the ideal is so that we can strive to get closer to it. Without the Bible, without Christian morality, without those instructions, the world would become a very dark and evil place. Liberalism has taught me quite clearly how much we need the Bible and the Christian religion. To say I'm some Satanist because I can't do everything the Bible tells me to is ridiculous, the Bible itself does not say you are expected to follow its every instruction and if you mess up then you're going to hell.
As for how my religious views ties in with my reactionary traditionalist views. I also believe that societies exist along a similar spectrum of good to evil that individuals do. When a society is closer to the Bible's ideal, then life in that society will be much better. The further that society strays from the Bible's ideal, however, the harder it will be to follow the Bible's instructions. And yes, if it is very difficult to follow a moral law, then there is less weight placed on judgment of that individual. Liberals say that the variation in behavior between societies proves that morality is relative. I do not believe that. I believe that some societies simply accept more evil and immorality then others do. The more evil of a society you live in, the more evil actions you will be forced to take, even if you are a good person. As far as premarital sex goes, while it isn't morally ideal. I do not think it is very serious if you are in an exclusive, love based relationship. Especially given that many people who do have premarital sex, especially in today's day in age, are still very good people. Back when the Bible was written, for the culture they lived in, I do think premarital sex even while in love was more serious and thus constituted a larger offense. But given what's been normalized today, premarital sex is very tame.
And yes, I do think that Jesus probably takes the culture you grew up in, into account. I don't think its a get out of jail free card, but it is only logical to evaluate people's morality based on how the people around them are behaving because when other people are behaving badly, it makes it much more difficult for you to not behave badly yourself. And I'm not even talking about peer pressure type situations. Because modern day peer pressure is not just towards premarital sex but also casual sex. I am saying, if a certain behavior becomes truly universal among everybody... Then it essentially becomes a matter of survival that you must engage in it. If 99% of the people around you are killers, then you will need to kill somebody at some point in order to survive. It will not be possible for you to go through life and never kill somebody because in such a society, the likelihood of somebody trying to kill you is extremely high. Now let's say somebody in such a society shoots somebody who bent down to tie their shoe. They weren't going for a gun, but the person shooting them thought he was. If this person lived in a society where 99% of the population has killed somebody, then this is a reasonable mistake to make. In our society, however, this would be an absurd legal argument and such a person would obviously be judged as incorrect.
