|
|
|
|
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/5/2008 10:06:15 PM |
Is it any wonder so many non-believers view Christians as ignorant when so many read something into nothing.
And when you read nothing into something. I think it's great amusement to watch Christians cherry pick Bible verses and SPAG their way through the Bible.
| |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 4:12:43 AM |
You can follow your implications, and I will believe what is written. Plain and simple.
If you believed what is written, we wouldn't be having this discussion/debate. Plain and simple. My "implications" are true, whether you choose to believe them or not. You can contextualize or segregate (OT from NT) all you want, all you are doing is adding/subtracting from the true meaning to suit your liking. The "proof" is there, you just choose not to see it! No "cherry picking" here!
Fornication~ from Strongs Concordance~ 4202. porneia, harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry:-fornication. 4203. porneuo, to act the harlot. i.e. (lit.) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (fig.) practise idolatry:- commit (fornication). 4204. porne, a strumpet; fig. an idolater:- harlot, whore. 4205. pornos, from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of 4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal). i.e. (by anal.)a debauchee (libertine):-fornicator, whoremonger.
Hebrew: zanah / Greek: porneia
Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and woman "who are not married to each other." Adultery is one "type" of fornication.
In every form, fornication was sternly condemned by the Mosaic law among God's people, the Israelites (Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20-11, 23-29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16).
Fornication is also mentioned many times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4).
"The Greek word for 'fornication' (porneia) could include any sexual sin committed after the betrothal contract. …In Biblical usage, 'fornication' can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21). Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28)." (Dr. Henry M. Morris)
The word "fornication" is sometimes used in a symbolic sense in the Bible, for example, meaning a forsaking of God or a following after idols (Isa. 1:2; Jer. 2:20; Ezek. 16; Hos. 1:2; 2:1-5; Jer. 3:8-9).
Jesus didn't come to destroy the law, true; but explain his directive on divorce. He gave only one out - sexual immorality. However, under Levitical law, a certificate of divorce need only be issued.
Matthew 19:3-8 (specifically vs. 8)~
8~ He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way."
Moses suffered (allowed) some things that were not right on account of the hardness of hearts, a low state of morals. A people cannot be lifted from moral depravity to a high standard at once. Hence the law permitted some things that were below the perfect standardof Christ.
"From the beginning." In the beginning there was no divorce and no polygamy. The first polygamist was the race of Cain (Lamech) (Ge 4:19).
Just because things were allowed, (thus the necessity for sacrifice, IMHO), does not make them right. They were allowed because of ignorance and hardheartedness, with the goal of coming to the truth and living accordingly. But from the start, Adam, it was not meant to be so!
Sorry the words "premarital sex" were not "literally" written down for you to see!
You're right, though, this is getting ridiculously trite.
it was an attempt to get so-called Christians to think about what they believe and why. Is it any wonder so many non-believers view Christians as ignorant when so many read something into nothing.
understandable, study with meditation is good (ask, seek, find).
What is more of a wonder is when Christians agree with non-believers on issues that non-believers really couldn't care less about, and against each other! Right, no wonder we are mocked and ridiculed, can't blame them when they see this. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 10:46:22 AM | | tongfumstr, I am not sure that your claims on polygamy can be substantiated. As Roman Society forbad polygamy, and the main seat of Christianity was the Roman Empire, it makes perfect sense that Christianity accepted monogamy. But if Christianity was truly against polygamy, then you would find a bad on polygamy, even when before its acceptance by the Romans and when Christians were still being crucified. Can you find any sources that show a ban by the Christian clergy on polygamy for all Christians well before its acceptance by the Romans? | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 12:03:59 PM | "What is more of a wonder is when Christians agree with non-believers on issues that non-believers really couldn't care less about, and against each other! Right, no wonder we are mocked and ridiculed, can't blame them when they see this."
I am agreeing with non-believers by default in this regard,a s you have taken the position to oppose. And, my point remains as clear as originally, you are connecting dots that ARE NOT THERE! They aren't. Your belief addresses an implication - not what IS. As to what Moses suffered, it should be immaterial as your original claim about the LAW being forever; and that was law, which Jesus contradicted.
 | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 12:08:48 PM | TongFuMstr said:
ok, thoughtful76, how do you interpret these verses?
Matthew 5 27,28~
27~ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28~ But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Jesus, in the sermon on the mount, was not just talking to married people, but "whosoever." (i also don't think He's talking about just looking at a "married" woman). I'm just trying to point out to you what i see, i know you are an intelligent man, so i won't go into great detail.
It's impossible for Jesus to use the word "adultery" and not mean "married". The Greek word used (Moicheuo - I don't know if I can type Greek here, so look up the verse in an Interlinear Bible*, or check Strong's #3431 and 3432. The word specifically means "adultery" and is equal in meaning to the English word. It cannot mean anything else. In every single case the word is used, it means "adultery" as in the English, a married person having sexual intercourse with a person other than their married partner. Used metaphorically (rare) it means to be led astray to follow other gods or idols. In other words, to be an "adulterer" by being "unfaithful" to God.
He is not discussing premarital sex. In fact, He's not really talking about sex in the sense that sex is not the main issue He's addressing. The context -- yes, CONTEXT - makes it clear that Jesus is moving beyond obedience to the LETTER of the Law to the heart of the problem, INTENT. What Jesus is saying -- in this CONTEXT -- is, "If you lust after her and don't do it, you are as guilty as if you did it. Deal with the stuff inside you that causes you to think this way whether you act on those thoughts or not. Don't be self-righteous because you only think and don't do. Both the Thinker and the Doer break the Law."
As for "Zanah" (Strong #2181) and "Porneia" (Strong #4202), the context and usage is clearly that of "harlotry" and "prostitution". Follow the words. They aren't about "sex" as such. They are about "being a whore, a harlot, a prostitute". Especially "Porneia". Don't believe me. Do the research. Check the facts. Read the words. Check out an Interlinear Bible* and follow the Strong's #s:
Porneia (#4202) means "illicit sexual intercourse". It's derived from "Porneuo" (#4203) which means "to prostitute oneself sexually". It's derived from "Porne" (#4204) which means "a woman who sells her body for sexual use", "a prostitute", a "harlot". It's from "Pornos" (#4205) which means "a man who sells his body for sexual use", "a male prostitute". It's from "Pernemi" which means "to sell". And that's related to "Piprasko" which means "to sell a slave", "to be sold into slavery", referring the exchange of money or goods for a human being. Do you see the progression of the language here? From selling humans to selling oneself to prostitution (actual and metaphorical). It's not about premarital sex, but about selling sex (and thus devaluing it as an expression of human love).
And before anybody leaps to correct, yes all of the above words are used metaphorically to refer to unfaithfulness by God's people.
*There's a free Interlinear Bible here: http://www.studylight.org/isb/ | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 12:50:42 PM | (Eph 5:31 KJV) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
It should be asked what makes these two become one body? The marriage? The marriage certificate? Its the sexual act that makes them one in my understanding.
(1 Cor 7:2 KJV) Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
However you choose to interpret fornication it is quite plain from the above verse that sex outside of marriage or a commited relationship is fornication. And it is to be avoided.
(1 Cor 6:16) What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
The joining to a harlot is done in which way? A marriage? A marriage certificate? A sexual union?? Not many men will marry a harlot.
They may have sex with one - if they do it would seem that having sex with a harlot makes them one body (flesh) which is precisely what happens when a husband joins with his wife.
(1 Cor 6:18) Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
So according to my reading of scripture when two people have sex (unmarried or not) they become one body - if one or both of these persons has sex with another they have then committed adultery. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 1:45:17 PM |
Where does it say in the bible that Abraham is Jacob's grandfather. I know it says that Abraham begat Isaac and isaac begat Jacob....but no where does it explicitly state that Abraham is Jacob's grandfather. The Bible is quite explicit that Issac is Abraham's child, and that Jacob is Issac's child. It's not just a list of begats as you well know. You have tried in the past to deny this relationship, to no avail. Abraham's wife was Sarah. She gave birth to Issac, who fathered Jacob. Thus Abraham and Sarah are Jacob's grand-parents.
Jacob in turn had sons, one of whom was Judah. Thus Abraham and Sarah would have been Judah's Great-Grandparents. The Jewish people trace their decent through Judah, hence the name, Judaism. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 2:18:37 PM |
The Bible is quite explicit that Issac is Abraham's child, and that Jacob is Issac's child. It's not just a list of begats as you well know. You have tried in the past to deny this relationship, to no avail. Abraham's wife was Sarah. She gave birth to Issac, who fathered Jacob. Thus Abraham and Sarah are Jacob's grand-parents.
Jacob in turn had sons, one of whom was Judah. Thus Abraham and Sarah would have been Judah's Great-Grandparents. The Jewish people trace their decent through Judah, hence the name, Judaism.
bear45408
I suppose i post this in a somewhat facetious manner. Of course we all understand the family lineage and how it is understood regarding what qualifies Abraham as being a grandfather to Jacob. But my point was that because this definition is not explicity spelled out in scripture, doesn't mean that we should nullify that Abraham was indeed jacob's grandfather. In the same way that sex out of wedlock is considered part and parcel of the sin nature that operates within mankind. Actually sex out of wedlock is classified in the law as some posters have already shared....and to deny this or to be unable to see this doesn't make it an exemption, just as Abraham is not exempted from being Jacob's grandfather even though the expression is never used in the scriptures. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 2:26:32 PM | scorpiomover,
thanks for the  , although i don't recall stating that polygamy never existed in Christianity; i know it did. What i was trying to do was show that the "textual support" is there against "pre-marital sex" and that Jesus didn't contradict the law. Polygamy was mentioned in my explanation going back to the beginning (Adam and Eve) as not being the original design/plan by G-D. Every time i read about marriage in the NT, if i remember right, it is always talking about 1 man and 1 woman, always in the singular. (a couple that say "wives" is when multiple men are being talked to, thus the plural).
Matthew 19:4-6 ~ Ephesians 5:31 ~ Genesis 2:24 are good examples of 2 becoming 1.
Can you find any sources that show a ban by the Christian clergy on polygamy for all Christians well before its acceptance by the Romans?
Here's a site that explains about polygamy better than i could~
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html
another site i liked on the OT and NT that explains it better than i could~
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/christian_ot_use.htm
For those that cannot see/agree that "pre-marital sex" (between 2 single people) outside of marriage is called "fornication"
Hebrew: zanah / Greek: porneia
Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and woman "who are not married to each other." Adultery is one "type" of fornication.
and the Bible clearly teaches against it, even stating that "fornicators" will not be allowed into heaven, i'm sorry we disagree and i have nothing further to say that you would believe anyway!
This is all as i believe and IMHO!!!
Simple hermeneutics (the science of interpretation).
When the Old and New Testaments are interpreted carefully and rightly, using Scripture to interpret Scripture, truth will emerge!
edited quote from one of the afore mentioned sites, that's why i used the sites, seeing as i am ignorant in what i am saying! | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 2:36:55 PM |
(1 Cor 7:2 KJV) Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
However you choose to interpret fornication it is quite plain from the above verse that sex outside of marriage or a committed relationship is fornication. And it is to be avoided.
It may (or may not) interest you that the word translated "have" means to "hold fast to", "to keep", "to wear", "to possess", "to have regard for". Because "fornication" (Porneia) covers a broad spectrum of sexually immoral acts, it could be that Paul is saying that the practice of marital celibacy (see following verses) could lead to sexual immorality and sexual wandering. Certainly there was plenty of opportunity in Corinth, a hot-bed of sexually promiscuous worship practices in the many temples of Corinth. Most of the Corinthian Church was made up of believers who had come from beliefs that included all manner of sexual activity and vices as part of their worship practices. The Corinthians had even written to Paul asking about the matter of continuing prior sexual practices, and seemed quite liberal in this regard. Do you not recall that he rebuked them because one of their group was having sex with his father's wife and they were proud of themselves for it?
He might also have been saying "don't look elsewhere. "Have" your husband/wife instead of looking elsewhere" In other words, Paul may well have been addressing sexual problems among the _married_ believers. Certainly, it is not "quite plain" that Paul is making a case against premarital sex. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 2:47:05 PM | Rom -
<div class='quote'>Certainly, it is not "quite plain" that Paul is making a case against premarital sex.
Its not gonna be plain when you are trying to make a case for premarital or uncommited sex to be allowable. As for the celibacy that Paul was addressing between married couples its quite plain he is just continuing his discourse on sexual relations including the guy and his mother - why they would need to even ask is beyond me.
edit -
<div class='quote'>Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
This was aimed at marrieds rather than single people????
Do this mean I can have a Christian friend with benefits?? | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:17:46 PM | Nevercanezzer,
Do this mean I can have a Christian friend with benefits??
 
can i, huh, huh, can i, huh, can i, can i, huh, huh??
sorry, got carried away there. Don't know how much "pun" was intended, but i bout fell out my chair on that one! | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:27:53 PM |
Scripture can be/is used by Its Author by any means (literally or metaphorically, or any "ically") necessary to speak to the audience at any particular time.
~The Word is active, alive and sharper than any two-edged sword.
Hmmm... you can do better than that.
The OP was to find any passage that literally forbade sex before marriage. Not provide examples of passages that- if you look at them the right way, might suggest that sex before marriage is bad.So far, I have yet to see any bible verse that reads "thou shalt not engage in sexual intercourse if thou is not married to the person with whom you are intending to be intimate".
Which means: no. There are no verses that definitively prohibit sex before marriage, there are only verses that some individuals can interpret to mean such. Just as with all Scripture, it boils down to interpretation.
DisAm, you know better than to try to preach to me.  | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:42:45 PM |
I said: "Certainly, it is not "quite plain" that Paul is making a case against premarital sex."
You said: "Its not gonna be plain when you are trying to make a case for premarital or uncommited sex to be allowable." That may or may not be the case. But it's immaterial because I'm not making a case for either.
You really need to do your research before you attempt to demonize when you can't handle a rather friendly correction. You FAILED to make your "it's quite plain" quite plain at all. It isn't. And you didn't help. You even avoided the context of the passage. And the letter. I've spent the best part of a year of weekly study at University level on both the Corinthian letters, and I know better than to make this single verse a proof text for "premarital sex". If you drop me a line, I'll share some background that may (or may not) prove useful.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
This was aimed at marrieds rather than single people???? Regardless of your apparent disbelief, yes, it's entirely possible -- given the context and the Greek word used (echo) for "have" -- that it is specifically directed to new (probably previously)married believers who were practicing a form of sexual asceticism because they believed it made them "holier". it's entirely possible -- in the context -- that Paul was giving practical advice to married believers. Like I said, see the verses that follow. That explanation makes more sense -- in the context -- than the assumption that Paul stopped his train of though, tossed in a command regarding premarital sex, then returned to his train of thought. it's not impossible that he did that. It's just very unlikely. Certainly unlikely enough not to make it a proof text.
Do this mean I can have a Christian friend with benefits?? You're an adult. you have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit at your disposal. Why are you asking me? Ask Them. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:57:08 PM |
You're an adult. you have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit at your disposal. Why are you asking me? Ask Them.
Hey you're the expert I'm asking you - cough up or ----
Seeing as Paul was a Jew - this is what the Jewish encyclopedia has to say....
full text available at :-
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=264&letter=F&search=fornication
FORNICATION
Cohabitation between a man, married or unmarried, and an unmarried woman. While the common law speaks of intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman as adultery, followed herein by many American statutes which grant a divorce for the "adultery of the husband," the Authorized Version of the Old Testament uses the word "fornication" four times, always in a figurative sense. In the New Testament it stands for the Greek πόρνεια; and as a husband is bidden not to divorce his wife except for this offense, the word is there evidently an equivalent for "adultery."
Fornication is the same in Jewish as in the common law. It is a much lighter offense than Adultery or Incest, in which both participants are punished with death.
As to the gravity of this offense there is difference of opinion. Deuteronomy xxiii. 18 (A. V. 17) says: "There shall be no harlot ["ḳedeshah"] of the daughters of Israel." A ḳedeshah is, according to rabbinic commentators, a woman who sells herself to every comer, and stands far apart from the virgin who is "enticed" or seduced (Ex. xxii. 16). The former is liable to flagellation, as breaking a negative law; the latter is treated as the injured party, to whom the seducer must make amends; and the seducer is not liable to stripes, for his penalty is named: he must marry the girl if her father will consent.
The standard edition of the Sifre on Deuteronomy xxiii. 18 throws no light on the text; but an old manuscript of this work, referred to in Maggid Mishneh in a gloss on Maimonides' "Yad," Ishut, i. 4, says that the text intends to forbid any sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not his wife. Maimonides himself (ib.) holds that as a matter of Mosaic law both parties are liable to stripes. Abraham ben David dissents, taking the ground that a woman who gives herself over to only one man is not a ḳedeshah, but a concubine ("pillegesh"), according to the Bible (see II Sam. v. 13)—a wife without the ceremony of betrothal and without jointure (see Ketubah)—and that neither she nor her lover is guilty of any Scriptural offense. The Shulḥan 'Aruk (Eben ha-'Ezer, 26, 1) takes a middle ground, admitting that the case in question does not fall under the heading of "ḳedeshah," but asserting that, in the interest of modesty, both are forbidden by custom and rabbinical law, and should be repressed, if need be, by the infliction of stripes ("makkat mardut"). It is even forbidden to be alone with a woman in a room (ib. 22, 2).
| |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:10:01 PM | This whole subject is just an excuse to get around the sexual mores in the Bible.
Funny when something is desirable that all of a sudden the legalities and loopholes come out. Even Jesus stated that having sex with a divorced woman was the same as adultery, only widows are allowed to have another spouse. The divorced are considered "married" by God until one of them dies. Sexual activity outside the confines of marriage is also a big no-no... this is so people would treat their sexual relationships with the same commitment, forethought and honour that they considered their other commitments with. This is obviously meant to protect and value the participants and their offspring.
Taking the actions of a people over 2000 years ago and trying to equate it with modern culture is ridiculous. If that was the case you could own slaves also. Now we all KNOW that is reprehensible... yet, there it is.
I also find it humourous that the OT scriptures come out to support views... yet if you try to hold someone to the laws of the OT...they state that the laws are no longer valid. So which is it? I find this pick and choose religion really hypocritical.. probably why I left the "church" in the first place. NON-Christians know that "Christians" are not supposed to have sex outside of a sanctified marriage...and unless they have a dead spouse remarriage is also a big no-no. THIS is one of the causes of the claims of hypocrisy amongst the non-believers. There is no way around the obvious attitude of the Bible to sexual conduct. From Genesis and the making of a "pair-bond" to Revelations and the description of the unholy as a "Whore".. it's pretty clear.
Thank goodness I am a Pagan... my only law is to do no harm. To myself or others.
Keepin' it simple...
Peace all! | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:11:54 PM | | Are you going to address the actual issue and the passages and the letter and the lack of "plain and simple" , and the false assumptions about my motives, or are you going to keep weaving a trail of smoke and mirrors? If the former, I'm happy to discuss and debate. if the latter, you're talking to yourself. Your choice. | |
|
| Sextual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 7:28:58 PM | Rom - you never addressed this issue -
(Eph 5:31 KJV) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
It should be asked what makes these two become one body? The marriage? The marriage certificate? Its the sexual act that makes them one in my understanding.
This is a forum I present my views - if you take issue with the post you answer - you only addressed part of my post - the above states to me quite plainly the issue of the sexual union. You have sex with ya friend as benefits you are one with them. Thats the real definition of marriage in my estimation. You can disagree if you wish. If you can't join the dots thats cool - the op asked for input - I gave some. He can take it or leave it - as can you.
No need to get all defensive about it...
Fornication
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Fornication, or simple fornication, is a term which refers to consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other[1]. In contrast adultery is consensual sex where one or both of the partners are married to someone else.
The origin of the word derives from Latin. The word fornix means "an archway" or "vault" (in Rome, prostitutes could be solicited there). More directly, fornicatio means "done in the archway"; thus a euphemism for prostitution.
Fornication is dealt with differently in various religions, societies and cultures.
According to the Gnostic author Samael Aun Weor, the term fornication is used to include any form of sexual intercourse that is performed for the purpose of reaching the climax of orgasm and seminal ejaculation.
| |
|
| Sextual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 8:11:53 PM |
I also find it humorous that the OT scriptures come out to support views... yet if you try to hold someone to the laws of the OT...they state that the laws are no longer valid. So which is it? I find this pick and choose religion really hypocritical..
Raven I don't see it wrong or hypocritical to use the OT when trying to decipher what Paul says in respect to sexuality. After all he was a Jew and his thinking was based in the OT.
Sexual activity outside the confines of marriage is also a big no-no... this is so people would treat their sexual relationships with the same commitment, forethought and honour that they considered their other commitments with. This is obviously meant to protect and value the participants and their offspring.
I agree and it still applies today.
To me sexuality without commitment is fornication according to the bible. | |
|
| Sextual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 9:12:01 PM |
To me sexuality without commitment is fornication according to the bible.
This seems to be the basis of all sexual "advice" in the Bible... I once heard that the "heart" shape is not the shape of one's heart, but the joining of two peoples energetic "aura" or soul..into one. The aura is roughly oval... like an upside down egg... if you put two of these side by side, turn both out a little (two minds) and overlap them, they make a heart shape.
Every comment in the bible about proper sexual conduct emphasizes the responsibility and depth of joining one's soul to another. It isn't even "commitment" so much as realizing that when you have sex.. you are actually merging souls, and that this act has a lifetime affect on one. On some strange level, anyone you have had sex with.. you are still connected to spiritually. The commitment part of it, I believe, is to drive home the seriousness of this act and to remind people that all deeds have consequences. Sex is sacred. This is something I also believe... not because of the bible.. though the scriptures gave me much to consider in this area, but also from experience. If we looked at our sexual partner and the gift of sexuality and intimacy as sacred it would be impossible to have sex without a deep respect and honour for ourselves and our partner, we wouldn't be left feeling used or betrayed and we wouldn't use or betray others. This is what I believe is the "spirit" of the law... as opposed to the "legality", or trying to find the very specific RULE against or for something. It isn't there, but it is. It's the totality of the scriptural advice coupled with the law of love. ( that another is as valuable and sacred as yourself). The "law" of God is not in the words, but in the understanding, intention, self-responsibility and ability to truly love another to the point where the other's well-being is as important as one's own.
The question should be - by having sexual relations with this person am I being as loving as I can be, towards them, and myself? Do I honour and respect this person? Am I willing to take the responsibility of having a spiritual connection with this person for my lifetime? Not... is fornication forbidden. The first asks one to be an adult and REALLY consider before acting.. the other is searching for a way to avoid this question. It's like a child.. they get to a cetain age and they become little legalistic freaks... If a parent says, "Turn the TV off, I want you to think about what you did"..when you leave the room they go and play on the computer.. when caught they say, "but you said I couldn't watch the TV, you didn't SAY the computer too!".. it's a "loophole" they think they found because you didn't SPECIFICALLY tell them no computer... but here's the gist, they KNOW you meant they were to take time out and think about a transgression, and that they had lost the privelage of playing, for a time. It's the same thing.. God says.. "I want you to treat each other sexually as sacred, because it is a deep and most wondrous gift, here's a few hints as to how and why and here are the connections of this to my other hints and suggestions, they are all interconnected".. and we say, But you didn't SAY specifically I couldn't have sex.. you only said I couldn't have sex OUTSIDE of marriage.
The child has missed the point completely and thinks she/he can outwit the parent with legal red herrings.
Sorry, but the "parent" has our number.. there will be no technicalities allowed. There is no loophole against using another human for one's own gratification.
The reason there is little in the Bible SPECIFICALLY on fornication is because of the culture and times it was written in... fornication was probably quite rare considering the lifestyle, role of women, lack of birth control, small close-knit population and social pressures. Not because God doesn't really care who or how we conduct ourselves with a very powerful and emotional gift such as sexuality. | |
|
| Sextual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 9:29:07 PM | Excellent post Raven and very much mirrors my own feeling on the subject of love, the law and our "neighbors"
I think Paul summed it nicely :-
(Rom 2:29 KJV) But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; - (of the law)
(2 Cor 3:6 KJV) Who also has made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.
In some cases it is necessary to go back to the "letter" for an explanation when those that claim the spirit are not understanding it.. peace.. | |
|
| Sextual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 9:35:17 PM | So, let me get this straight: Because someone disagrees with you, they automatically, don't understand it? Interesting.
Especially seeing how Christian apologists everywhere have yet to conclude anything solid on this matter using scripture, and translations from the original "letter."
Again, you have failed to do what was asked and have proffered only your opinion. | |
|
| Sextual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 9:48:23 PM |
Especially seeing how Christian apologists everywhere have yet to conclude anything solid on this matter using scripture, and translations from the original "letter."
Again, you have failed to do what was asked and have proffered only your opinion.
I'm curious what it would mean to you, if pre-marital sex was not specifically listed to your satisfaction as being technically a sin. | |
|
| Sextual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 9:59:28 PM |
Especially seeing how Christian apologists everywhere have yet to conclude anything solid on this matter using scripture, and translations from the original "letter."
May as well qualify this statement while yer at it - give some citations please.
The dictionary seems to have the definition down and so does wikipedia.
Keep poking around yall get there in the end... | |
|
| Sextual support?
Posted: 1/6/2008 10:15:20 PM | Well I guess you have to ask yourself a few questions then...
Are you adhering to the rules as laid down in the Old or New Testament?
If so, do you know what those rules state in their original language and in historical and social context for the people to whom they were written?
Then, if you can state that you have a rough handle on that and believe that they were "inspired" ask yourself if you believe they are still relevant today and in the same social and cultural context? Does that make sense? If so, why or why not? What was the purpose of the law at that time?
Or don't bother with the sensible approach at all and just write it in stone and see what happens | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
