|
|
|
|
|
| Sextual support?
Posted: 1/7/2008 2:53:37 AM | Thoughtful, there is no verse in the Bible that says Pre marital sex is restricted, there is no quote in the bible that says this, so it seems you can be a "Christian" and carry on having pre marital sex?
Don`t kid yourself, just because the Bible does not use the exact quote your looking for, does not mean that Pre marital sex is right, it uses the word fornication, to to be a follower of Christ and his teachings, its quite clear that sex outside marriage is restricted. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/7/2008 2:52:42 PM | romanticoptimist:
Regarding the definitions for the word fornication and reference to prostitutes.
Back in the day a womans virginity was extremely important. So the chance of a man getting laid by what we would consider regular type gals was slim to none. For all intents and purposes it simply wasn't done. Daughters and sisters were well protected from men wanting to bed them.
So if an unmarried man wanted to get laid he had to go to a prostitute. This was the accepted norm. A man going to a prostitute back in the day was equal to a man going to a bar today and picking up a one night stand. Back in the day there was no differentiation for having sex with a regular gal you're not married to and a prostitute. The same term was used for both. For consider how the unmarried woman would be treated if she engaged in sex. She would be thought of as being no better than a harlot.
If you disagree than you simply have to find an ancient hebrew word that, by definition, means two people who engage in sex who neither are married and neither is a prostitute. If you can not find such a word than you must accept that the word fornication is meant to mean sex between two people who are not married. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/7/2008 4:49:46 PM | Thank goodness I am a Pagan... my only law is to do no harm. To myself or others. Touche, doll. Although I am not pagan, my law sounds pretty much the exact..
Hmmm... you can do better than that. That sounded pretty good to me but knowing you, you'll bring out better in me.
 ,
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". Yeah, me neither..
However, after attempting to convince MYSELF that due to the lack of direct command, formatted exactly as I'd like, I have learned that in fact I have not been
freed to chalk up said lack as freedom to kick boots with whomever I like..
Please do not fool yourself into believing that I desire to believe that sex outside of marriage is sinful, nothing could be further than the truth, doll. (especially in your presence)
 Nevertheless, disappointingly, God has lead me to accept this principle as truth through discernment in His Word..
DisAm, you know better than to try to preach to me. One would think, huh? | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/7/2008 5:17:16 PM | D
I think all of us are more alike than different..., it's the spirit BEHIND the law.
Peace | |
|
| |
| textual support?
Posted: 1/7/2008 5:35:36 PM |
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".
Then you neither understand the Hebrew language, the meaning of fornication, or the culture of the old days. For if you understood these things you would recognize fornication does mean this.
Please show me an alternative ancient Hebrew word that does mean what you ask for. For if you can show an alternative Hebrew word existed but purposely was not used than you can make your claim. If, however, no such word existed we must except the word fornication to mean sex with someone you are not married to. In which case there are numerous scripture. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/7/2008 7:26:08 PM | "Then you neither understand the Hebrew language, the meaning of fornication, or the culture of the old days. For if you understood these things you would recognize fornication does mean this.
Please show me an alternative ancient Hebrew word that does mean what you ask for. For if you can show an alternative Hebrew word existed but purposely was not used than you can make your claim. If, however, no such word existed we must except the word fornication to mean sex with someone you are not married to. In which case there are numerous scripture."
That is one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I have yet read on the matter.
First of all - as it has been pointed out numerous times - fornication is a general term. Search the thread, you will see the translations, etc. That term is used to generally explain; however, if one is honest with themselves, it is every bit as much a non-issue as it is a supposed issue.
The question is valid because, while using the term generally, it is also used when enumerating acts of sexual immorality - of which, pre-marital sex is not listed.
It has been covered ad nauseum that the terms used for such acts translate pretty directly - terms like adultery, for example.
So, no, you mustn't ACCEPT and such thing. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/8/2008 3:12:20 AM |
That is one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I have yet read on the matter.
First of all - as it has been pointed out numerous times - fornication is a general term. Search the thread, you will see the translations, etc. That term is used to generally explain; however, if one is honest with themselves, it is every bit as much a non-issue as it is a supposed issue.
The question is valid because, while using the term generally, it is also used when enumerating acts of sexual immorality - of which, pre-marital sex is not listed.
It has been covered ad nauseum that the terms used for such acts translate pretty directly - terms like adultery, for example.
So, no, you mustn't ACCEPT and such thing.
I have read the thread. And people doing the translation and and explanation of the term fornication have been ill informed.
If you read msg #52 the term fornication and how and why it was used explains what you call to be a general term. In the old days there was no need to differentiate between having sex with a prostitute and having sex with an unmarried person. They had no reason to split hairs. It was understood.
If they had the term adultery to describe a married person having sex, and if they had a term/word to describe having sex with a prostitute, does it not make sense there'd be a word or term to describe two single people having sex if it was seen as being something different?
Asking you to look deeper into the culture and their language is not being intellectually dishonest. Denying this information and simply making a judgement call on old Hebrew or Greek language without taking these things into consideration is though, imo, being intellectually dishonest. For you suggest we only look at half the truth, or half of the story.
Fornication means having sex with someone other than who you are married to, whether they be a prostitute, the virgin girl next door, or the married woman down the street. And the fact there is a term to set apart adultery as being a worse kind of fornication does not water down the act of two single people engaging in intercourse. | |
|
| |
| |
| textual support?
Posted: 1/8/2008 10:59:00 AM | "I have read the thread. And people doing the translation and and explanation of the term fornication have been ill informed.
If you read msg #52 the term fornication and how and why it was used explains what you call to be a general term. In the old days there was no need to differentiate between having sex with a prostitute and having sex with an unmarried person. They had no reason to split hairs. It was understood.
If they had the term adultery to describe a married person having sex, and if they had a term/word to describe having sex with a prostitute, does it not make sense there'd be a word or term to describe two single people having sex if it was seen as being something different?
Asking you to look deeper into the culture and their language is not being intellectually dishonest. Denying this information and simply making a judgement call on old Hebrew or Greek language without taking these things into consideration is though, imo, being intellectually dishonest. For you suggest we only look at half the truth, or half of the story.
Fornication means having sex with someone other than who you are married to, whether they be a prostitute, the virgin girl next door, or the married woman down the street. And the fact there is a term to set apart adultery as being a worse kind of fornication does not water down the act of two single people engaging in intercourse."
Yet another fallacy of obfuscation. You detract from the central point of the thing. I am not talking about culturally acceptable/unacceptable behavior. However, I have studied and do study the cultures - for quite some time - as well as studying the greek and hebrew words.
The issue at hand has been, and continues to be, doctrine - which, the last time I checked, has little to do with any societal culture.
To run these circles around supposition - that, my friend is what is intellectually dishonest.
And, Lola, you are correct. Adultery is a commandment. Just that: Adultery. The meaning of the word is quite clear and has been covered quite extensively. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/8/2008 11:16:50 AM |
The issue at hand has been, and continues to be, doctrine - which, the last time I checked, has little to do with any societal culture.
what doctrine? There are many doctrines for many various religious sects. Are you interseted in the doctrine of Christ or the doctrine of men?
According to the doctrine of men, in John 4, the Samaritan woman at the well was never married...according to the doctrine of Christ she had five husbands and the one she was with at that time was not her husband....
The doctrine of Christ is love, and in my standard of upholding the doctrine of Christ...any action contrary to love is contrary to the doctrine of Christ. Pre- marital sex is contrary to the doctrine of love and Christ. i'm not saying that it is impossible that two unmarried people can love each other, but this love being expressed is earthly and humanistic and is not the same quality and standard as the agape love of Christ. And that being the case the doctrine of Christ's love is not being upheld. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/8/2008 12:30:49 PM | thoughtful76 - You have had responses from many Christians on here - all but one I think gave you answers that did not support your pre-marital sex view point.
At the end of the day this applies :-
(Rom 14:11 KJV) For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
So you also will have to give account for your understanding of the scripture, your profile states non-religious - so really we don't know what you believe.
You are the one that has to live according to your understanding, thats all anyone can do in the final analysis.
You won't be held to account for what I, and the other posters tell you - its your understanding that counts and therefore your behavior.
As for this thread - I'm done. I think further posts by me or others is just repetition of what you find unacceptable already.
Case Closed and dismythed... | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/8/2008 3:33:32 PM | "thoughtful76 - You have had responses from many Christians on here - all but one I think gave you answers that did not support your pre-marital sex view point.
At the end of the day this applies :-
(Rom 14:11 KJV) For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
So you also will have to give account for your understanding of the scripture, your profile states non-religious - so really we don't know what you believe.
You are the one that has to live according to your understanding, thats all anyone can do in the final analysis.
You won't be held to account for what I, and the other posters tell you - its your understanding that counts and therefore your behavior.
As for this thread - I'm done. I think further posts by me or others is just repetition of what you find unacceptable already.
Case Closed and dismythed..."
Never: Firstly, there have been no sufficient answers. Nothing is closed or "dismythed."
I am very aware of what I shall give account of; and I am content with that. My salvation has no relevance in this thread. The whole point in posting this to begin with was to shed some light on an area that is dark. There were predictably those who chose to say the area was muddled; as well as others who said it is "clear." The contention is not mine. It is clearly not addressed.
And further posts by you in the vein are unacceptable because it doesn't address the original issue of textual support.
The beauty of the Bible is that, despite claims of contradiction, it all goes together so well. But teachings from the church - only one of which is that of pre-marital sex - serve only to confound what is a plain and simple system of faith. The religious teachings have superceded Biblical doctrine; and we are left with division.
Just because you have satisfactorily "proven" things to yourself does not make it so. Someone's meager interpretation of one verse or another can, sadly, make a different doctrine; but that does not make it true. Were that the case, how could anyone in good conscience excuse the proliferation of such crazed legalistic dogma, all the while neglecting the simple truths in Galatians?
I am not trying to change anyone's views. The motive is clearly to cause people to think about what it is they believe. Although it may be sad in your eyes and the eyes of others, my desire to know the scripture and see how things fit is clearly guided by the directive incumbent upon determining my salvation: "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."
So, while you may postulate from your pew, only you know the depth and length of your faith and from where it is derived. You have no issues with what you believe? Fine. But don't claim "facts" of which you have no true knowledge. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/8/2008 5:24:57 PM |
The motive is clearly to cause people to think about what it is they believe. Although it may be sad in your eyes and the eyes of others, my desire to know the scripture and see how things fit is clearly guided by the directive incumbent upon determining my salvation: "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."
Ok now that I see that this is a challenge of our personal beliefs..I can relate better....
I believe I am a sinner. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/8/2008 7:03:24 PM | The motive is clearly to cause people to think about what it is they believe
Aww, Gee..trying to get me to think. OK. Thats really thoughtful of ya, trying to get me to shake off the weight of all that brainwashing and indoctrination I'm struggling under. Next yal be telling me its a good idea to actually get a copy of the bible and read it..
Ya I can see ya point....know anybody that does free circumcisions, I've already got the really sharp two edged sword...  | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/8/2008 7:55:43 PM | In my church, all the good or bad deeds you do don't make a bit of difference, if you have faith.~ allthingsflow
> So if you rape the minister's wife or daughter, or break into his house and set fire to the place, no worries as long as you have faith in 'a god out there', is that it? Works don't matter? Deeds don't matter? It's all in the mind - having the faith.
> That sounds like an interesting kind of church. I expect the ministers there will have unlimited tolerance and the most open of minds.
> Peter. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/8/2008 8:45:12 PM | Justachecking: That was a nice notion, full of assumptions and preconceived notions (does anyone actually refer to women as "gals" anymore??), but you failed to make your point. You want to use "fornication". I want to use the original Hebrew and Greek. And you tell me to go find words in the original language? Too funny.
To anyone who cares: I teach and advise abstinence and chastity. I believe in it. Not because it's a "sin" that needs proof texts to make it so. Why? Because one day someone with the brains to research and the desire for truth and the skepticism that checks the assumptions will discover that there is no real proof of this "sin" and the whole wobbly construction will tumble down. And more harm than good will be done. You want to mislead and fabricate to protect others? Paul warned us never to justify the means by the end. The truth is the truth. There is no direct support for the "sin" of premarital sex. None. However, there is lots of support for wise, caring, soul-building, decent, good, healthy, committed, honest, and pure sexual relations. That won't crash down because it's built on the truth.
The presumption that I'm trying to excuse having a "Christian friend with benefits" or "casual sex" shows the ignorance and judgementalism of those who presume so. And it shows the appalling ignorance and legalism in the light of all the information supplied. If you care to read what I actually said to the OP you'll see where I stand. I don't give a rat's arse whether you judge me as not coming up to your standards. I stand as servant on ONE Master and He's quite fine with me. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/8/2008 10:35:09 PM |
In my church, all the good or bad deeds you do don't make a bit of difference, if you have faith.~ allthingsflow
> So if you rape the minister's wife or daughter, or break into his house and set fire to the place, no worries as long as you have faith in 'a god out there', is that it? Works don't matter? Deeds don't matter? It's all in the mind - having the faith.
> That sounds like an interesting kind of church. I expect the ministers there will have unlimited tolerance and the most open of minds.
> Peter.
Whenever someone rests on faith, it seems that the first thing people who object do is throw the worst of what they can imagine as doing wrong, and make assumtions that it acceptable behavior according to the faith doctrine...
Faith can never be understood by those who do not rest in Christ's righteousness, it is completely unfathomable to those who have never experienced faith as to how it is grace and faith that actually causes true righteousness to spring up.
The problem with this thread is it is addressing Christian doctrine as to what is the law and what is not the law, when Christians are no longer under the law, nor the letter of the law..Of course I am speaking of those who are spiritual christians and have been sealed by faith, I am not talking of those who join a religion and play church.
The problem with the law ruling over anyone is that it binds them up in rebellion and they cannot help but fall prey to the very law that they place themselves under. The very strength of sin comes from the law. If the law is removed, then there is no strength in sin, because there is no possible way for temptation to come and seduce us into sin if the commandment is not in place.
So if I decide to "rape the minister's wife or daughter, or break into his house and set fire to the place," does that make me a sinner??? Or am I already a sinner in the first place? If I decide not to rape the minister's wife or daughter, or break into his house and set fire to the place, does that make me righteous?? No I am still a sinner regardless.
The reality of faith is about trusting in the righteousness of Christ and dying to our own self-righteousness...whether our righteousness is upstanding or whether we are hopeless at doing anything right. Measuring our righteousness before God by our actions and deeds automatically excludes us from tehe realm of grace and faith in what Christ has accomplished, and places us back under judgment and wrath.
1) a guy sleeps around and justifies himself as righteous before God because he feels he has obeyed the law
2) a guy who sleeps around and acknowledges himself as falling short of God's righteousness
The one who acknowledges thier sin is the one who is found righteous and the one who stands in his own righteousness is found unrighteous,
Luke 18
10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/9/2008 4:49:39 PM | Roman:
but you failed to make your point. You want to use "fornication". I want to use the original Hebrew and Greek. And you tell me to go find words in the original language? Too funny.
What it appears you want to do is take words out of context and culture. The question is whether or not you are interested in truth or simply interested in looking for any kind of small distortion that could allow you to ignore or question what scripture refers to as sin. You only want to use origional hebrew and greek so far as it will support your argument. But you stop short of the truth, refusing to go all the way in your research because you know it will refute your initial findings.
It is not enough to simply check the definitions of words. It is just as important to recognize and be aware of the alternative words that were available to the writer.
There are, for example, seven or eight variations for the word 'all'. Each variation can be worlds apart from the other. If the author chooses one variation over another it is important to know which variation of the word was the intended definition. Likewise, it is important to know what words were available for the authors when writing about sexual immorality. This is why I ask you to show me alternative words the authors of scripture could have used.
And it's equally important to have a bit of understanding of the culture. This has already been explained. And my post was not, as you suggest, full of assumptions and preconceived notions. If so, you should be able to prove where I've been off base.
So once again I ask you to show me a word that the author could have used to specify sex between two single people. For that matter, show me an english word for it. Or show me I'm wrong about the importance placed on virginity in ancient times.
Because one day someone with the brains to research and the desire for truth and the skepticism that checks the assumptions will discover that there is no real proof of this "sin" and the whole wobbly construction will tumble down. And more harm than good will be done. You want to mislead and fabricate to protect others? Paul warned us never to justify the means by the end. The truth is the truth. There is no direct support for the "sin" of premarital sex. None.
The research has been done. It has been done by many textual critics and bible scholars. And I gotta tell ya, your weak explanation /definition of fornication is toatally off. Do the homework, and enter the research with a heart to know the truth rather than a mind seeking for what you hope is the truth. And above all, believe what you read rather than read what you believe.
And it shows the appalling ignorance and legalism in the light of all the information supplied.
So now you want to play the legalism card? You are no longer under the law and don't have to worry about whether or not you live a life of rebellion by living in habitual sin and doing what you want? Is that your argument? And if you are free from judgement for sexual immorality, what other sins are you also free to commit? Cheating? Lying? Idolotry? Murder?
I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding in regards to being free from the law which the Pharisees and Sadducees used to suppress and oppress the populace. Sexual sin does not fall into the category of ritualistic law that Jesus refused to adhere to. There's a big, big difference though between ritualistic law and sin as is taught in scripture. | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/10/2008 8:41:23 AM | Justacheckin, why don't you work out your salvation with fear and trembling and let me do the same? I supplied all the answers I 'm going to. You r legalism and judgementalism is YOUR issue not mine. I'm not answerable or accountable to you because you haven't earned to he right to hold me accountable or answerable. Please understand that what you think are my motives or reasons for believing what I believe is worth less than zero to me. This will be the final response from me. Feel entirely free to have the last word if it makes you feel any more self-righteous.
Peace
Grace
Shalom | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/10/2008 12:04:25 PM | I really don't see why there is so much "heat" in this thread :-
Jam 3:1 (NIV) Dear brothers and sisters, not many of you should become teachers in the church...................A tiny spark can set a great forest on fire. And the tongue is a flame of fire. It is full of wickedness that can ruin your whole life............ And so blessing and cursing come pouring out of the same mouth. Surely, my brothers and sisters, this is not right! Does a spring of water bubble out with both fresh water and bitter water? Can you pick olives from a fig tree or figs from a grapevine? No, and you can't draw fresh water from a salty pool.
Lets all mellow out a bit. We can all learn from another - like those Berean's did, they studied the scriptures to see "what was true".
Peace.. | |
|
| |
| textual support?
Posted: 1/10/2008 9:53:41 PM | [quoteLets all mellow out a bit. We can all learn from another - like those Berean's did, they studied the scriptures to see "what was true".
Peace..
Does that include "CFWB" cracks? Or do you just mean "peace" from others? | |
|
| textual support?
Posted: 1/10/2008 10:40:56 PM |
Does that include "CFWB" cracks? Or do you just mean "peace" from others?
I think it means what it means. A good place to look within might be what you posted in my thread thus answering the dilemma your own angst poser.
Peace. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
create unwanted kids, 
cause a person unwilling to settle down with one individual and have a nice family life. 
Once you are used to random pre-marital sex (I believe) it would be very difficult to settle down with one spouse. On the other hand – it is possible to have pre-marital sex with someone you intend to marry and not cause any damage to the society or to yourself or her. Even her father might approve of you as her future husband. In that case – you might sneak by the lope hole Bible has left behind by not forbidding “pre-marital sex” with tougher words. 
