What's So Wrong With Premarital Sex? [Archive]

Telleriab2

May 13th 2006, 06:48 PM

What do people think?

Is premarital sex morally wrong in all instances? If so, why? If not, how do you justify your claim against those who condemn it on a moral basis?

I grew up being told that sex before marriage was wrong. Sometimes I was given a practical reason ("you could get pregnant or acquire an STD", "you and your husband will be happier if you both wait", "you want to wear white at your wedding, don't you?", etc.), but often it was just a flat-out "Premarital sex is morally wrong, so don't do it." However, very little justification was given for this, and I'm just curious what people would say about this issue.

Griffs

I was actually just discussing this topic with a friend of mine on Thursday. With both have different opinions on the matter and we both shared our views and reasons about it. She, due to extraneous instances that she has witnessed, was unfortunately turned off by the whole notion of remaining a virgin until after you wed. She stated her reasons, and I respected them. I told her that I was flat out against premarital sex in any form and gave her my reasons for it. In my case, I view it in the sense of an emotional prespective. Say you meet someone. You get to know him quite well and after a while you think, "Wow, this really is the guy for me!" The relationship progresses to which both persons have sex with each other, further sealing the love they have for each other. Now, something happens in which the two persons end up not marrying each other. For whatever the reasons may have been that such a relationship ended in that manner, the fact that they lost their virginity to each other only makes the heartbreak more bitter. In my experience, bitterness is a truly devastating thing. The bitterness I have felt originated from an instance in my life (not sex-related); I am ashamed to admit that I was clouded from loving and respecting God. I eventually found my feet and put all of that behind me. What I am basically trying to say is that I do not wish to place myself in any situation that would harm the relationship I have with God, be it through pre-marital sex or not.

A Cup of No

May 13th 2006, 11:15 PM

I would say that it's wrong 'cause sex is meant for two people who are committed to a life with each other, and until you get married you haven't made that commitment, so you shouldn't do it until you get married.

dizzle

May 13th 2006, 11:36 PM

As this is the Biblical ethics section, the reason is simple. The Bible forbids it.

Griffs

May 16th 2006, 12:49 AM

As this is the Biblical ethics section, the reason is simple. The Bible forbids it.

Can you give me the passage(s)? (Just not sure where it is in the Bible.) Also, are there any exceptions to Biblical prohibitions? If the Bible anywhere prohibits something, are we bound to that?

Griffs

themuzicman

May 16th 2006, 07:57 AM

Can you give me the passage(s)? (Just not sure where it is in the Bible.) Also, are there any exceptions to Biblical prohibitions? If the Bible anywhere prohibits something, are we bound to that?

Griffs
4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge

As for your 2nd question, there is a very large field called 'hermeneutics' that studies the bible in context to understand how it applies to us, today.

As a rule, the New Testament was written for us who are in the Church, whereas the Old Testament is the story of Israel. That's not to say that the OT is irrelevant to us, but it's treated a little differently.

Michael

Teallaura

May 16th 2006, 08:14 AM

There's another reason: It is in a real sense theft.

When we marry, our bodies are no longer our own but belong to our spouses in terms of our sexuality. By having premarital sex we've given away something that is rightfully our spouses - something we cannot regain to give to the spouse.

And it's not just virginity (although in my mind that's a hugely important aspect) - we have also lost that initial 'learning' phase - sometimes awkward no doubt, but also something wonderful. Experience doesn't go away - we can't learn with our spouse, enjoying that phase of our sexuality with the one who loves us enough to commit to us for life. That portion of our sexuality is forever gone, given to someone who didn't love us as this person, our spouse, does. Something intangible, but valuable, has been lost - and denied to the one to whom it actually should have gone.

Premarital sex - or rather the permissibility that leads to it - stems from a very selfish view of sexuality. Instead of a wonderful thing to be shared with one who we love, it becomes a mere type of gratification for ourselves. We don't consider the future spouse, only our immediate enjoyment (or emotional neediness, in the case of those who use sex to maintain a relationship). Ironically, we are also short changing ourselves when we live for the moment and not for the best.

We think of sexuality in very one sided terms - me, my, mine - but it's not one sided. Imagine for a moment the man you will love the most, that husband who's out there somewhere. He's not ideal - no one is - but he's someday to be yours. Now imagine him with someone else. His innocence is lost to you - and it should have been yours.

Or make it more immediate - you're married and he's with another woman. He's still giving away that which does not belong to him; that which belongs to you. in either case, he can never get it back and he can't give it to you - and that loss is for nothing more than his immediate pleasure. Isn't that the very essence of selfishness?

Dr. Jack Bauer

May 16th 2006, 08:20 AM

Griffs

May 16th 2006, 01:41 PM

4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge Thanks for the quote. My version reads: "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." I assumed this meant that once one is married, one should not commit adultery. I guess I should read more into the verse.

As for your 2nd question, there is a very large field called 'hermeneutics' that studies the bible in context to understand how it applies to us, today. Yes, I am aware of the field of hermeneutics - but there are many different hermeneutical approaches one can take. I was asking about yours.

As a rule, the New Testament was written for us who are in the Church, whereas the Old Testament is the story of Israel. That's not to say that the OT is irrelevant to us, but it's treated a little differently. Right. Old Law (ceremonial law) gets abrogated by Christ, New Law comes into effect. Both, however, include the Natural Law, knowable by reason. The question is, how much of the New Law is binding for us today, and how much should be relegated to advice?

When we marry, our bodies are no longer our own but belong to our spouses in terms of our sexuality. By having premarital sex we've given away something that is rightfully our spouses - something we cannot regain to give to the spouse. So I should not give my virginity away now because it already belongs to my future husband? What if my current bf is my future husband? Presumably, the only time I give away something (sexually) that is rightfully my spouse's is when I'm actually married to that person. How can someone "own" my sexuality before I even know them?

I do agree that a lot of sexual sins occur because of selfishness and lust. However, I'm not so sure that sex before marriage is always sinful in this way. If two people truly love each other, why should they not be able to express this love physically. The body is not something to be ashamed of. It's one of God's greatest creations! Or does that not have anything to do with it?

The Old Testament is where we get our main instruction on this question. The New testament refers to it only in passing, and not clearly at all. Genesis depicts a man joining with his wife and the two becoming one flesh. The physical union is a major part of that (i.e. "flesh"). The implication is that sex binds - or is supposed to bind - people together. If premarital sex refers to people who have sex but don't marry, this biblical principle in Genesis is undermined. So one can only be bound to one person over the course of a lifetime? And (on a side note) what if there's two people who get married but never have sex? Is that also bad?

The law, which expresses God's moral principles, is perhaps even clearer. If a man and a woman sleep together, and provided the act is not adultery or immoral in some other sense (i.e. on of the prohibited unions, e.g. a close relative), then they were required to marry, because they have already embarked on that unique relationship that cannot be shared with another. If sex outside of marriage was not wrong, then why would the couple be required to marry? Which law? Does the law always express God's moral principles?

Thanks, guys, for helping me to get clearer on this point.

Griffs

themuzicman

May 16th 2006, 01:49 PM

Thanks for the quote. My version reads: "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." I assumed this meant that once one is married, one should not commit adultery. I guess I should read more into the verse.

The addition of "all the sexually immoral" would include other practices. They obviously aren't listed, but I think fornication would be included.

Also, as Theonomy pointed out, honoring marriage would include keeping sexual exclusivity within the marriage context. To have sex outside of marriage, married or not, is dishonoring to marriage.

Yes, I am aware of the field of hermeneutics - but there are many different hermeneutical approaches one can take. I was asking about yours.

Ah. OK.

Right. Old Law (ceremonial law) gets abrogated by Christ, New Law comes into effect. Both, however, include the Natural Law, knowable by reason. The question is, how much of the New Law is binding for us today, and how much should be relegated to advice?

Both include natrual law? Really? How does THAT hermeneutic work?

Michael

Teallaura

May 16th 2006, 05:34 PM

....
So I should not give my virginity away now because it already belongs to my future husband? What if my current bf is my future husband? Presumably, the only time I give away something (sexually) that is rightfully my spouse's is when I'm actually married to that person. How can someone "own" my sexuality before I even know them?

I do agree that a lot of sexual sins occur because of selfishness and lust. However, I'm not so sure that sex before marriage is always sinful in this way. If two people truly love each other, why should they not be able to express this love physically. The body is not something to be ashamed of. It's one of God's greatest creations! Or does that not have anything to do with it?

....

Thanks, guys, for helping me to get clearer on this point.

Griffs

Until the commitment is sealed (marriage) you have no way to know for certain that the current bf is going to be your husband. When you give your virginity to him, you're giving something that may - or may not - be his. You cannot at that point know which.

The union creates a new entity - the two become one. That entity has the moral ownership of the sexuality within it. That means that you own your husband's sexual expressions as he owns yours - you're together a single entity which hold ownership to both. Sans union, sexuality cannot be fully expressed.

When you enter into a sexual union but not a marital one, you are still creating that entity - but in a defiled form. (Think the Woman at the Well - Jesus refers to her lover as her 'husband' because in one sense he was - but not in the proper sense; i.e. marriage.) The defilement in my opinion stems from the incomplete nature of the commitment.

The union is incomplete sans marriage. Ownership becomes unclear - and you're giving something that may - or may not (in our culture, probably not) be his and which is not wholly yours to give. It belongs to the marital union - and your husband. There it is both yours and his - the complete union having full ownership.

Your second paragraph reasons totally from emotion - but God's laws usually have pragmatic reasons behind them. So let's look at it a completely different way. What right do you have to give your husband HPV or herpes? Both are extremely prevalent, one can be dangerous (HPV is linked to 13 forms of cancer) and the other both painful and difficult to deal with (herpes lesions are almost always painful and sometimes very painful).

Yes the body is beautiful and God intended that we enjoy it - with our spouse. With no third party involved at all (pre or post marriage) there is no risk of any STD. However, when you include a third party - even thinking at the time that he/she will someday be your mate (erroneously, obviously) you place yourself - and all of your subsequent partners at risk*. By what right do you do that? Because you wish to express your love physically to someone who hasn't yet proven that he/she will love you enough to commit to you? Isn't that again the height of selfishness?

The difference with sexuality is its inheirently shared nature. To be fully expressed there must be two people - a husband and a wife. Stepping outside that union breaks the trust within it - and that's true even pre because of the baggage you will be bringing into the union that would not have been there sans the premarital sex.

Because sexuality is shared, you can never truly own it yourself - you only bring half, incomplete and unexpressed. Only the union can achieve that full expression and only the union - the two of you together - can 'own' your full sexuality. Give part of your half away and you lose something irreplacable and invaluable.

_________________________________
*varies by disease - some resolve on their own, some don't. Some strains of HPV do; herpes doesn't. Of the ones that will resolve on their own, several can leave you sterile - and deny your husband his children with you.

Meh_Gerbil

May 16th 2006, 07:00 PM

What makes sex before marriage right?

Shadow Phoenix

May 16th 2006, 07:03 PM

It's total trust without that being earned through total commitment. The guy is saying, "Baby. I want you to take off your clothes and make yourself completely vulnerable before me, but can we wait on this marriage thing?" If you really love the guy and he really loves you, you'll be willing to wait. I'm not saying it'll always be easy. Of course, you're going to be tempted. It'll be worthwhile though.

Now you might say "I'm gonna marry him anyway", but you don't know that. I know someone who the day before his wedding, was in a car accident that killed his fiance and left him handicapped. What would he tell the next girl he dated if he ever did?

suffer for joy

May 17th 2006, 01:53 PM

First of all, as Christians, we don't stay away from sexual sin (or any sin) because of any literal judgment (STDs, pregnancy, etc.) Although it is true, it is evidence of the goodness of God's will, not reasons to follow it. We stay away from sin because we love God.

With that said, if God is against it, we should be as well.

sfj

Teallaura

May 17th 2006, 02:21 PM

Samurai Drifter

May 18th 2006, 04:24 AM

themuzicman

May 18th 2006, 08:05 AM

As theonomy mentioned, two people who have engaged in sex (under the Old Covenant) were instructed to marry and they could not divorce.

So, in a sense, one could see the sexual act as the initiator of a marital relationship.

Thus, if we take that perspective, and remember that God hates divorce, then pre-marital sex followed by a failure to honor the marital bond is sin.

Michael

Teallaura

May 18th 2006, 08:17 AM

Are you sure that premarital sex is mentioned in scripture? I know the word fornication carries the idea in our present time; but did it always? I know that prostitution is forbidden. But, when does God consider marriage to have taken place?

Um, fornication (http://www.bibletruths.net/Sermons/BTSO073.htm) can only take place outside the marriage bed - that would cover any sex with anyone who is not your spouse.

Marriage is a formal union - there's no evidence in Scripture that marriage is considered by God to have taken place at any time other that when the formal union is made. Although the illicit union creates a marital type relationship, it is not true marriage and is not recognized as a legitimate form of marriage anywhere in Scripture.

Griffs

May 18th 2006, 12:04 PM

The addition of "all the sexually immoral" would include other practices. They obviously aren't listed, but I think fornication would be included. You assume it would. Which is fine...we all read texts thru an interpretive lens.

Also, as Theonomy pointed out, honoring marriage would include keeping sexual exclusivity within the marriage context. To have sex outside of marriage, married or not, is dishonoring to marriage. I understand why adultery is immoral - as you have taken a vow to be with that one person forever. I fail to see how sex outside of marriage dishonors either my future self or my future spouse, though I suppose an argument can easily be made that things we do now may later cause pain or shame for someone. However, I don't know that I'm metaphysically altering the future, such that, say, I or my future spouse incurs some sort of metaphysical "shame" or "dishonor" ("guilt"?) that we otherwise did not have.

Both include natrual law? Really? How does THAT hermeneutic work? Well, that's one of the orthodox medieval views of natural law. Natural law is accessible to reason and is universally available and applicable (on Abelard's view, even to the pagans - gasp!). The divine positive laws are supposed to include the natural law (for it would make things really difficult if they contradicted what reason tells us to be true), plus have some added precepts that need to be divinely revealed, since they aren't knowable purely thru reflection. It's not really a very wacky hermeneutic...but it is medieval philosophy, which is always a trip! :wink:

Griffs

Griffs

May 18th 2006, 01:40 PM

Until the commitment is sealed (marriage) you have no way to know for certain that the current bf is going to be your husband. When you give your virginity to him, you're giving something that may - or may not - be his. You cannot at that point know which. So it's the epistemic uncertainty that makes it wrong. In other words, you have to be SURE...that is, you have to have knowledge, not just justified belief.

The union creates a new entity - the two become one. That entity has the moral ownership of the sexuality within it. That means that you own your husband's sexual expressions as he owns yours - you're together a single entity which hold ownership to both. Sans union, sexuality cannot be fully expressed. This talk of ownership is interesting. I never thought about sexuality as a matter of who owns whom, but rather of a mutual sharing, in which something is freely given - not because it's an obligation or duty, but because it's an expression of love. I don't think my spouse has rights over my body. Rather, I think that I should not commit adultery out of respect and love for him.

Your second paragraph reasons totally from emotion - but God's laws usually have pragmatic reasons behind them. I agree. And that's why I see many of the divine positive laws as not universally applicable. They are generally meant to protect human beings. I do not think that all of the commands in the Old or New Testaments are universal in application, nor that violating them necessarily means one has sinned. Now this is not a claim that premarital sex is right in all instances - far from it! My claim is a much weaker one, namely that not every instance of premarital sex is wrong.

So let's look at it a completely different way. What right do you have to give your husband HPV or herpes? Both are extremely prevalent, one can be dangerous (HPV is linked to 13 forms of cancer) and the other both painful and difficult to deal with (herpes lesions are almost always painful and sometimes very painful). Trust me, I know all about the dangers of STDs, which is why I think that one must be responsible. Education, access to proper birth control, and the like are seriously lacking in our country. Plus, I'm not promoting promiscuity here. I take sex very seriously, and I think that a failure to take (pre)marital sex seriously enough might be morally wrong (or at least morally irresponsible and therefore blameworthy).

However, I'm not sure what your argument is anymore. Are you claiming that premarital sex is wrong because the act itself is wrong, or that it simply might have bad consequences? I assume you're arguing both are the case. Now I'm not concerned with the consequentialist argument so much as I am about the intrinsic "badness" of the consent to the act itself. I think that generally premarital sex (if it is a sin) might be more of a sin against oneself, whereas adultery is sin against another person. Now I think you want to argue otherwise, right?

By what right do you do that? Because you wish to express your love physically to someone who hasn't yet proven that he/she will love you enough to commit to you? What constitutes "proof"? Actually taking the vows?

Isn't that again the height of selfishness? I do not deny that sexuality in general has a selfish component, insofar as it is physically and emotionally pleasing (or at least ought to be). Many things in life involve a degree of egoism (notice I didn't say 'egotism'), but I don't think that's always prideful or bad. I think that people who abstain from sex until marriage are to be commended, surely. But I don't think that certain people who have sex before marriage are automatically to be condemned for it, so long as there is love and commitment there, and both parties mutually recognize what it is they're engaging in. Sex (outside or inside of marriage) always involves risk because it is the human being at its most vulnerable - which is also why it's special.

Because sexuality is shared, you can never truly own it yourself - you only bring half, incomplete and unexpressed. Only the union can achieve that full expression and only the union - the two of you together - can 'own' your full sexuality. Give part of your half away and you lose something irreplacable and invaluable. Again, not happy with the talk of 'owning'. I also don't think sexuality is to be measured quantitatively. It's not like one has only so much sexuality, and when it turns out that one has had sex with more than one person in his/her lifetime, he/she "spends" or "loses" some of it. Surely we don't want to say that someone who's been widowed and remarries has failed his/her new spouse in some way because he/she can't bring his/her "full" sexuality to the table. No, one's spouse can still share "all" of the other person - and presumably will, if they truly love and respect one another. It's a qualitative thing, not quantitative.

Anyways, nice chattin' wit' ya. I go on vacation starting tomorrow, so I may be able to contribute here and there, but I may not. Though I'd love to see some more people take up my side of the discussion (even if emrely playing devil's advocate) - just to see some other opinions and responses. I find this discussion very interesting!

Griffs

elysian

May 18th 2006, 02:01 PM

spiritmech

May 18th 2006, 04:19 PM

I'd like to mention my support of the posters here who are explaining why one ought to avoid pre-marital sex. You guys are doing a good job. I wish I had waited, although at the time I was so messed up emotionally I was unable to trust God with my desires.

sm

Teallaura

May 18th 2006, 08:14 PM

So it's the epistemic uncertainty that makes it wrong. In other words, you have to be SURE...that is, you have to have knowledge, not just justified belief. In this case, as it is easily available, yes. If he's not married to you, he's not your husband - period. Will be is uncertain - is or is not is completely certain. Giving away someone else's car because you think the guy might buy it is wrong - so to is giving away your husband's right to a 'maybe'.

This talk of ownership is interesting. I never thought about sexuality as a matter of who owns whom, but rather of a mutual sharing, in which something is freely given - not because it's an obligation or duty, but because it's an expression of love. I don't think my spouse has rights over my body. Rather, I think that I should not commit adultery out of respect and love for him. The Apostle Paul and Scripture disagree (1 Cor. 7:4). How exactly do you give something that you have no ownership of? You've either stolen it from elsewhere (an absurdity in this case) or it is in fact yours. Similarly, you can't share something you haven't got - and possession in this case translates to ownership.

Think before you leap here - if you argue from no ownership, then ownership reverts to God, from Whom sexuality came. If it belongs to God He has every right to dictate how it is used. Since He has forbidden any sexual activity outside the marriage bed, you are breaking faith with Him by having pre-marital sex*.

I agree. And that's why I see many of the divine positive laws as not universally applicable. They are generally meant to protect human beings. I do not think that all of the commands in the Old or New Testaments are universal in application, nor that violating them necessarily means one has sinned. Now this is not a claim that premarital sex is right in all instances - far from it! My claim is a much weaker one, namely that not every instance of premarital sex is wrong. You're pretty much admitting defeat here. There are reasons some OT laws are not observed (those being the Ceremonial Laws) and why others still very much are (those being the Moral Laws). You've obviously not considered this from Scripture very well at all - the NT echos the OT on this point and in fact has some even stronger admonitions (notably re: divorce).

How do you know which laws are applicable and which not? Careful, you're about to argue that something Jesus condemned (fornication) is not a universal. Given Jesus' stance on divorce and His sole exception made for fornication, it's obviously a very serious offense. Nowhere does Scripture condone sex outside of marriage in the slightest so you're starting an uphill battle to try and limit Jesus' remarks there.

As to your claim - it's not weaker, it's pure suppostion. You don't even have an inferential case at this point. There's no way that I can see to argue that from Scripture except by simply ignoring Scripture. Justifying one's actions by ignoring the law is no justification at all.

Trust me, I know all about the dangers of STDs, which is why I think that one must be responsible. Education, access to proper birth control, and the like are seriously lacking in our country. Plus, I'm not promoting promiscuity here. I take sex very seriously, and I think that a failure to take (pre)marital sex seriously enough might be morally wrong (or at least morally irresponsible and therefore blameworthy). You don't have to be 'promiscuious' in any extreme sense of the term (in my profession, we consider a person at greater risk if they've had more than one sex partner) to be at risk for HPV. Some of the strains of that one don't resolve - they're there for life. Its prevalence is unknown (not reportable) but is believed to be higher than herpes, which is thought to be 1:4. Unless you are starting from mutual virginity (which is unlikely - and if so, why not wait?) you are at risk for HPV (No, condoms are not adequate protection as only one study showed any protection from HPV at all).

Now, answer the question you dodged - by what right to you expose your future husband (or any partner) to that risk?

However, I'm not sure what your argument is anymore. Are you claiming that premarital sex is wrong because the act itself is wrong, or that it simply might have bad consequences? I assume you're arguing both are the case. Now I'm not concerned with the consequentialist argument so much as I am about the intrinsic "badness" of the consent to the act itself. I think that generally premarital sex (if it is a sin) might be more of a sin against oneself, whereas adultery is sin against another person. Now I think you want to argue otherwise, right?Wrong - it's merely a supporting rationale. The moral wrong is because it is a clear violation of God's Law. It makes no difference if you think speed limit laws are just or not - if you violate one you have in fact committed a crime (here a minor offense). Congrats - you're a law breaker.

I was always arguing otherwise - I'm not sure why that comes as a surprise. And yes, additional offense does occur against the husband. Your concept of a sin against oneself is rather vague - and incorrect. All sin is against God - there's no such thing as a sin which is only against oneself or another human being.

What constitutes "proof"? Actually taking the vows? Bingo.

I do not deny that sexuality in general has a selfish component, insofar as it is physically and emotionally pleasing (or at least ought to be). Many things in life involve a degree of egoism (notice I didn't say 'egotism'), but I don't think that's always prideful or bad.Um, so what? How does that answer the issue of selfishness? It's way off the mark - pleasure is not inherently selfish. Selfishness is marked by placing concern for one's own welfare/desires over those of any other in such a manner as to be unfair to the other. What you're talking about here has nothing to do with selfishness, but self interest. They aren't the same.

I think that people who abstain from sex until marriage are to be commended, surely. On what basis? You're arguing inconsistently here - either the laws re: fornication (pre-marital sex) apply or they don't. Are you really trying to argue selective application on a moral law?

But I don't think that certain people who have sex before marriage are automatically to be condemned for it, so long as there is love and commitment there, and both parties mutually recognize what it is they're engaging in. Sex (outside or inside of marriage) always involves risk because it is the human being at its most vulnerable - which is also why it's special.Again, what's your basis, beyond emotion? You're straying way off the mark here - your initial question was in regards to the morality. Morals, contrary to popular (and stupid) opinion, are not 'what feels right to me'. That line of reason leads to absolute chaos - not everyone has a conscience, sad to say.

You're now appealing to emotion and your own personal values. Those values cannot be the basis for determining actual right and wrong - you'd be arguing that things were or were not right based on what you think/believe/feel with no one else considered, or you're arguing moral relativism, which is nonsense.

Again, not happy with the talk of 'owning'.Take it up with Paul - and besides, that was what you asked me about.

I also don't think sexuality is to be measured quantitatively. It's not like one has only so much sexuality, and when it turns out that one has had sex with more than one person in his/her lifetime, he/she "spends" or "loses" some of it. You can regain your virginity? How about the experience of first having sex and learning about it? There is a quantitative component.

Surely we don't want to say that someone who's been widowed and remarries has failed his/her new spouse in some way because he/she can't bring his/her "full" sexuality to the table. No, one's spouse can still share "all" of the other person - and presumably will, if they truly love and respect one another. It's a qualitative thing, not quantitative. It's both. He/she can bring the fullness of what they have - but they cannot bring what they do not have. You can only give your virginity once, regardless of how many times you legitimately marry.

Anyways, nice chattin' wit' ya. I go on vacation starting tomorrow, so I may be able to contribute here and there, but I may not. Though I'd love to see some more people take up my side of the discussion (even if emrely playing devil's advocate) - just to see some other opinions and responses. I find this discussion very interesting!

Griffs
I don't think you will - your's isn't a very Scriptural approach and few of the Christians around here would argue that way (although there may be a couple).

Have a nice vacation. See ya when ya get back! :bye:

____________________________________
*Technically, God retains ownership of everything - no where in Scripture does He make Man anything more than a steward - so in actuallity, you are breaking faith with God when you have extramarital sex of any kind.

Samurai Drifter

May 20th 2006, 06:58 PM

Um, fornication (http://www.bibletruths.net/Sermons/BTSO073.htm) can only take place outside the marriage bed - that would cover any sex with anyone who is not your spouse.

I know that is what the (or, one of the) definitions will be when you open a modern dictionary. My question is, is that what the scripture conveys? Since these are God's words, one must work by God's definitions, true? What I do know is that fornication is derived from fornix which was the flame-construct property belonging to brothels, and from which the brothel was called. I also know that the Greek word from which fornication is translated comes from pornos which means to sell from which the word porne meaning prostitute.

To me, the question isn't "does the scripture condemn fornication"? but "what does the scripture mean by 'fornication'"?

Marriage is a formal union - there's no evidence in Scripture that marriage is considered by God to have taken place at any time other that when the formal union is made. Although the illicit union creates a marital type relationship, it is not true marriage and is not recognized as a legitimate form of marriage anywhere in Scripture.

Not even in the case of Adam and Eve? The question is, when does marriage take place in the eyes of God- according to scripture?

Teallaura

May 20th 2006, 07:52 PM

I know that is what the (or, one of the) definitions will be when you open a modern dictionary. My question is, is that what the scripture conveys? Since these are God's words, one must work by God's definitions, true? What I do know is that fornication is derived from fornix which was the flame-construct property belonging to brothels, and from which the brothel was called. I also know that the Greek word from which fornication is translated comes from pornos which means to sell from which the word porne meaning prostitute.

To me, the question isn't "does the scripture condemn fornication"? but "what does the scripture mean by 'fornication'"?Didn't look at the link, did you? The Scriptural meaning is consistant with the modern.

There's simply nothing in Scripture to indicate that fornication is anything other than sex outside the marriage bed, in whatever permutation.

Not even in the case of Adam and Eve? The question is, when does marriage take place in the eyes of God- according to scripture?Um, how much more formal can you get than having the Lord God Himself officiating? God pronounces you husband and wife then boy are you ever husband and wife!

In Scripture there's no evidence that marriage is anything less than the formal union - and evidently (judging by Mary and Joesph) the completed formalities are the start point.

James Peter

May 20th 2006, 08:17 PM

Didn't look at the link, did you? The Scriptural meaning is consistant with the modern.

Except it really, really isn't. The question of what porneia is or isn't is absolutely central to this debate. What porneia certainly isn't is just 'fornication'. Originally it is prostitution, usually in the context of temple prostitution (which is why 'sexual immorality' is often associated with idolatory). With time it grew to take on a more general meaning of 'sexual wrongdoing' but even then it leaves the very real question of what exactly Paul was condemning when he used the word. Every sexual act that breached the levitical laws? Just what his gentile readers would have considered wrong? I don't have time now to go into detail but porneia was a staple of greek 'vice lists', which are generally very close to the lists that Paul writes, and in the context of those lists the meaning of porneia is very much not 'premarital sex'.

Teallaura

May 20th 2006, 09:06 PM

Except it really, really isn't. The question of what porneia is or isn't is absolutely central to this debate. What porneia certainly isn't is just 'fornication'. Originally it is prostitution, usually in the context of temple prostitution (which is why 'sexual immorality' is often associated with idolatory). With time it grew to take on a more general meaning of 'sexual wrongdoing' but even then it leaves the very real question of what exactly Paul was condemning when he used the word. Every sexual act that breached the levitical laws? Just what his gentile readers would have considered wrong? I don't have time now to go into detail but porneia was a staple of greek 'vice lists', which are generally very close to the lists that Paul writes, and in the context of those lists the meaning of porneia is very much not 'premarital sex'.

You're arguing that divorce is only permissible if the wife becomes a prostitute? :hrm:

Here, since no one bothered to look:

I. The biblical meaning of fornication

A. The Greek word translated "fornication" is porneia. Porneia is found 26 times in the Greek New Testament.

a. W. E. Vine states porneia (fornication) "is used of illicit sexual intercourse…." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

b. Henry Thayer defines "fornication" as "illicit sexual intercourse in general…distinguished from adultery (moicheia) in Matt. 15: 19…used of adultery…in Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, pg. 532).

c. The granddaddy Greek work says of fornication, "The N. T. is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse" (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 6, pg. 590).

Source (http://www.bibletruths.net/Sermons/BTSO073.htm)

James Peter

May 21st 2006, 08:43 AM

You're arguing that divorce is only permissible if the wife becomes a prostitute? :hrm:

No, I'm saying that, like any other word, porneia has different meanings depending on its context. Does Elohim always mean God? No, there are places where clearly it means 'gods' and there are places where clearly it means 'God'. Does kai always mean 'and'? No, there are places where it clearly means 'but'. The meaning of a word is determined by its context (both within the text and also the wider context of who is writing and to whom).

Come on, even Strongs acknowledges that the primary meaning of the word is harlotry. I'm not saying that is the primary meaning but it is certainly the root meaning. Also saying that the only grounds to divorce a woman is if she engages in sacred prostitution isn't such a strange thing culturally. As 'normal' adultery would lead to the death of the woman (under both Jewish and Roman law, assuming the woman was of the correct social status) being able to divorce a corpse is quite irrelevant. The interplay between porneias and moichasthai in Matthew 5 is worth looking at in a lot more detail than I have time for but the conclusions reached about the meaning here don't 'carry over' to every other instance of porneia.

Porneia is, in the NT context, 'sexual wrongness'. So to say 'sexual wrongness is bad' isn't exactly surprising, or specific. In fact the statement doesn't really mean very much at all. It still leaves you having to decide how to determine which acts are wrong. The three main options for that are (1) 'acts that are prohibited by the Torah' (a very viable possibility although it does have some flaws when dealing with gentiles who didn't have access or awareness of the Torah!), (2) a greco-roman understanding of the term, which would leave things like a male having sex with his slaves as being permissable (which is probably how many gentiles would have understood Paul but is not necessarily what he meant; it would also not be a universal standard and we couldn't accurately reconstruct the standard either) or (3) to understand it as meaning that we should not act in a way that our culture considers immoral (So it is prohibited not because it offends God but rather because it causes disapproval of the church, and thus God, by the world. Paul is actually quite concerned about the image of the church so this isn't as far fetched as it sounds although this has at least as many flaws as the other possibilities).

Some combination of (1) and (2) is also possible, the Torah didn't set the same standards for Jews and Gentiles and so proto-Noahide standards could be in view. There was almost certainly at least one section of the early church who took this position (as per the 'Apostolic Council' of Acts 15).

So whats my conclusion? It is impossible to be certain what is porneia and what is not. So what is the sensible thing to do? To be cautious. If you remain 'pure' and don't have sex (and that includes oral, anal etc.) then you aren't doing anything wrong. Have sex and you very well might be, but the matter is between your conscience and God. If you are confident that it is acceptable then, if it doesn't detrimentally effect your brothers, you are free to do it. If it does effect them, and I'm sure this is at least as much of an issue as eating food sacrificed to idols was, then for their sakes you should surrender your freedom.

Keepupthefire

May 21st 2006, 10:02 AM

Can you give me the passage(s)? (Just not sure where it is in the Bible.) Also, are there any exceptions to Biblical prohibitions? If the Bible anywhere prohibits something, are we bound to that?

Griffs

I also remembered that Matthew 1:18-19 talks about Joseph a just man was not willing to make her(Mary) a public example an decided to put her away prively. Now that says alot about what the people knew was wrong. It would have shamed her.

emiliano

May 21st 2006, 10:23 AM

Teallaura

May 21st 2006, 11:13 AM

No, I'm saying that, like any other word, porneia has different meanings depending on its context. Does Elohim always mean God? No, there are places where clearly it means 'gods' and there are places where clearly it means 'God'. Does kai always mean 'and'? No, there are places where it clearly means 'but'. The meaning of a word is determined by its context (both within the text and also the wider context of who is writing and to whom).

Come on, even Strongs acknowledges that the primary meaning of the word is harlotry. I'm not saying that is the primary meaning but it is certainly the root meaning. Also saying that the only grounds to divorce a woman is if she engages in sacred prostitution isn't such a strange thing culturally. As 'normal' adultery would lead to the death of the woman (under both Jewish and Roman law, assuming the woman was of the correct social status) being able to divorce a corpse is quite irrelevant. The interplay between porneias and moichasthai in Matthew 5 is worth looking at in a lot more detail than I have time for but the conclusions reached about the meaning here don't 'carry over' to every other instance of porneia.

Porneia is, in the NT context, 'sexual wrongness'. So to say 'sexual wrongness is bad' isn't exactly surprising, or specific. In fact the statement doesn't really mean very much at all. It still leaves you having to decide how to determine which acts are wrong. The three main options for that are (1) 'acts that are prohibited by the Torah' (a very viable possibility although it does have some flaws when dealing with gentiles who didn't have access or awareness of the Torah!), (2) a greco-roman understanding of the term, which would leave things like a male having sex with his slaves as being permissable (which is probably how many gentiles would have understood Paul but is not necessarily what he meant; it would also not be a universal standard and we couldn't accurately reconstruct the standard either) or (3) to understand it as meaning that we should not act in a way that our culture considers immoral (So it is prohibited not because it offends God but rather because it causes disapproval of the church, and thus God, by the world. Paul is actually quite concerned about the image of the church so this isn't as far fetched as it sounds although this has at least as many flaws as the other possibilities).

Some combination of (1) and (2) is also possible, the Torah didn't set the same standards for Jews and Gentiles and so proto-Noahide standards could be in view. There was almost certainly at least one section of the early church who took this position (as per the 'Apostolic Council' of Acts 15).

So whats my conclusion? It is impossible to be certain what is porneia and what is not. So what is the sensible thing to do? To be cautious. If you remain 'pure' and don't have sex (and that includes oral, anal etc.) then you aren't doing anything wrong. Have sex and you very well might be, but the matter is between your conscience and God. If you are confident that it is acceptable then, if it doesn't detrimentally effect your brothers, you are free to do it. If it does effect them, and I'm sure this is at least as much of an issue as eating food sacrificed to idols was, then for their sakes you should surrender your freedom.

You're arguing from silence - and it isn't even a good argument.

The term is not primarily prostitution. And there references in Scripture are pretty danged clear that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Only the marriage bed is undefiled. Look at Paul's descriptions of marriage - especially of men - if sex outside marriage is permissible, then why does he say they should marry rather than burn with lust? There's an obvious solution to that problem - if fornicatin truly is as ambiguous as you say. None of the sources I've looked at - or asked - agree with your interpretation, by the way.

Where Scripture isn't definitive, I agree regarding freedom. But Scripture is very clear on the issue - no where is sex outside marriage condoned. To make this case you need more than a supposed ambiguity in the word (again, I don't think you've shown it exists), you need to show ambiguity in Scripture itself - and it simply isn't there.

Counterpoint to your reference to Strong's (http://www.yrm.org/qna-fornication.htm)

The third word signifying fornication is found in the Greek and is first used in Matthew 5:32. This word derives from the Greek word, No. 4202, porneia and is defined in the Strong’s as follows, "from 4203; harlotry (incl. Adultery and incest); fig. Idolatry: - fornication."

Again, we only find a broad definition for this Greek word, "porneia." Porneia is used 32 times in the New Testament and conveys many different definitions.

For example, the word fornication in Matthew 5:32 is often taken to denote an act of adultery, however an in-depth study will prove this understanding false, and confirm the real usage of this Greek word "porneia" in this particular passage, which is fornication, pre-material sex.

In the fifth chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul admonishes the Corinthian assembly to remove the sin that they were allowing in the assembly. One of the sins listed by the Apostle was a gentile committing "fornication" with his father’s wife. Now this is not what we consider fornication, but more accurately this signifies incest with his stepmother.

Trying to pinpoint this word without examining the passage in question is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Fornication in either the Hebrew or Greek can have and denote a wide range of definitions. It can mean literal fornication, adultery, harlotry, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or any other sexual restriction that Yahweh has placed for mankind to observe.

James Peter

May 21st 2006, 02:49 PM

You're arguing from silence - and it isn't even a good argument.

I'm not arguing from silence, I'm just too lazy to type compile and type out a list of the many occurances from contemporary greek sources where porneia occures. I didn't think I actually needed to present an argument to demonstrate that words have different nuances and meanings in different contexts. Its true in every language, it isn't something that is restricted to koine greek.

The term is not primarily prostitution. And there references in Scripture are pretty danged clear that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Only the marriage bed is undefiled. Look at Paul's descriptions of marriage - especially of men - if sex outside marriage is permissible, then why does he say they should marry rather than burn with lust? There's an obvious solution to that problem - if fornicatin truly is as ambiguous as you say. None of the sources I've looked at - or asked - agree with your interpretation, by the way.

The try looking at some sources that aren't written by evangelical christians but are written by scholars of the first century. I don't have that many Pauline commentaries on my shelf at the moment (the library only lets me steal so many books at a time and I have thematic books mostly at the moment) but I do have a couple on Colossians which contains a vice list. Yep, Col 3:5 includes Porneia. Lets see what Dunn and Pokorny have to say about it...

Porneia originally denoted relations with a prostitute (porne), but probably covers the whole range of unlawful sexual intercourse ... is linked with idolatory in the first list in the so-called "apostolic decree" ... underscoring its importance for the Gentile mission as carried out by Jews and its correlation with idolatory in Jewish eyes ... In Rev 2:21 the link between porneia and idolatory is again a major concern.

Fornication (porneia) designates prostitution or incest; since OT times it also was a term used for idolatry. Paul sees in it an expression of the superhuman power threatening the church. Eros is characterised in the same way both in Pseudo-Phocylides and in Qumran. Jewish tradition links fornication with covetousness.

So, two randomly chosen (i.e. the ones that I hadn't taken back to the library yet) commentaries from the respected scholars in the last 20 years both of whom say pretty much what I've been saying. You can keep your online articles, I prefer peer-reveiwed books and articles.

Where Scripture isn't definitive, I agree regarding freedom. But Scripture is very clear on the issue - no where is sex outside marriage condoned. To make this case you need more than a supposed ambiguity in the word (again, I don't think you've shown it exists), you need to show ambiguity in Scripture itself - and it simply isn't there.

The NT is only unambiguous when you make certain assumptions about what words mean. Yes, porneia is condemned across scripture but as I said that is pretty much begging the question because porneia is almost wrong by definition. The OT has plenty of examples where polygamy and sex with slaves or concubines is not condemned though. Take the example of David, he was condemned for sleeping with another man's wife (which is adultery) but not for having multiple wives or concubines. Similarly the Teacher in Ecclesiastes is very promiscuous and although he concludes that it doesn't lead to fulfilment it isn't condemned as being sinful. Or look at the Patriarchs...

How about Leviticus 18:6-20? Isn't the list rather pointless if anything except sex with your wife is wrong? Doesn't the list imply that, as long as the woman is not married to somebody else or is related to you or your spouse, it is ok to 'uncover their nakedness' (as the ESV puts it).

Ezekiel 18, another great 'early' list of the grave sins. Defiling your neighbour's wife (adultery) is there, as is approaching a woman who is menstrually impure (which most of us would not say was wrong as long as she is your wife, right?) but 'fornication' is absent.

The OT isn't as clear as we'd like (yes, I am playing devil's advocate, somebody has to). Adultery is clearly wrong, violating another man's property (be they wife, child or slave) is clearly wrong but consensual sex between equals isn't actually mentioned.

Counterpoint to your reference to Strong's (http://www.yrm.org/qna-fornication.htm)

I wasn't actually using Strong's as a source, my point was even the dated and conservative Strong's admits it. BDAG, Middle Liddel and LSJ are sources I'd actually cite to support my case. The linguistic root of the word is prostitution, that is its original meaning. As I said, it came to also include other forms of sexual misdeed but at no point did it mean just pre-marital sex, pre-marital sex is never the exclusive meaning of porneia (as in the case of Matthew 5 where adultery, rather than fornication, is most likely in view).

Again, we only find a broad definition for this Greek word, "porneia." Porneia is used 32 times in the New Testament and conveys many different definitions.

Which I think you'll find is exactly my point...

For example, the word fornication in Matthew 5:32 is often taken to denote an act of adultery, however an in-depth study will prove this understanding false, and confirm the real usage of this Greek word "porneia" in this particular passage, which is fornication, pre-material sex.

Maybe, maybe not. It can be argued both ways. Neither argument is conclusive, some form of sexual act is being spoken about but we cannot be 100% certain what it is.

In the fifth chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul admonishes the Corinthian assembly to remove the sin that they were allowing in the assembly. One of the sins listed by the Apostle was a gentile committing "fornication" with his father’s wife. Now this is not what we consider fornication, but more accurately this signifies incest with his stepmother.

Yep, another case of porneia clearly not meaning pre-marital sex. I thought you were arguing against my position...

Trying to pinpoint this word without examining the passage in question is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Fornication in either the Hebrew or Greek can have and denote a wide range of definitions. It can mean literal fornication, adultery, harlotry, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or any other sexual restriction that Yahweh has placed for mankind to observe.

[/BOX]

Yep, it can mean any of those or more things beside. It certainly doesn't always mean all of them though. Which one verse would you say has to mean pre-marital sex? Choose your strongest case and we can focus on that.

A Cup of No

May 21st 2006, 04:41 PM

I'm very confused. So are you saying that pre-marital sex can initiate a marriage relationship, and if someone has sex out of wedlock, they should never have sex with anyone else or they should marry that person?

James Peter

May 21st 2006, 06:42 PM

Who is that question aimed at?

anthrogirl

May 21st 2006, 08:03 PM

I'm not arguing from silence, I'm just too lazy to type compile and type out a list of the many occurances from contemporary greek sources where porneia occures. I didn't think I actually needed to present an argument to demonstrate that words have different nuances and meanings in different contexts. Its true in every language, it isn't something that is restricted to koine greek.

The try looking at some sources that aren't written by evangelical christians but are written by scholars of the first century. I don't have that many Pauline commentaries on my shelf at the moment (the library only lets me steal so many books at a time and I have thematic books mostly at the moment) but I do have a couple on Colossians which contains a vice list. Yep, Col 3:5 includes Porneia. Lets see what Dunn and Pokorny have to say about it...

Porneia originally denoted relations with a prostitute (porne), but probably covers the whole range of unlawful sexual intercourse ... is linked with idolatory in the first list in the so-called "apostolic decree" ... underscoring its importance for the Gentile mission as carried out by Jews and its correlation with idolatory in Jewish eyes ... In Rev 2:21 the link between porneia and idolatory is again a major concern.

Fornication (porneia) designates prostitution or incest; since OT times it also was a term used for idolatry. Paul sees in it an expression of the superhuman power threatening the church. Eros is characterised in the same way both in Pseudo-Phocylides and in Qumran. Jewish tradition links fornication with covetousness.

So, two randomly chosen (i.e. the ones that I hadn't taken back to the library yet) commentaries from the respected scholars in the last 20 years both of whom say pretty much what I've been saying. You can keep your online articles, I prefer peer-reveiwed books and articles.

The NT is only unambiguous when you make certain assumptions about what words mean. Yes, porneia is condemned across scripture but as I said that is pretty much begging the question because porneia is almost wrong by definition. The OT has plenty of examples where polygamy and sex with slaves or concubines is not condemned though. Take the example of David, he was condemned for sleeping with another man's wife (which is adultery) but not for having multiple wives or concubines. Similarly the Teacher in Ecclesiastes is very promiscuous and although he concludes that it doesn't lead to fulfilment it isn't condemned as being sinful. Or look at the Patriarchs...

How about Leviticus 18:6-20? Isn't the list rather pointless if anything except sex with your wife is wrong? Doesn't the list imply that, as long as the woman is not married to somebody else or is related to you or your spouse, it is ok to 'uncover their nakedness' (as the ESV puts it).

Ezekiel 18, another great 'early' list of the grave sins. Defiling your neighbour's wife (adultery) is there, as is approaching a woman who is menstrually impure (which most of us would not say was wrong as long as she is your wife, right?) but 'fornication' is absent.

The OT isn't as clear as we'd like (yes, I am playing devil's advocate, somebody has to). Adultery is clearly wrong, violating another man's property (be they wife, child or slave) is clearly wrong but consensual sex between equals isn't actually mentioned.

I wasn't actually using Strong's as a source, my point was even the dated and conservative Strong's admits it. BDAG, Middle Liddel and LSJ are sources I'd actually cite to support my case. The linguistic root of the word is prostitution, that is its original meaning. As I said, it came to also include other forms of sexual misdeed but at no point did it mean just pre-marital sex, pre-marital sex is never the exclusive meaning of porneia (as in the case of Matthew 5 where adultery, rather than fornication, is most likely in view).

Which I think you'll find is exactly my point...

Maybe, maybe not. It can be argued both ways. Neither argument is conclusive, some form of sexual act is being spoken about but we cannot be 100% certain what it is.

Yep, another case of porneia clearly not meaning pre-marital sex. I thought you were arguing against my position...

Yep, it can mean any of those or more things beside. It certainly doesn't always mean all of them though. Which one verse would you say has to mean pre-marital sex? Choose your strongest case and we can focus on that.

JP,

great post--thanks for being so reasonable!

pearls!

ag

Teallaura

May 21st 2006, 09:09 PM

A Cup of No

May 21st 2006, 10:14 PM

Who is that question aimed at?

Mostly directed at Muz's post, but I'm open to responses from anyone.

James Peter

May 22nd 2006, 02:34 AM

Okay, whoa - what exactly are you trying to argue now? This reverses your earlier position that porneia had a fairly solid meaning (prostitution). You aren't making sense - if the word can mean a number of things, where's the logic in assuming any one meaning is not meant, sans a passage that so specifies?

Look at my very first post in the thread:

What porneia certainly isn't is just 'fornication'. Originally it is prostitution, usually in the context of temple prostitution (which is why 'sexual immorality' is often associated with idolatory). With time it grew to take on a more general meaning of 'sexual wrongdoing' but even then it leaves the very real question of what exactly Paul was condemning when he used the word.

Originally it meant just prostitution, then it meant any form of sexual wrongdoing; if it means a single, specific act then it is speaking of prostitution, if it is being used in the general sense then something specific to say that pre-marital sex is being referred to is needed because, like today, many greeks wouldn't have viewed pre-marital sex (for a man) as wrong.

What disturbs me is your appeal to Christian liberty earlier. The kind of misunderstanding/different interpretation depends on sincerity. If the misunderstanding is genuine, then no sin occurs. If, however, it is merely an interpretation of convenience, the sin remains. It's a crucial distinction.

My position is that it is possible to conclude that neither Paul nor Jesus condemn pre-marital sex. Every instance where it is assumed that this is meant can actually be speaking of something else. The issues touches strongly on the question of what role the Torah plays in the life of a christian, something on which there is obvious divergence in the early church. Furthermore as we reject the entire basis of the prohibitions on sex outside marriage, that is that it violates a man's property and devalues it, it is quite reasonable and consistent to also reject the prohibition (assuming they are blanket prohibitions). The reason why pre-marital sex was generally looked down upon in the ancient Levant is that it devalued property; it was like stealing somebody's cow and cutting its legs off (:lol:). Is such a worldview really tenable today? Is it merely compromising with the world to say that women are not the property of either their father or husband but rather are equals to men? Or is such a compromise justified? If it is then that has consequences and potentially this is one of them.

It's not an obvious, nor I think valid, interpretation to say that fornication refers to 'sexual immorality' but somehow excludes pre-matiral sex. Fornication in Scripture refers primarily to sex outside marriage with the marital status of the partner being irrelevant (it has been used to refer to adultery as well - which I mentioned in passing earlier).

No, since maybe the fourth century various passages of scripture have been read that way as the Church became increasingly prudish. That assumption really isn't inherent in the text, it is merely one of interpretation. Blame Augustine for that mostly. You need more than just the occurance of the word porneia to be able to say that premarital sex (rather than prostitution or incest, that is the types of sexual relationships which Leviticus 18 does explicitly mention) is being condemned. So, I'm not saying that the case cannot be made but the occurance of porneia alone isn't sufficient for it. Either choose a specific verse where porneia has to be what Paul is condemning or start to use other evidence to support your case. This thread is about explaining why pre-marital sex is wrong, so lets see if I can prod you into building a strong argument rather than a weak one.

It's not an esoteric consideration. While not an issue of salvation, it is one of correct teaching. Teaching that pre-marital sex is okay if you think porneia didn't mean pre-marital sex is highly questionable. Is that what you are really saying?[/QUOTE]

Dr. Jack Bauer

May 22nd 2006, 04:13 AM

Look at my very first post in the thread:

Originally it meant just prostitution, then it meant any form of sexual wrongdoing; if it means a single, specific act then it is speaking of prostitution, if it is being used in the general sense then something specific to say that pre-marital sex is being referred to is needed because, like today, many greeks wouldn't have viewed pre-marital sex (for a man) as wrong.You started out by saying that "riginally" it meant temple prostitution.

Much hangs on what you mean by "originally." Are you saying that when the word first appears in Scripture, that is, in the Septuagint, it has this meaning? If you are will show this to be false, but first I want to know if that's what your're claiming.

Are you saying that when the word was first invented, that's what it referred to? if so, just how relevant is that? Aren't we more interested in what it means when it is used in the Bible?
My position is that it is possible to conclude that neither Paul nor Jesus condemn pre-marital sex. Every instance where it is assumed that this is meant can actually be speaking of something else. The issues touches strongly on the question of what role the Torah plays in the life of a christian, something on which there is obvious divergence in the early church.The issue is more than that. I do not grant that the New Testament is silent on sex outside of marriage, but even if it were, what you're suggesting is methodological untenable, as it rests entirely on silence. Do you grant that the Torah required people who had sex to become married? If you infer an abrogation of that sexual principle on the basis of silence, on what basis do you do so? On silence alone?
Furthermore as we reject the entire basis of the prohibitions on sex outside marriage, that is that it violates a man's property and devalues it, it is quite reasonable and consistent to also reject the prohibition (assuming they are blanket prohibitions). The reason why pre-marital sex was generally looked down upon in the ancient Levant is that it devalued property; it was like stealing somebody's cow and cutting its legs off (:lol:).Can you offer an argument, and here I mean an exegetical argument, for the conclusion that this is the only reason laws against sex outside of marriage existed?

Theo

semmie

May 22nd 2006, 04:53 AM

...it was like stealing somebody's cow and cutting its legs off (:lol:).
that's not very nice. :uneasy:

James Peter

May 22nd 2006, 02:53 PM

You started out by saying that "riginally" it meant temple prostitution.

Much hangs on what you mean by "originally." Are you saying that when the word first appears in Scripture, that is, in the Septuagint, it has this meaning? If you are will show this to be false, but first I want to know if that's what your're claiming.

Are you saying that when the word was first invented, that's what it referred to? if so, just how relevant is that? Aren't we more interested in what it [means when it is used in the Bible?

Originally means the root of the word; what it first meant. What verb it is associated with and what image it would give tothe people that Paul was writing to. The problem with saying 'Well the first time it appears in Scripture it means X thus it must mean X here' is that it doesn't allow for the fact that language is dynamic. Remember many people that Paul was writing to would not have been familiar with the LXX. Their entire city might not even be able to muster a complete set of texts. They would have heard extracts, perhaps, but that is all. A gentile in Galatia, Corinth or Collosae would be much more familiar with the everyday usage of the term than with the usage within the LXX. The LXX has a contribution to make but ultimately it is a translation, and not always a perfect one. Certainly it had a strong influence on hellenistic Jews and so the meaning of the term within the LXX should be examined but only whilst remembering that different texts by different authors in different places and at different times use words differently.

The issue is more than that. I do not grant that the New Testament is silent on sex outside of marriage, but even if it were, what you're suggesting is methodological untenable, as it rests entirely on silence. Do you grant that the Torah required people who had sex to become married? If you infer an abrogation of that sexual principle on the basis of silence, on what basis do you do so? On silence alone?
Can you offer an argument, and here I mean an exegetical argument, for the conclusion that this is the only reason laws against sex outside of marriage existed?

No it didn't require it. Abraham didn't have to take Haggai as his wife did he? Solomon had many wives and many concubines, there was a clear distinction between the two groups and yet he had sex with both of them. And this is the guy who was meant to be full of Godly wisdom - you'd have thought he would have known it was wrong if it was yet there is nothing to indicate this is the case.

How about in Exodus 22:16-17 where we hear what is to happen when a man seduces a virgin. Are they automatically married? No. The man has to give the bride-price to the father and the father can choose either to let him take her as his wife or not. This passage is a perfect illustration of my earlier point that the issue in the OT is largely (not exclusively) one of property rights. The passage is at the end of a section concerning violations of property rights and it clearly doesn't belong to the following section so it would seem reasonable to conclude that it is considered a property violation. The law makes perfect sense when read in this light and doing so is consistent with the cultural context of the passage, so yes that is actually an exegetical argument (exegesis involves examing the social and historical context). Obviously the case is strengthened when we look at maybe a half dozen other passages that also suggest the same thing but even in isolation this law seems to be more concerned with the virgin's father's financial loss than with offending God.

And stop saying I'm making an argument from silence. I've demonstrated that porneia often doesn't mean pre-marital sex and have asked for a single passage where you believe pre-marital sex is being clearly prohibited so that we can look at it in detail (I could just choose a passage but I want you to choose the one you think is strongest so you can't afterwards claim that other passages support your position and I just chose one that didn't). I've demonstrated how in several passages pre-marital sex clearly isn't meant and I've questioned the basis of the OT laws regarding sex and suggested that the issue there is not a moral one but rather is what most people would describe as part of the 'ceremonial law'.

Come on, give me a single passage that you think supports your view. Just one, two at most; I don't have time to do 29 bits of exegesis right on top of all my exams. You can even choose a passage from the LXX if you want to (but doing so would be conceding that the NT does not make it clear in isolation) but be warned I will compare the LXX to the MT and the passage will have to be clearly speaking of pre-marital sex as being morally wrong in both cases. You say I'm arguing from silence but you're the one who is saying "Well porneia might mean pre-marital sex so pre-marital sex has to be wrong!" Surely the position has to be that unless something is explicitly condemned it is considered acceptable unless reason dictates that it is not? One passage that clearly prohibits pre-marital sex, thats all you need to provide.

Wisdomlover

May 24th 2006, 03:10 AM

From a Christian point of view: God's word states to marry to avoid sexual sin. Sex is not just a physical and/or emotional thing alone, it is also spiritual.In God's sight the joining of two flesh, makes one in his sight. God's word also points out that sexual sin is the worst sin you can commit against your own body.

Personally, I think that your body should be a NEW gift, not a multi-re-gifted one.
I was one who did not save my virginity for marriage and felt I was having fun. Older and wiser now, I think I was pretty stupid to take such chances.I think since sex can lead to life altering things...babies ect that one should be partnered in marriage to take on unplanned pregnancies. Maybe if everyone saved themselves for sex only in marriage that there would be a HUGE decrease in abortions. So thousands of abortions due just from premarital sex
is also what's so wrong with premartial sex in my opinion.

Wisdomlover

May 24th 2006, 03:25 AM

The Christian reason: The Bible says to marry rather than give into lust.When two come together they form one in God's sight. Sexual sin is the worst sin one can make against their own body.

Everyday logic to me: Premartial sex often leads into unplanned pregnancy, unplanned pregnancies often wind up being terminated and maybe if everyone stopped having premarital sex then the abortion rates would drop dramatically. So the cost of how many lives are being took by abortion is a major reason of what is so WRONG with premarital sex.

James Peter

May 24th 2006, 06:06 AM

The Christian reason: The Bible says to marry rather than give into lust.When two come together they form one in God's sight. Sexual sin is the worst sin one can make against their own body.

Continuing in my role of DA the genesis verse you're alluding to has two potential problems. Firstly it very much could just be a euphemism for sex rather than speaking of some permanent mystical bond. The problem with the 'permanent bond' thing is polygamy which as I've already pointed out is rampant in the OT. So if John sleeps with three women and each of those women sleep with two other guys have nine become one?

Furthermore doesn't it follow from the argument about a permanent bond and Jesus' statements in Matt 5 that if you have sex when you're 17 then marry somebody else legally at 21 the marriage isn't actually valid before God and is actually adultery? Or does God sometimes dissolve the 'permanent' bond (not so permanent then)?

Dr. Jack Bauer

May 24th 2006, 07:34 AM

Originally means the root of the word; what it first meant. What verb it is associated with and what image it would give tothe people that Paul was writing to.Well that's no more than the lexical fallacy. Who says that what it meant when the word was first concocted is what it means to the readers of Paul?
The problem with saying 'Well the first time it appears in Scripture it means X thus it must mean X here' is that it doesn't allow for the fact that language is dynamic. Remember many people that Paul was writing to would not have been familiar with the LXX. Their entire city might not even be able to muster a complete set of texts. They would have heard extracts, perhaps, but that is all. A gentile in Galatia, Corinth or Collosae would be much more familiar with the everyday usage of the term than with the usage within the LXX. The LXX has a contribution to make but ultimately it is a translation, and not always a perfect one. Certainly it had a strong influence on hellenistic Jews and so the meaning of the term within the LXX should be examined but only whilst remembering that different texts by different authors in different places and at different times use words differently.Here I see you arguing in such a way as to undermine your "original meaning" argument. On the one hand you argue that since pornos is connected with the meaning of "to buy," porneia therefore has prostitution as its original meaning, and the meaning we should take from the text, but now when I point out that porneia is used in all sorts of ways to refer to sexual immorality in general in Scripture, you reverse your original argument and now say that who cares what it once meant, because language is dynamic and meanings change from one context to another. Paul very often makes use of the Septuagint. For example in 1 Cor 6:9 He coined the word arsenokoites from two words that appear next to each other in Leviticus 18 regarding homosexual acts (which were also called porneia). His letters are replete with Scriptural language and citations, so think it is obviously true to say that for Paul, the meaning a word had in Scripture is more important than an earlier and more obscure meaning that it first had when the word ws first coined.
No it didn't require it. Abraham didn't have to take Haggai as his wife did he? Solomon had many wives and many concubines, there was a clear distinction between the two groups and yet he had sex with both of them. And this is the guy who was meant to be full of Godly wisdom - you'd have thought he would have known it was wrong if it was yet there is nothing to indicate this is the case.If Solomon violated Exodus 22:16-17, does that make it right? If David, the man after God's own heart, committed adultery, does that make it right?
How about in Exodus 22:16-17 where we hear what is to happen when a man seduces a virgin. Are they automatically married? No. The man has to give the bride-price to the father and the father can choose either to let him take her as his wife or not.The text says that he must pay th ebride price, and that he must take her as his wife, UNLESS the father forbids. So there is a legal presumption of marriage, unless the father has a good reason to forbid. So yes, the law did require people who have sex to marry.
This passage is a perfect illustration of my earlier point that the issue in the OT is largely (not exclusively) one of property rights. The passage is at the end of a section concerning violations of property rights and it clearly doesn't belong to the following section so it would seem reasonable to conclude that it is considered a property violation. The law makes perfect sense when read in this light and doing so is consistent with the cultural context of the passage, so yes that is actually an exegetical argument (exegesis involves examing the social and historical context).It is the exegetical claim that you can read it as just an example of property rights. But nothing about the command requires this.

Before this command are a list of commands about property. After it are a number of commands about social responsibility. It is a choice on your part to say that it is a species of property rights rather than a moral precept about social responsibility.
And stop saying I'm making an argument from silence. I've demonstrated that porneia often doesn't mean pre-marital sex and have asked for a single passage where you believe pre-marital sex is being clearly prohibited so that we can look at it in detail (I could just choose a passage but I want you to choose the one you think is strongest so you can't afterwards claim that other passages support your position and I just chose one that didn't). I've demonstrated how in several passages pre-marital sex clearly isn't meant and I've questioned the basis of the OT laws regarding sex and suggested that the issue there is not a moral one but rather is what most people would describe as part of the 'ceremonial law'.But you did make an argument from silence. You said, and this is the part that this paragraph was a response to, that "it is possible to conclude that neither Paul nor Jesus condemn pre-marital sex." The suggestion was that if they made no such prohibition, then it is not prohibited at all, and this just is an argument from silence.

Since porneia has such a range of meanings, indicating that it covers sexual misconduct in general, and since sex without the committment of marriahe is sexual misconduct, sex outside of a marriage committment is porneia. But actualy my point was not that porneia specifies sex outside of marriage, since it does not, my point was that it does not specify prostitution, and additionally, the OT does show that sex outside of a marriage committment is wrong.
Come on, give me a single passage that you think supports your view. Just one, two at most; I don't have time to do 29 bits of exegesis right on top of all my exams. You can even choose a passage from the LXX if you want to (but doing so would be conceding that the NT does not make it clear in isolation) but be warned I will compare the LXX to the MT and the passage will have to be clearly speaking of pre-marital sex as being morally wrong in both cases. You say I'm arguing from silence but you're the one who is saying "Well porneia might mean pre-marital sex so pre-marital sex has to be wrong!"I argued no such thing at all. I argued that your claims about porneia meaning prostitution are untenable, and that Scripture specifically mentions premarital sex and shows that it is wrong.
Surely the position has to be that unless something is explicitly condemned it is considered acceptable unless reason dictates that it is not? One passage that clearly prohibits pre-marital sex, thats all you need to provide.I did so, with Exodus 22:16. This shows us that sex is supposed to belong to the permanent union of marriage.

This evidence is direct and explicit. Now that I have provided it, I am going to provide other evidence that is not explicitly descriptive, but reasonably clear in my view.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid porneia, let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband." Why do you need to have a marriage partner in order to avoid porneia? If it is good not to touch (i.e. have sex with) a woman, but in order to avoid fornication a man should have a wife, what does this tell us about porneia?

Hebrews 13:14 has already been presented. It condemns acts that undermine marriage, namely both adultery and porneia, general sexual misconduct, "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge."

Given that marriage is being exhorted, and sexual misconduct is being condemned, the best inference I can make is that sexual misconduct is that which undermines the place of sex within marriage, which adultery does as well (being one specieis or porneia).

James Peter

May 24th 2006, 05:23 PM

I will get back to this, don't worry, its just I'm in the middle of exams and really need to take a night off from this thread. I mean, a lot of the stuff here is reasonably related to the contents of tomorrow exam ('Paul in Context', with Galatians and Corinthians being primary texts) but I just need to unwind a little now. So, tomorrow or friday.

Griffs

May 27th 2006, 09:29 PM

My position is that it is possible to conclude that neither Paul nor Jesus condemn pre-marital sex. Every instance where it is assumed that this is meant can actually be speaking of something else. The issues touches strongly on the question of what role the Torah plays in the life of a christian, something on which there is obvious divergence in the early church. Furthermore as we reject the entire basis of the prohibitions on sex outside marriage, that is that it violates a man's property and devalues it, it is quite reasonable and consistent to also reject the prohibition (assuming they are blanket prohibitions). Hey, JP, thanks for jumping in while I was gone. I know neither Hebrew nor Greek, so I found your points re: translation very interesting. I guess I sort of assumed that a blanket term was being used here with a lot of grey area. Now, is it your position that the words translated as "sexual immorality" or "fornication" referred simply to "wrongful sexual acts", just as "murder" refers to "wrongful killing"? Or do you think the word is used merely to refer to prostitution and the like? I'd be interested to know!

The reason why pre-marital sex was generally looked down upon in the ancient Levant is that it devalued property; it was like stealing somebody's cow and cutting its legs off (:lol:). Is such a worldview really tenable today? Is it merely compromising with the world to say that women are not the property of either their father or husband but rather are equals to men? Or is such a compromise justified? If it is then that has consequences and potentially this is one of them. Well, we have two accounts of the creation in Genesis. In the first one (by the Yahwist?), man and woman are created at the same time, presumably as equals. In the second (by the priestly author, I think?), woman is created from man's rib and seems subjected to him. I personally don't think there is any reason to view woman as a man's property. Such a view is not only antiquated, I would say it is wrong.

Griffs

James Peter

May 28th 2006, 04:38 AM

Hey, JP, thanks for jumping in while I was gone. I know neither Hebrew nor Greek, so I found your points re: translation very interesting. I guess I sort of assumed that a blanket term was being used here with a lot of grey area. Now, is it your position that the words translated as "sexual immorality" or "fornication" referred simply to "wrongful sexual acts", just as "murder" refers to "wrongful killing"? Or do you think the word is used merely to refer to prostitution and the like? I'd be interested to know!

I think I side that it generally carries the sense of 'wrongful sexual acts' rather than any specific one within the NT. In a lot of individual cases a strong case can be made that it is speaking specificaly about prostitution or 'unlawful' relationships (such as incest) but I think it might be stretching the point that it always refers to one or the other. I definately reject 'fornication' as a legitimate translation of porneia, 'sexual immorality' is far better and retains the ambiguity of the original term. And thats the whole thrust of my point: porneia is ambiguous.

Well, we have two accounts of the creation in Genesis. In the first one (by the Yahwist?), man and woman are created at the same time, presumably as equals. In the second (by the priestly author, I think?), woman is created from man's rib and seems subjected to him. I personally don't think there is any reason to view woman as a man's property. Such a view is not only antiquated, I would say it is wrong.

I think I'd agree but Paul seems to value the first creation account quite highly and cites it at least once to affirm the primacy of man over woman. Basically to pursue this point is to stray a long way from what is now the mainstream christian position regarding scripture. We have three choices: (1) recognise the nature of Scripture as what it is, ancient texts which are the product of their culture; (2) accept the clear teaching of Scripture and reject modern scientific research and moral values or (3) close our eyes, sing loudly and pretend the problem doesn't exist. Honestly I think the claim that in the OT there is what today would be described as a hugely sexist anthropology behind the laws on sex. Men are allowed multiple wives but wives are not allowed multiple husbands, women are often treated in the same way that animals are and it is the violation of property and the resultant financial loss which seems to be dealt with more than standards of 'purity before God'. I think that the best approach to identifying what Paul means by porneia is to look to Judaism and ask what first century Judaism considered porneia (when speaking to gentiles). The OT can be a useful source for that but so can all the extra-biblical texts we have from the period.

Dr. Jack Bauer

May 28th 2006, 05:13 AM

I think I'd agree but Paul seems to value the first creation account quite highly and cites it at least once to affirm the primacy of man over woman. Basically to pursue this point is to stray a long way from what is now the mainstream christian position regarding scripture. We have three choices: (1) recognise the nature of Scripture as what it is, ancient texts which are the product of their culture; (2) accept the clear teaching of Scripture and reject modern scientific research and moral values or (3) close our eyes, sing loudly and pretend the problem doesn't exist.You are assuming a phenomenal amount here.

If there was no Christian God, would Scripture teach what it does? If the answer is "no," then Scripture cannot be only the product of its culture. It is tremendously easy to say that since Scripture says something, and the culture at the time said something, then the teaching of Scripture must have been caused by the culture.

But isn't it equally easy to just believe that your opinion is false since, according to you, it reflects the beliefs of your own culture.

Moreover, science tells us nothing about value. Absolutely nothing. That's not what science is used for. It also tells us nothing of morality, nor could it ever do so.

You also characterise anyone who holds to the values of Old Testament Scripture that our society rejects as being blind and ignorant, naively living in religious lala land. The suggestion here is that those who get their beliefs and values from other sources and who do not believe they need to be instructed by Scripture at all are not doing this at all!

The pattern of biblial interpretation I am seeing from you is "yes, I see that teaching you are presenting is taught in Scripture, but since those same Scriptures can be abused in other ways, or they contain values that I reject, I will also take the liberty of rejecting the teaching that I accept is contained in them.

This is an inappropriate attitude to Scripture. It is all the more problematic given your terribly unclear sweeping claims about male "primacy" in Paul, as though it's just a given that he was using Scripture in a sexist manner.
Honestly I think the claim that in the OT there is what today would be described as a hugely sexist anthropology behind the laws on sex. Men are allowed multiple wives but wives are not allowed multiple husbands, women are often treated in the same way that animals are and it is the violation of property and the resultant financial loss which seems to be dealt with more than standards of 'purity before God'.This is flagrant question begging, since it has not been established to any degree that laws against sex without a mariage committment were based on the view that women were property.

And as for polygamy, genesis shows us fairly clearly God's intentions for marriage. I hope that you will not ignore that because you think Genesis is sexist.

I think that the best approach to identifying what Paul means by porneia is to look to Judaism and ask what first century Judaism considered porneia (when speaking to gentiles). The OT can be a useful source for that but so can all the extra-biblical texts we have from the period.porneia means sexual immorality in general, and it was used that way in the LXX, to a variety of cases. Thus far, everybody in this thread has been in agreement about this understanding of the word.

James Peter

May 28th 2006, 11:30 AM

You are assuming a phenomenal amount here.

Actually I think that both of the first two options are possible. It is only the third option that I wish to treat with contempt. I think it is perfectly consistent to say that you believe that Scripture is the literal Word of God and then to follow it in the face of any contradictory evidence. Its not the option that I'd take but I can respect it - as long as people then actually accept everything rather than picking and choosing.

If there was no Christian God, would Scripture teach what it does? If the answer is "no," then Scripture cannot be only the product of its culture. It is tremendously easy to say that since Scripture says something, and the culture at the time said something, then the teaching of Scripture must have been caused by the culture.

But isn't it equally easy to just believe that your opinion is false since, according to you, it reflects the beliefs of your own culture.

Moreover, science tells us nothing about value. Absolutely nothing. That's not what science is used for. It also tells us nothing of morality, nor could it ever do so.

Yep, we should equally realise what our own biases are. For example, how many people's view of scripture is influence more by the type of church they were brought up in than by analysis of scripture itself? Bias cuts both ways. I'd like to think that my bias effects me less than it does most people because I often come to conclusions that I don't like. I really wish that the simplistic approach to scripture was a valid approach, I don't like the fact that it isn't but the evidence leaves me with no alternative. I can't, with integrity, preach something that I believe has been demonstrated to be false.

You also characterise anyone who holds to the values of Old Testament Scripture that our society rejects as being blind and ignorant, naively living in religious lala land. The suggestion here is that those who get their beliefs and values from other sources and who do not believe they need to be instructed by Scripture at all are not doing this at all!

The pattern of biblial interpretation I am seeing from you is "yes, I see that teaching you are presenting is taught in Scripture, but since those same Scriptures can be abused in other ways, or they contain values that I reject, I will also take the liberty of rejecting the teaching that I accept is contained in them.

Don't let yourself forget that I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. It is a vital role if you actually want to end up with a strong argument. I actually do believe that pre-marital sex should be strongly discouraged and have spent plenty of time patiently explaining why to people. My problem is that the arguments here so far don't demonstrate that pre-marital sex is wrong. They are too full of holes that somebody who wanted to could exploit. What I'm trying to do is to encourage the whole case to be presented rather than just a superficial 'Scripture says it, honest it does' argument.

This is an inappropriate attitude to Scripture. It is all the more problematic given your terribly unclear sweeping claims about male "primacy" in Paul, as though it's just a given that he was using Scripture in a sexist manner.
This is flagrant question begging, since it has not been established to any degree that laws against sex without a mariage committment were based on the view that women were property.

Actually I don't think it is fair to say that Paul uses Scripture is a sexist manner, I said that by modern standards he is sexist. He clearly believes that the first creation account gives men priority over women. It would take a whole thread to explore how sexist Paul really was. My comments about the women being considered property was an analysis of the levitical laws rather than of Paul. If you really want to make the case that women are nottreated as property in the levitical laws then feel free to try, I've already given a couple of examples which nobody has tried to counter.

And as for polygamy, genesis shows us fairly clearly God's intentions for marriage. I hope that you will not ignore that because you think Genesis is sexist.

Does it? Genesis is a composite document, I'm not sure that it does have a single clear view of polygamy. People extrapolate a single verse and think that gives the view within Genesis but the picture is seriously confused by the many times that we see marriages which don't fit to the modern evangelical patern. Even the extent to that the meaning of "become one flesh" can be debated. I think its pretty clearly a euphemism and doesn't imply a man can only have a single wife.

porneia means sexual immorality in general, and it was used that way in the LXX, to a variety of cases. Thus far, everybody in this thread has been in agreement about this understanding of the word.

And yet still nobody has provided a single example where porneia has to include pre-marital sex. That is the biggest weakness so far in the arguments that have been presented, everybody is agreed that porneia is 'sexual immorality' and can encompass a wide range of activities but nobody has demonstrated that pre-marital sex is immoral. I don't see the point of detailed and prolonged exegesis of the OT when it should be simple to demonstrate that the NT vice lists and condemnations include it. Should be, if the case is as open-shut as people seem to think. My position remains that the case isn't as simple as people assume.

Dr. Jack Bauer

May 28th 2006, 06:49 PM

And yet still nobody has provided a single example where porneia has to include pre-marital sex. That is the biggest weakness so far in the arguments that have been presented, everybody is agreed that porneia is 'sexual immorality' and can encompass a wide range of activities but nobody has demonstrated that pre-marital sex is immoral. Do they need to do that? If a sin is never called porneia, does it follow that it is never condemned? I showed one explicit example in the Old Testament law and a couple of fairly strong implicit examples in the New Testament where sex outside of a marriage commitment is shown to be wrong (toards the close of post #45). Even if it were never stated that all sex outside of marriage is porneia, if it is an act of sexual misconduct - and I think those passages show that it is - then it is porneia (we need to beware the word=concept fallacy). And even if it it weren't porneia, it would still be wrong.

Griffs

May 30th 2006, 04:38 PM

Do they need to do that? If a sin is never called porneia, does it follow that it is never condemned? I assume you mean "if a particular sexual act is never called porneia, does it follow that it is never condemned?"...since you don't want to beg the question of whether that act is or is not sinful. And of course just because it's never called porneia does not mean it isn't sinful. However, if it is nowhere else mentioned explicitly as sinful, then I see no reason to appeal to Biblical passages for support of your claim that premarital sex is immoral in all its instances.

I showed one explicit example in the Old Testament law and a couple of fairly strong implicit examples in the New Testament where sex outside of a marriage commitment is shown to be wrong (toards the close of post #45). Let's have a look. Now I am not a Bible scholar - I'm a philosopher. And I don't know the original Hebrew or Greek, as I've said before. But I'll do what I can.

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Well, this looks to me like a restriction on a cultural practice. Just as in certain cultures today, it is seen as an insult to "sell" a deflowered woman to an arranged husband for the full dowry, the restriction here says that if a woman is seduced by a man, which seems to indicate that he has done something wrong (as she was potentially promised to someone else), but not necessarily that she has. This verse seems to be about righting a wrong done to the father, not a wrong committed between two people.

It is good for a man not to marry/have sexual relations with a woman. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Now in verse 1, your translation said "to avoid fornication." Mine says "because of sexual immorality." Nevertheless, here I think Paul is referring to all sexual intercourse. I have always read this passage as another passage regarding preparation for the return of Christ, which Paul thought was going to happen in his lifetime. Indeed, Paul claims later on in the passage that "time is short" (verse 29). And Paul, while a great theologian, was also somewhat of a zealot. Notice, however, that he gives this as a "concession, not a command." And later he goes on:

25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

This is not an exhortation against sex outside of marriage - it's a recommendation against marriage itself! Marrying takes one away from complete devotion to the Lord. But surely marriage is not sinful! And surely sex within marriage is not sinful either.

Even if it were never stated that all sex outside of marriage is porneia, if it is an act of sexual misconduct - and I think those passages show that it is - then it is porneia (we need to beware the word=concept fallacy). And even if it it weren't porneia, it would still be wrong. Well, we seem to be having some trouble establishing premarital sex as porneia, so I would like to know why it would still be wrong. Are there any non-Biblical reasons that show it to be immoral?

Griffs

Dr. Jack Bauer

May 31st 2006, 01:31 AM

I assume you mean "if a particular sexual act is never called porneia, does it follow that it is never condemned?"...since you don't want to beg the question of whether that act is or is not sinful. And of course just because it's never called porneia does not mean it isn't sinful.That's good. Earlier there appeared to be a suggestion in the thread that because porneia did not refer to sex outside of marriage, sex outside of marriage was not sinful!
However, if it is nowhere else mentioned explicitly as sinful, then I see no reason to appeal to Biblical passages for support of your claim that premarital sex is immoral in all its instances.Naturally if the Bible doesn't say it's sinful, then it would be pointless to appeal to the Bible. We'll delete your "explicit," however, since it is perfectly proper to accept a teaching as biblical if it is a good ar perhaps even a necessary inference from Scripture.
16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Well, this looks to me like a restriction on a cultural practice.Well, that's a piece of self-description, but where's the exegesis? Why do you assume that?
Just as in certain cultures today, it is seen as an insult to "sell" a deflowered woman to an arranged husband for the full dowry, the restriction here says that if a woman is seduced by a man, which seems to indicate that he has done something wrong (as she was potentially promised to someone else), but not necessarily that she has. This verse seems to be about righting a wrong done to the father, not a wrong committed between two people. If she had been betrithed to marry another man, then a different law would come into effect, namely Deuteronomy 22:23-24. This would be regarded as the same as adultery.

But more to the point, what's wrong with taking a woman's virginity and not marrying her, if sex before marriage isn't wrong? How is "deflowering" a woman as you say, devaluing for her at all?
It is good for a man not to marry/have sexual relations with a woman. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Now in verse 1, your translation said "to avoid fornication." Mine says "because of sexual immorality." Nevertheless, here I think Paul is referring to all sexual intercourse. I have always read this passage as another passage regarding preparation for the return of Christ, which Paul thought was going to happen in his lifetime. Indeed, Paul claims later on in the passage that "time is short" (verse 29). And Paul, while a great theologian, was also somewhat of a zealot. Notice, however, that he gives this as a "concession, not a command."This just will not do at all. "Sexual immorality" means ALL sex, period? The word here is porneia. Can you name just one other ocasion in the Bible where porneia refers to non-immoral sexual acts? In order to avoid having immoral sex, Paul says, one needs to be married.
And later he goes on:

25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

This is not an exhortation against sex outside of marriage - it's a recommendation against marriage itself! Marrying takes one away from complete devotion to the Lord. But surely marriage is not sinful! And surely sex within marriage is not sinful either.I have not said that 1 Cor 7:25-28 shows that sex outside of marriage is sinful. I have said that 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 shows that sex with someone other than a husband or wife is porneia.
Well, we seem to be having some trouble establishing premarital sex as porneia, so I would like to know why it would still be wrong. Are there any non-Biblical reasons that show it to be immoral?

GriffsWho said I was having any such trouble? And quite aside from that word, I showed by using a couple of passages that sex outside of marriage is immoral.

Teallaura

May 31st 2006, 10:29 AM

:popcorn:

James Peter

May 31st 2006, 06:23 PM

Ok, just finished my last exam today so over the next few days I can get back to this. I forgot how many uncommon words there were in Colossians and have been cramming greek like a madman the last few days. Normal service will shortly be resumed.

Griffs

June 6th 2006, 11:50 AM

That's good. Earlier there appeared to be a suggestion in the thread that because porneia did not refer to sex outside of marriage, sex outside of marriage was not sinful! Though, on the other hand, one would think that since porneia is a blanket term for 'sexual immorality,' if pre-marital sex is a sin, it would, in fact, fall under the term porneia. (Just as if a certain kind of killing is wrong, it is by definition murder.)

Naturally if the Bible doesn't say it's sinful, then it would be pointless to appeal to the Bible. We'll delete your "explicit," however, since it is perfectly proper to accept a teaching as biblical if it is a good ar perhaps even a necessary inference from Scripture. And you think this is a necessary inference to draw? Or even a good one? I have yet to see the evidence for that.

Well, that's a piece of self-description, but where's the exegesis? Why do you assume that? Um, I guess because it's a practice we do not engage in anymore, and it seems quite context-specific. Do you think if a man seduced me, he should pay my father the brideprice? Should parents still arrange their daughters' marriages? What about polygamy? (Despite the fact that "Big Love" is an awesome show, most Christians seem to think polygamy to be morally wrong in today's society.)

If she had been betrithed to marry another man, then a different law would come into effect, namely Deuteronomy 22:23-24. This would be regarded as the same as adultery. Deuteronomy 22 deals primarily with rape, as I understand it. In neither of these circumstances do we seem to have strongly consensual sex on both sides, and of course if sex is not consensual, it is wrong.

consensual But more to the point, what's wrong with taking a woman's virginity and not marrying her, if sex before marriage isn't wrong? How is "deflowering" a woman as you say, devaluing for her at all?[/quote] Well, it need not be "devaluing." Though in many cases I think it is devaluing on both sides. (Let's not forget that men can be virgins too!) But note that I have never made the blanket statement that all or even most acts of pre-marital sex are morally right. I have only intimated that not all instances of it might be wrong.

This just will not do at all. "Sexual immorality" means ALL sex, period? The word here is porneia. Can you name just one other ocasion in the Bible where porneia refers to non-immoral sexual acts? In order to avoid having immoral sex, Paul says, one needs to be married. I'd still like to know from someone who can read the Greek whether the proper preposition here is 'to avoid' or 'because of.' That might make a difference in our readings of the passage. Also, I'd like you to comment on Paul's disclaimer that this is a "concession, not a command." There are at least a few instances in the Pauline epistles, I believe, where Paul gives advice about how to live in preparation for the second coming, but is very clear to say that it is just his own advice he is giving, not God's direct command.

Who said I was having any such trouble? And quite aside from that word, I showed by using a couple of passages that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Look: perhaps everyone reading this thread thinks that you have laid out a clear-cut case why pre-marital sex is wrong. However, just for the sake of argument, suppose you could not convince someone by reference to the Bible. Can you give me extra-Biblical reasons why it's wrong? Why might God have forbidden it, as you claim?

Griffs

mpb1

August 20th 2006, 10:29 PM

I read just about every post on this thread, and I'm a little more confused now than I was when I started :) I've always believed all sex outside of marriage is sinful, and I still do. But all this talk about the original meanings of words, context, etc. is very interesting...

Can I ask another related question:

Is all LUST outside of marriage sinful?

I ask because most men, including Christians, lust on a regular basis. Many Christian men, from youth on up, live with a constant sense of guilt over the issue - some to the point of abject frustration, and even a sense that they can't have a relationship with God because of lust.

Before marriage and during the first ten years of my marriage, I 'struggled' with lust daily (as an almost all-consuming battle). After reading most of the best-known Christian books on the topic (which upheld my conservative views), I finally did my own research and came to a different conclusion.

I became convinced that Matthew 5:28 - when Jesus said that if you look on a woman to lust after her, you have already committed adultery with her in his heart - actually referred to MARRIED women, rather than all women.

For a few years now, this has been my personal conviction (which I've basically kept to myself), and which also led me to believe (as someone else implied in this thread) that polygamy is actually NOT sinful either. This my belief, though I do not intend to practice it.

WARNING: I should mention that if this thread turns into a discussion on polygamy, I may get blamed for it :) So please don't let that happen. By e-mail, I have already been told by site admins NOT to start a thread discussing polygamy, because of past experiences they've had with the topic here.

I mentioned it only because I think the beliefs are (or can be) tied together, biblically.

Here are my concerns about Christians continuing to teach that all lust is sinful:

1.) It makes Christ seem completely unreasonable, when evangelism trainers such as Ray Comfort (who I like, otherwise) teach that if a person has ever lusted - even after their boyfriend or girlfriend - then they 'have commited adultery in their heart.' This implies that all such 'lust' outside of marriage will forever be considered sinful. Since all men know this is impossible, why should they follow a God like that anyway? (Ray Comfort teaches evangelism, and his teachings are all over the web. His show is also on TBN.)

When you think about it, how insane is it to believe that you could fall in love with someone (as in the Song of Solomon), and that every lustful thought you have about the person is actually sinful? When you REALLY think about it, it's hard not to conclude this is ludicrous. And... that since God is not a moron, He obviously couldn't have meant that?

2.) Teaching that 'all lust is sinful' causes young men, especially (and older men as well), to live guilt-ridden, spiritually defeated lives (as I did - though I have never commited fornication or adultery, by God's grace). Young men, especially, can feel that if God 'condemns' them for lust and masturbation - impulses that seem virtually uncontrollable - why should they follow after God at all, or what use can they be in God's Kingdom? For me, I continued following and serving anyway, but I lived under a cloud of guilt and defeat.

3.) I believe that teaching all lust is sinful also causes Christians to somehow lump 'everything sexual' together. So if you're going to lust, even though you believe it's sinful, then you might as well have pre-marital sex, even though it's sinful... I would much prefer to focus on what I believe to be the greater problem of 'physical sex acts' outside of marriage (in the Christian comunity), than to focus on LUST as being sinful. When you lump them all together, you can just as easily justify sexual sin, as you can justify lusting (since you know lust is uncontrollable, and still label it sinful - just as you do fornication).

Of course, God's Word is the ultimate judge of what is sinful or not. But I think that classifying lust as 'sexual sin' waters down the much more important issue of 'physical sex acts outside of marriage' (which is rampant in the church).

As implied previously in this thread, it seems the church - many years ago - decided that all lust was sinful. And they've been using the Greek "P" word and its variations to condemn everything sexually ever since then :)

I wanted to post this here to express my thoughts and to see what other views there are on this topic...

James Peter

August 21st 2006, 07:12 AM

I think that all lust is wrong and that in an ideal world we shouldn't lust. Afterall lust is more than mere desire. Is all desire wrong? Of course not. The problem is when the line between lust and desire is crossed. By definition lust is unhealthy and so maybe the 'S' word is appropriate for it. It certainly is better not to lust than to lust at any rate and I think rather than indulging our lustful thoughts we should do what we can to restrain them. At the end of the day my personal experience is that lust always has negative consequences. Desire doesn't. It is, in my opinion, perfectly fine to desire a beautiful daughter of God. In fact I think that God wants us to desire such. I'm also quite aware though that such desire should be about much more than just sex. Its a line I've recently crossed back onto the right side of. I should probably clarify that. Before I genuinely desired to meet my future wife and to be with her and one of the chief motivations for that was so I could finally have sex. I'm a guy, I'm not cut out to be single so I need my wife. That was my line of reasoning.

Now my heart has been changed on the issue quite a lot, through encountering a particular young lady...and I can honestly say that whilst I desire her and would certainly describe her as sexually attractive....having sex with her isn't something I've even thought about yet. That isn't anywhere near a major reason in why I think I'm starting to fall in love with her. I think that is the difference between healthy desire and unhealthy lust.

sprky777

August 23rd 2006, 05:11 AM

...Afterall lust is more than mere desire. Is all desire wrong? Of course not...
The ten commandments say not to 'covet your neighbors wife'.

Christ said 'to lust after a woman is adultery in your heart'

To lust and to covet are the same thing. They are desire to obtain what you cannot have. Not just desire or want. It is not wrong to desire a beautiful woman. It is wrong to desire another mans wife.

Christ was speaking in the context of adultery so that must be taken into consideration when reading Matt 5:28.

It is not 'adultery in his heart' for a married man to desire another woman as long as that woman is available for marriage. but of course, my views on polygyny are known.

JSDileo

August 23rd 2006, 04:56 PM

The Old Testament is where we get our main instruction on this question. The New testament refers to it only in passing, and not clearly at all. Genesis depicts a man joining with his wife and the two becoming one flesh. The physical union is a major part of that (i.e. "flesh"). The implication is that sex binds - or is supposed to bind - people together. If premarital sex refers to people who have sex but don't marry, this biblical principle in Genesis is undermined.

The law, which expresses God's moral principles, is perhaps even clearer. If a man and a woman sleep together, and provided the act is not adultery or immoral in some other sense (i.e. on of the prohibited unions, e.g. a close relative), then they were required to marry, because they have already embarked on that unique relationship that cannot be shared with another. If sex outside of marriage was not wrong, then why would the couple be required to marry?

Uh, Theonomy, I really don't think that's a good example. This is the verse you're referring to:

Exodus 22:16-17 (New International Version)

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

First of all, why was the thought of the father of the former virgin given so much weight so that they could not be married if the father of the virgin didn't want them to? It seems to me that this passage is more about an economic protection for the woman, who could end up possibly conceiving because of their act of fornication. Marriage in ancient Israel was an economic institution made for giving economic protection to the woman and to help the family unit survive. (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html) That's why a man who raped a woman was required to marry the woman he raped if she was a virgin: Because the rapist would be required to support the woman for the rest of his life. (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html) Also, the passage about rape is more severe than the passage about seduction in that there is no thought in the rape passage (Deutoronomy 22:28-29) about the willingness of the father to let his daughter marry. Also, in the passage about rape, the two fornicators in question are required to never divorce, whereas no such safeguard is put into the passage about seduction, indicating that the second is more severe than the first. In the Exodus passage about seduction, if the man didn't marry the woman due to the father of the woman forbidding it, he would still be required to pay the bride-price to him, which would be solely an economic punishment to the man who seduced the virgin.

So, it seems to me that this passage is nothing but about the man providing economic assistance in the possibility that the woman should conceive a child than about some alleged immorality inherent in premarital sex. I'm not saying that the Bible doesn't condemn premarital sex elsewhere, I'm just saying that I don't think Exodus 22:16-17 probably shouldn't be used as an argument against it.

JSDileo

August 23rd 2006, 05:11 PM

As theonomy mentioned, two people who have engaged in sex (under the Old Covenant) were instructed to marry and they could not divorce.

That's false. Here's the relevant passage:

Exodus 22:16-17 (New International Version)

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

It was in the passage about rape in which they could not divorce:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Just a minor note.

In order to dispell any possible notions that I'm arguing for premarital sex, I agree completely with Teal's post that she first made in this thread.

Dr. Jack Bauer

August 23rd 2006, 07:19 PM

Uh, Theonomy, I really don't think that's a good example. This is the verse you're referring to:

Exodus 22:16-17 (New International Version)

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

First of all, why was the thought of the father of the former virgin given so much weight so that they could not be married if the father of the virgin didn't want them to?That's easy. it was so that a man of ill repute couldn't just get a woman into bed and then obligate her amily to let them marry. That would be bad for her.

I base this on nothing, just as you based yours on nothing. Don;t get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with speculation, but I find my hypothesis more persuasive than yours.
Also, in the passage about rape, the two fornicators in question are required to never divorce, whereas no such safeguard is put into the passage about seduction, indicating that the second is more severe than the first.Actually the so-called "rape" passage does not mention rape in the Hebrew at all. I've dealt with this in another thread, but I have no idea where that thread is now, lol.
In the Exodus passage about seduction, if the man didn't marry the woman due to the father of the woman forbidding it, he would still be required to pay the bride-price to him, which would be solely an economic punishment to the man who seduced the virgin.And? Would you propose a different punishment?
So, it seems to me that this passage is nothing but about the man providing economic assistance in the possibility that the woman should conceive a child than about some alleged immorality inherent in premarital sex. I'm not saying that the Bible doesn't condemn premarital sex elsewhere, I'm just saying that I don't think Exodus 22:16-17 probably shouldn't be used as an argument against it.Maybe it does seem to you that way, but I don't think there's a good reason to agree with your claim.

JSDileo

August 23rd 2006, 07:52 PM

That's easy. it was so that a man of ill repute couldn't just get a woman into bed and then obligate her amily to let them marry. That would be bad for her.

Wait, they weren't obligated to marry under the father's wishes because the man might be of ill repute? Then why would a rapist be obligated to marry a woman and never be allowed to divorce? If a man raped a woman he was never allowed he was never allowed to divorce her. That's because the punishment was on the male by forcing the male to support her. I took this passage similarly. The punishment is always on the male, that's why the male is required to pay the father even if they don't marry. It makes no sense to make the male pay the bride-price otherwise.

Actually the so-called "rape" passage does not mention rape in the Hebrew at all. I've dealt with this in another thread, but I have no idea where that thread is now, lol.

Hmm. Maybe I can google it.

Anyway, the word used that's translated as "rape" here is taphas, which, according to Strong's, typically has a "forced" nature to it:

tawphas:

to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

a) (Qal)

1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch

2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully

b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured

c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

Also, look at this phrase in the passage:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

According to Strong's, the word "violated" is "anah":

`anah {aw-naw'}

1) (Qal) to be occupied, be busied with

2) to afflict, oppress, humble, be afflicted, be bowed down

a) (Qal)

1) to be put down, become low

2) to be depressed, be downcast

3) to be afflicted

4) to stoop

b) (Niphal)

1) to humble oneself, bow down

2) to be afflicted, be humbled

c) (Piel)

1) to humble, mishandle, afflict

2) to humble, be humiliated

3) to afflict

4) to humble, weaken oneself

d) (Pual)

1) to be afflicted

2) to be humbled

e) (Hiphil) to afflict

f) (Hithpael)

1) to humble oneself

2) to be afflicted

It seems to me that the only thing in this passage that suggests consensual sex is the phrase "and they are discovered," which does seem to imply consensual sex.

And? Would you propose a different punishment?

Why make the man pay the bride-price at all if they weren't going to married if it wasn't because it was an economic punishment?

Maybe it does seem to you that way, but I don't think there's a good reason to agree with your claim.

Well, differences of opinion do come up. :smile:

Dr. Jack Bauer

August 23rd 2006, 07:54 PM

There is no "rape" verse here. I have documented my reasoning persuasively at Tweb, and am too lazy to dig it out now. But my argument was really good, rest assured. I'm just sorry you weren't privy to it at the time.

EDIT: Alright, I'll ease yor anxiety: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77612

And I posted more than once in that thread, so you'll need to read it all.

JSDileo

August 23rd 2006, 08:23 PM

Genesius

August 23rd 2006, 09:41 PM

The scriptures are a little vague about this as is evident by this thread.
I think the will of God in the matter however, is more obvious. Give yourself wholy to many people? No. Surrender to the will of many? No. One bride, one husband. Your sexuality, your body is yours to give freely. Your virginity, you can only give once, to one person. It is obviously commendable to wait until you and your husband marry and you can give to each other that one thing. Ask yourself, how many lovers would you feel comfortable with your 'husband-to -be' having when you get married? Wouldn't you like to be his one and only?

Is your b/f a Christian? If not, scripturally, you shoudn't be 'yoked' with him anyhow. So if it's the bible your looking at for the rules...

Whatever you decide to do, think about how your going to feel afterwards, think about how it may or may not affect your relationship with God.

I personally did not wait, my wife did not either... we met when we became Christians. I think about how wonderful it would have been if we both had waited... for each other. It would have brought even more glory to God. IMO.

adieu

SinikalSaint

September 5th 2006, 05:19 PM

I'm a tad dismayed at how no one's really taking seriously--and therefore not answering--James Peter's attempt to express the nuances of the word porneia, and the complete disregarding of the fact that he's playing devil's advocate, here.

Forgive me, James Peter, if you find it a bit insulting to you on my part to rehash your points in an attempt to try and explain where you're coming from.

He's not switching up his understanding of the definition of porneia, nor is he arguing from silence. The word basically meant prostitution, and went on to mean any kind of sexual immorality. Think of words like "whore" or "slut." A whore is technically a paid prostitute, but today we sometimes apply it to a promiscuous woman. "Slut" basically means a promiscuous woman, though sometimes we might apply it to a particular sort of promiscuous woman--one who's into more unorthodox or perhaps deviant behavior. So when Paul used the word, he was using a word that basically meant prostitute as a general word for "sexually immoral." In fact, the whole New Testament uses it that way.

I think what James Peter is trying to get y'all to do is give an example where the word porneia is used in specific referrence to premarital sex--sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons (as opposed to incest, or pederasty, or temple prostitution, or adultery, etc.). If it's a reference specifically to premarital sex, then that means that St. Paul (or whoever's using it in that given verse) was saying that premarital sex is immoral, because he's using the word porneia to refer to it.

Rather, it seems what most of y'all (pardon me, I'm a Southerner) have done is just continue to refer to the verses where Paul (or any other given NT writer) proscribes porneia. Of course he's going to prohibit general, immoral "screwing around." What James Peter is asking for is specific Scriptural proof that premarital sex is under that umbrella of "porneia" for Paul and the rest of the NT. If you can't find a specific Scripture, that should be cool--just fine an underlying philosophy or morality developing throughout Scripture. Let's avoid a "premarital sex is bad 'cause the Bible plainly says so" argument, because 1) we need to show how it is the Bible says so if it does, and 2) something isn't true just because it's in the Bible; it's in the Bible because it's true. And let's also avoid the word "fornication" for now--only because of it's contemporary definition, not because I have an actual problem with the word.

Nazaroo

May 28th 2007, 10:31 AM

This should be retitled, "So what's so wrong with this thread?"

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

First let me state my own general position, before reading this thread: I believe in the Bible, but I also believe its laws have limits to their scope both nationally, and temporally. But I don't think of myself as a lawyer. I don't like gobbledygoot or mumbo-jumbo or jibberish. I prefer a spade to be a spade whenever possible.

I wasn't confused on my basic position about sex before I read this thread. And I feel no different now. This thread to me appears quite confused. But I don't feel that it confused me at all. The people in this thread sound like aspiring lawyers. And I imagine that the Pharisees who debated about the woman with seven brother/husbands could easily have produced a similar thread.

I was disappointed, because I was hoping for some inspired talk, some new insight, or at least some reasoned but comprehensible, honest positions laid out. I find nothing here at all. In some ways, the people in this thread have been cross-talking, not really answering one another. In other ways, some seem awfully sure of themselves, yet completely unable to articulate a coherent position to a stranger.

Let me tell you my view, and warn you that I take Holy Scripture seriously, and treat it with respect and grant it authority whenever I can make sense of it:

--------------
(1) To me there is no such thing as "premarital sex". That appears absurd. The way the O.T. reads to me, is simply this: Its a "You break, you buy" policy. If you are a virgin, and you have sex, you ARE married, insofar as you have no authority to NOT marry.

The only overriding principle that can negate that, is the authority of the father. Why? Because fathers have absolute authority over their virginal unmarried daughters. End of story, according to the O.T. If you're going to use the O.T. as your guide, thats all you get.

Don't try to complicate it. It wasn't complicated to the sheperds and farmers of ancient Israel.

------------
(2) Only women can be virgins. The only male 'virgin' in the O.T. is the 'ass-virgin', and violating that is a death-penalty offence. This is why polygamy was allowed. There are no male virgins in the O.T.:

Whatever the author or translator of the Book of Revelation thought he was doing, he was certainly coining a new idea by describing males as 'virgins'. From what I can see, he clearly intended to apply it to Christians who gave up all worldy affairs to preach the gospel and die as martyrs, making themselves eunichs for Jesus. But before that, applying such a concept to men would have been an absurdity that would have you run out of town in Israel as a nutcase.

----------------
(3) Deut. 22:28 includes 'rape', by assuming its always 'rape'. The woman's consent is irrelevant for two reasons. a) The man is assumed to always be able to physically overpower her, so her resistance is near-worthless, and her consent was near-worthless too, since a man's superior ROLE in society in the Middle East everywhere gave him all the responsibility as well as the power.

No ancient Israelite judge worth a tinker's cuss would fail to blame the man for the sex-act, and fail to hold him to be the main culprit. Arguing about whether or not Deut 22:28 intends "rape" is like arguing whether or not Israelite employment under the last Pharoah was "slavery". Only a boob would split hairs like a lawyer over that.

-----------------
(4) A Father could and would refuse a marriage for the obvious reason: The guy is a turd, rapist, unemployed bum. If he can't pay, he goes to jail or is stoned to death. It would be inconceivable for the motives, or the outcome (an 'honour' killing) to be anything else anywhere in the entire Middle East. Its been that way since before Jesus' time. Hasn't anyone read the story of Dinah? If that doesn't spell out exactly how the Law is going to work itself out in practical terms for the 'rapist', you just aren't paying attention, are you? Anyone expecting better treatment in Palestine today just hasn't a clue about life, men, or the history of the planet Earth.

-----------------
(5) "The two shall be one flesh" refers to children. Anyone missing the Prime Directive (Check the First Commandment on Page ONE of Genesis) should just put down their Bible, take a deep breath, and pray for an inkling of common sense.

No children, = fruitless (failed) union, as the very public shame of Abraham etc. shows historically. Everybody in ancient times got that. People were even willing to sleep with their drunken father to avoid the shame. (e.g. Lot's daughters).

Whether you accept the supernatural intervention of God or not, pregnancy was clearly a SIGN of INNOCENCE in the case of a woman accused of ADULTERY (Numbers 5). This is the OPPOSITE of what jealous husbands (who "know not the Holy Scriptures, nor the POWER of GOD" Matt.22:29) believe today. But the point is, not what the modern world, or the secular or foreign world thinks, but what do the Scriptures say?

Jacob had four wives, because he had children with them all, and God declared their innocence in no uncertain terms by conception.

Joseph betrothed to Mary may have been a 'good man', but he was ignorant of God's law and power when he contemplated a 'private divorce', and had to be smacked by an angel in a dream-vision. Yes, even 'Godly' men were idiots, even in Jesus' day, as the vision of Peter also confirms.

------------------
(6) Two idiot teens in a bedoin tent having experimental 'sex' is no more a case of fornication than a modern clown accidentally discovering the 'orgasm' by climbing a rope in gym class. A universal principle for sin is involved, explained plainly by Jesus Himself: "If you were blind you would have no sin." Both knowledge and intent are required.

There is an ancient (ageless) tradition of "pre-deflowering" virgin daughters on the wedding night to obtain proof of virginity, by breaking their hymen with their finger, and using a cloth to obtain the blood. This practice is so old (older than Jesus) that it is described in detail in the Talmud, and is still practiced today among gypsies in Europe.

------------------

The only thing anyone has convinced me of, and I WANTED to learn, was the bankruptcy and fuzziness of their positions.

So my complaint is this: No one has presented a coherent 'Scriptural View' of premarital sex or marriage for that matter. Blind guides leading the blind can be a dangerous thing.

Some would limit sex to (I suppose) AFTER modern marriage vows. But those are worthless according to O.T. Law, since the O.T. presupposes virginal marriage, and 60%+ of modern "marriages" are not between virgins at all. Secondly, while Paul may have approved of some kind of "marriage" arrangement, Jesus forbade all oaths of the type that modern Christian vows form.

The typical "traditional" modern vow sounds alot like the blood-curdling Freemasonic oaths and extreme expressions of satanic cults, while Jesus said, anything more than a simple yes or no was wickedness.

Well? Convince me, correct me, on ANYTHING...please.

Until then, we won't be stoning any teens for 'accidents'.

Peace,
Nazaroo

Shadow Phoenix

May 28th 2007, 11:04 AM

I wasn't confused on my basic position about sex before I read this thread. And I feel no different now. This thread to me appears quite confused. But I don't feel that it confused me at all. The people in this thread sound like aspiring lawyers. And I imagine that the Pharisees who debated about the woman with seven brother/husbands could easily have produced a similar thread.

For the record, it was the Sadducees who did such. Secondly, what's with this feeling stuff. What does it matter how you feel? What matters is what is true. Your feelings do not determine truth.

I was disappointed, because I was hoping for some inspired talk, some new insight, or at least some reasoned but comprehensible, honest positions laid out. I find nothing here at all. In some ways, the people in this thread have been cross-talking, not really answering one another. In other ways, some seem awfully sure of themselves, yet completely unable to articulate a coherent position to a stranger.

And the response to such is where?

--------------
(1) To me there is no such thing as "premarital sex". That appears absurd. The way the O.T. reads to me, is simply this: Its a "You break, you buy" policy. If you are a virgin, and you have sex, you ARE married, insofar as you have no authority to NOT marry.

Some evidence of this would have been nice. However, it was customary for the first time to happen on a honeymoon night, such as in the wedding of Jacob to Leah.

(2) Only women can be virgins. The only male 'virgin' in the O.T. is the 'ass-virgin', and violating that is a death-penalty offence. This is why polygamy was allowed. There are no male virgins in the O.T.:

Polygamy was allowed. Where do we see it endorsed though?

Whatever the author or translator of the Book of Revelation thought he was doing, he was certainly coining a new idea by describing males as 'virgins'. From what I can see, he clearly intended to apply it to Christians who gave up all worldy affairs to preach the gospel and die as martyrs, making themselves eunichs for Jesus. But before that, applying such a concept to men would have been an absurdity that would have you run out of town in Israel as a nutcase.

The book is called Revelation. Now it's an interesting assertion, but is there any reason why I should believe it?

(3) Deut. 22:28 includes 'rape', by assuming its always 'rape'. The woman's consent is irrelevant for two reasons. a) The man is assumed to always be able to physically overpower her, so her resistance is near-worthless, and her consent was near-worthless too, since a man's superior ROLE in society in the Middle East everywhere gave him all the responsibility as well as the power.

No ancient Israelite judge worth a tinker's cuss would fail to blame the man for the sex-act, and fail to hold him to be the main culprit. Arguing about whether or not Deut 22:28 intends "rape" is like arguing whether or not Israelite employment under the last Pharoah was "slavery". Only a boob would split hairs like a lawyer over that.

Yet if a woman did consent and go in willingly, she was put to death also....

(4) A Father could and would refuse a marriage for the obvious reason: The guy is a turd, rapist, unemployed bum. If he can't pay, he goes to jail or is stoned to death. It would be inconceivable for the motives, or the outcome (an 'honour' killing) to be anything else anywhere in the entire Middle East. Its been that way since before Jesus' time. Hasn't anyone read the story of Dinah? If that doesn't spell out exactly how the Law is going to work itself out in practical terms for the 'rapist', you just aren't paying attention, are you? Anyone expecting better treatment in Palestine today just hasn't a clue about life, men, or the history of the planet Earth.

It wasn't Jacob who did that to Shechem and his men. It was Jacob's two sons independent of their father. However, the man could be forced to marry by the father since it was less likely she would be married and would thus die childless, a shame in Israel.

(5) "The two shall be one flesh" refers to children. Anyone missing the Prime Directive (Check the First Commandment on Page ONE of Genesis) should just put down their Bible, take a deep breath, and pray for an inkling of common sense.

No children, = fruitless (failed) union, as the very public shame of Abraham etc. shows historically. Everybody in ancient times got that. People were even willing to sleep with their drunken father to avoid the shame. (e.g. Lot's daughters).

Any evidence for this? Oh. Does the Bible ever endorse what Lot's daughters did or does it record it? If anything would be allowed to get children, then why did Lot's daughters get him drunk? Could it be they knew he wouldn't do so willingly?

Whether you accept the supernatural intervention of God or not, pregnancy was clearly a SIGN of INNOCENCE in the case of a woman accused of ADULTERY (Numbers 5). This is the OPPOSITE of what jealous husbands (who "know not the Holy Scriptures, nor the POWER of GOD" Matt.22:29) believe today. But the point is, not what the modern world, or the secular or foreign world thinks, but what do the Scriptures say?

Evidence of this?

Jacob had four wives, because he had children with them all, and God declared their innocence in no uncertain terms by conception.

One might as well say because the act of rape produces a child, then that act is innocent.

Joseph betrothed to Mary may have been a 'good man', but he was ignorant of God's law and power when he contemplated a 'private divorce', and had to be smacked by an angel in a dream-vision. Yes, even 'Godly' men were idiots, even in Jesus' day, as the vision of Peter also confirms.

Joseph was no idiot. He wanted a private divorce due to custom of Jewish law. The betrothed acted like husband and wife except they didn't live together or have intercourse. He wanted the divorce because Mary was pregnant and he knew it wasn't him. This is why the angel told him not to be afraid to marry her because the child was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not another man.

(6) Two idiot teens in a bedoin tent having experimental 'sex' is no more a case of fornication than a modern clown accidentally discovering the 'orgasm' by climbing a rope in gym class. A universal principle for sin is involved, explained plainly by Jesus Himself: "If you were blind you would have no sin." Both knowledge and intent are required.

There is an ancient (ageless) tradition of "pre-deflowering" virgin daughters on the wedding night to obtain proof of virginity, by breaking their hymen with their finger, and using a cloth to obtain the blood. This practice is so old (older than Jesus) that it is described in detail in the Talmud, and is still practiced today among gypsies in Europe.

Marriage is a pretty much universal idea. You'll find many cultures apart from the revelation of God in Scripture ready to condemn "experimental sex." Note also that one activitiy is relational. Activities done on one's own are not and intercourse is always relational.

Some would limit sex to (I suppose) AFTER modern marriage vows. But those are worthless according to O.T. Law, since the O.T. presupposes virginal marriage, and 60%+ of modern "marriages" are not between virgins at all. Secondly, while Paul may have approved of some kind of "marriage" arrangement, Jesus forbade all oaths of the type that modern Christian vows form.

You do know Paul took a vow also later on. Right? Also, because men fail to keep the concept of marriage does not mean it has no validity. There are many of us who are still virgins.

Nazaroo

May 29th 2007, 07:40 PM

First of all, let me thank you for your careful and courteous response: You did indeed attempt a reply to my various points. Lets have a look:

For the record, it was the Sadducees who did such. Secondly, what's with this feeling stuff. What does it matter how you feel? What matters is what is true. Your feelings do not determine truth.

Thanks for your correction. And what you said about feelings is true.

And the response to such is where?

I don't understand your question here at all. I am drawing a blank. What am I missing?

Some evidence of this would have been nice. However, it was customary for the first time to happen on a honeymoon night, such as in the wedding of Jacob to Leah.

I don't deny the existance of physical marriage contracts, or ritual celebrations. These are a part of history and culture extending back before Jesus' time and among many nations.

But do marriage traditions have the overt sanction of the Lord? No. They can't. For one thing, the traditions among nations and their practices and law are too diverse and contradictory for the Lord to give blanket approval for "marriage" whatever that means to people at various times and places.

Or put another way, the Lord is so lenient and merciful, its downright sloppy. He hasn't announced clear marriage laws at all, except gradually over a period of thousands of years, culminating in the NT New Covenant.

The Israelite laws for instance, are unclear, improperly preserved, and poorly interpreted even by Jews (just look at Jesus vs. Sadduces/Pharisees). If the situation is this bad (and the NT church situation is WORSE), how can we speak of God's approval of "marriage"? Does it mean anything goes?

Polygamy was allowed. Where do we see it endorsed though?

You prove too much. Its popularity and acceptance throughout the O.T. is a plain and clear PRACTICAL form of endorsement. Even in the NT this is acknowledged, if we need to prove it, by Paul's statements. He steps right past the issue of polygamy, even when commenting directly upon its results (e.g., Hagar vs Sarah). Paul is near-useless for establishing marriage rules, except when he reflects Pharisee practice or sets special standards for bishops.

The book is called Revelation. Now it's an interesting assertion, but is there any reason why I should believe it?

Why should you believe it? Because it is the interpretation that fits the historical facts. And yes, its called Revelation, which means NEW truths are unveiled, like MALE virginity.

Yet if a woman did consent and go in willingly, she was put to death also....

This was never assumed, but had to be proven at least by convincing circumstances. Innocent until proven guilty. The woman is presumed to have struggled, even if there are no witnesses (see for example city vs. country rape)

RE: Rape and Revenge for Dinah
It wasn't Jacob who did that to Shechem and his men. It was Jacob's two sons independent of their father. However, the man could be forced to marry by the father since it was less likely she would be married and would thus die childless, a shame in Israel.

Jacob is not exonerated in any way by the Genesis story. He clearly was worried about the sons' act of revenge out of fear, not because of any concerns about justice. He tacitly approved by allowing them to proceed with a deceptive plan that he could have called off or exposed at any time. Thus you should agree with me that Jacob was still quite a sinner and a disappointing leader and role-model.

But you are also admitting a key point here in the last bit: Childlessness is a SHAME in Ancient Israel. This is important, because it helps us interpret both cultural attitudes and the interpretation of God's Law.

Any evidence for this? Oh. Does the Bible ever endorse what Lot's daughters did or does it record it? If anything would be allowed to get children, then why did Lot's daughters get him drunk? Could it be they knew he wouldn't do so willingly?

Again, you prove too much. Lot's daughters were never punished, but brought their pregnancies to term and fathered whole nations. Plainly, according to the Lord's mercy and justice, their sins were less serious than the sin of Lot's wife. They were never held up as 'bad examples', even by Paul in the NT, whereas Lot's wife is brought up repeatedly. Isn't that a hint?

Lot's willingness is hardly any kind of useful measure for righteousness. The whole story seems to indicate that even Lot's righteousness was dubious and he was only saved by grace and his own fear of the Lord.

Modern critics have attacked the Bible's morality, because Lot offered up his daughters to an evil mob, apparently to save his skin. At best, his actions must be called ignorant and brainless, even if he did not believe there was any chance of the mob taking up the offer.

What Lot's daughters did may have been in part inspired by his blatant sellout, offering them to be raped and possibly killed, certainly shamed and abused. It seems obvious that after being abandoned by their own husbands, and offered up for sacrifice by their own father, these two girls had a lot of leaway and compensation coming in the way of Grace from the Lord. Compare the story of the Leper who was healed by Elisha. He was allowed by the prophet to continue to commit public IDOLATRY, in order to further the reputation and purposes of God.

Evidence of this?

We can start with the KJV (because modern translations screw this up royally through unbelief and refusal to accept the plain teaching of the Lord):

"...And if the woman be NOT defiled, but be CLEAN,
then she shall be FREE, and SHALL CONCEIVE SEED." (Num 5:28 KJV)

Although modern versions deliberately alter and destroy the plain sense of this verse, there are many literal translations which preserve it properly, for instance Young's Literal Version.

The point is, that this teaching is wholly unacceptable to 19th century Rationalism and materialistic Empiricism/Positivism, a modern 'scientism' mindset that denies the Virgin Birth and also the physical possibility of conception without human male sperm.

Our response to this 'scientific' denial of fundamental teachings from the Lord God of Israel, Creator of Heavens and Earth, is ....

.shaddap, unbeliever, go to hell, jealous and accusing husband.

Good riddance. Bon voyage, so long. arivaderche, ta ta, toodleoo. bye now.

Lake of Fire for the unbelieving.

One might as well say because the act of rape produces a child, then that act is innocent.

Joseph was no idiot. He wanted a private divorce due to custom of Jewish law. The betrothed acted like husband and wife except they didn't live together or have intercourse. He wanted the divorce because Mary was pregnant and he knew it wasn't him. This is why the angel told him not to be afraid to marry her because the child was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not another man.

This is legal gobbledy goock. 'Acts' aren't judged innocent or guilty, PEOPLE are. And this comes through establishing historical fact combined with circumstantial evidence of intent and knowledge.

According to the LAW OF GOD, if a 'rape' produces a child, the woman is innocent. Not the man. Not the onlookers, nor anyone else with guilty knowledge who failed to stop the crime.

This is no time to get 'fuzzy' and defocus on the key facts.

Pregnancy is proof of innocence in the eyes of God FOR THE WOMAN. The Holy Scripture says no more, and no less. Jealous husbands beware. It would be better for a man to have a millstone tied round his neck and be cast into the sea than to raise his hand against an innocent woman.

Marriage is a pretty much universal idea. You'll find many cultures apart from the revelation of God in Scripture ready to condemn "experimental sex." Note also that one activitiy is relational. Activities done on one's own are not and intercourse is always relational.

"Marriage", though pretty much 'universal' is also pretty much undefined, by those standards. If anything goes, great. There is female polygamy in the Himalayas, and Gay marriage in North America. Are you ok with that?

Contrary to your implication, there is NO universal definition of marriage.

You do know Paul took a vow also later on. Right? Also, because men fail to keep the concept of marriage does not mean it has no validity. There are many of us who are still virgins.

You're preaching to the converted here. Paul took a Nazarite Vow (Numbers 6). My name, Nazaroo, I took because I have also taken the Nazarite vow. My question now is, if Paul did so, why haven't you?

Peace,
Nazaroo

Chaotic Void

June 5th 2007, 12:13 AM

Nazaroo

June 7th 2007, 10:33 AM

My POV is that its not the actual act of Pre-Marital Sex that makes it the sin, but what you do after the act.
Its unethical to break up with someone after having sex, but if you stay with them and marry them, how is it unethical?

This is clearly the option in OT law, provided the father of the girl allows the marriage to take place.

I would imagine that if the father refused, and you paid the bride-price/fine, then you were a free man, but probably not considered a holy man, and eligible for priesthood service.

In the NT, there is a similarly higher expectation and standard for bishops according to the teaching of the Epistles. (i.e., a husband of only ONE wife etc.)

Stevo

July 8th 2008, 08:59 AM

This is a great thread! I've been thinking about this particular question for a couple of years and i had come to the conclusion that the whole concept of pre-martial sex was a bit of a misnomer.

I don't believe that there is any law in the Bible that states that a couple can not have sex before some man made wedding/public vows/tradition takes place. I also feel that the act of sex can be marriage in the eyes of God.

I certainly feel that this is a grey area, which depends on the motavations of the couple. I want to respect my gf in her wishes, but i'm considering letting her know how i feel about this.

FredFlanders

August 8th 2008, 12:35 AM

Biblically couples were betrothed (engaged) by either by arrangement of their parents or if a couple had a sexual encounter with each other. The marriage took place at the time schedule of the Father of the Bride. The Groom and his Father during the engagement would go and prepare a home for the Bride. Sexual encounters between the couple were forbidden again until after the marriage. When this was done and the Father of the Bride was happy with the new home and the dowry paid then consent would be given for the marriage. This is same parallel of Christ returning for the Church and our Father in heaven will determine the time. If the father was not satisfied with the new arrangement for his daughter or the dowry not paid consent would not be given until such time all was put in order. The Father would have legal a legal right to deny the marriage if the groom was an adulterer, unbeliever or had other sexual misdemeanours.
The Word of God never used the Word “fornication” against anyone unless one of the engaged couple was not faithful and had a sexual encounter with another party.
Exodus 22 v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Deut22 v 28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found. Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsels father fifty shekels of silver and he shall be his wife because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Here is an act of fornication which was called evil and had the penalty of death.
Some laws of God were just common sense transactions which was not counted as evil, fornication or had a penalty as we read in Ex 22 v 16 and Deut 22 v 28-29. Some however were evil, was fornication and had a penalty such as Deut 22 v 23-24.
Deut22 v 23-24. If a damsel that is a virgin and be betrothed (engaged) to an husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them out unto the gate of the city and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel because she cried not being in the city and the man because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife, so thou shalt put away this evil from you.

FredFlanders

August 8th 2008, 12:40 AM

The Jewish culture has a better understanding about fulfilling a marriage than do many Christians allowing their children to marry if necessary once they have completed their Bar Mitzvah or Bit Mitzvah regardless of Government laws. (however when they are of legal age the couple register their marriage with the Government)
King Josiah was married and had two children by the time fifteen years old. Historical records would also show that Mary was pregnant with Christ in her teenage years maybe in her early to mid teenage years.
Regarding customs or laws of the land, if they contradict the Word of God then we obey the Word of God and not man's law. The Jew's followed God's law on marriage and do not put obstacles in the way of their children getting married if they cannot contain them selves nor does God discriminate on a person's age when it comes to marriage. "Render unto God what is God's render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Marriage was created by God not Caesar.
Paul’s Prophesy
The Apostle Paul prophesied about young adults and marriage on this problem to those in the “Faith” that departed from His Word.
It is our responsibility that Christians have an easy path to marriage but that is not always the case. Paul warned us of this in the latter days in Timothy 4 v 1-5 of this problem. Paul was not talking about a change in food laws but rather young adults and marriage. We read; Now the Spirit speak expressly, (take note of these words) that in the latter times (the last days) some shall depart from the faith (their trust in God) paying heed (paying attention) to seducing spirits (some of the things a seducing spirit would say- “your too young to get married”, “marriage will spoil your life”, “if you marry your partner it will end in divorce”, “you have nothing in common with your partner”, “kids will ruin your life”, “you need to have an education before you get married”, “enjoy life before you get married”, “you will never have any money” etc) and doctrine of devils (miss leading teaching) Speaking lies (falsely/not from Gods word) in hypocrisy (acting/guilty of the same conduct, allowing marriage for themselves but not for others) having their conscience seared with a hot iron. (Not able to distinguish what is lawful and unlawful for a Christian) Forbidding (denying/refusing/hindering) to marry, and commanding (coming from a higher office) to abstain (kept from) from meats (Gods instructions/promises) which God has created to be received (Gods blessings to us) with thanksgiving (our praise to God) of them which believe (rely) and know (recognise/know accurately) the truth (nature of God). For every creature (new born soul) of God is good. (beautiful, handsome, excellent, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admiral, shapely and magnificent) and nothing to be refused (neglected, despised) if it be sanctified (made holy, purified, guided by) by the word of God and prayer. (Communion/relationship/friendship with God).