Who created Marriage God or Caesar?

[FredFlanders]

When the Bible talks about "fornication" what is it really talking about??

When the Law’s of Caesar contradict the Word of God then who do we obey??

When our culture contradict's the Word of God then what do we do??

[Spartacus]

Romans 13:1-7

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

[UrbanMonk]

When the Bible talks about "fornication" what is it really talking about??

It's talking about the kind of drugs that addict us to the things of the world and give us the impression it has value. And if the things of the world are valuable, then to let them go would seem to be a sacrifice. And if seems to us to be a sacrifice, there is no way we can be saved...because God will not save us from what we think we want. Whether it is "married" or "unmarried" its the same. Fornication is fornication. And fornication is about endorphins (inner morphines, drugs) and addiction. Incarnation is the primary form of fornication. What "carnal" minds do with their bodies (incarnations) is secondary. The whole point of a spiritual path is to let go of incarnation so that we do not "reincarnate"...over and over again. We will not let go of incarnation as long as we think is adds value to the perfection of Spirit. The problem with fornication is not "too much" but too little. It fools us into thinking that there is yet some value in the sacrifice of Spiritual bliss. If that is how we think, then we will never return to our natural heritage, and thus, cannot be "saved". Fornication is not more of a sin than brushing our teeth. The reason we have teeth is because we are sinners. Fornication is just more addicting than toothbrushing. That is the only reason to list it as something to watch out for (deal with) upon the spiritual path leading back to Spirit. The way to deal with it is not so much to modify actions, but to change beliefs. Action will follow beliefs. Until beliefs can be changed, it is believed that action modification may be "best" for keeping the peace. The "marriage bed" is simply a way to moderate the use of drugs (sex) until beliefs can be changed. The "marriage bed" regulates the "supply" of the drug to one "provider". This is believed to be important in keeping the peace. The ideals of the "state" are perhaps best served by the moderation of the supply and demand for the endorphins that fornication stimulates. The interests of the state, however, are not necessarily conducive toward "salvation"...serving rather to trap us in a proverbial desert for fourty million years. When marriage becomes a "tender trap", it's usefulness toward salvation is limited. Marriage for the regulation of fornication and a "holy relationship" are vastly different concepts. "Holy matrimony" is for two people who are intending to reach the goal of holiness. Fornication is what they do until they are able to change their beliefs/values about fornication. Values regarding fornication are directly related to values regarding incarnation. Incarnation is not "holy". A "holy relationship" is for overcoming the concept of incarnation so as to return to the unity of Spirit, joining where God has joined them...not where the ego has joined them. Bodies cannot unite. Only minds can unite, and ARE UNITED. Incarnation would separate what God has joined. So, holy matrimony is about uniting in Spirit. This is where two agree to go home to be Christ...as one.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[FredFlanders]

Romans 13:1-7

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.Sparty lost your strength? Do you really think that Government Laws on marriage and relationships are from God or the doctrine of devils as we read in 1 Tim 4?

[Spartacus]

Sparty lost your strength? Do you really think that Government Laws on marriage and relationships are from God or the doctrine of devils as we read in 1 Tim 4?

It seems to me that laws put in place to prevent sexual exploitation of minors are quite reasonable and do not constitute an unfair burden to any party involved.

[popaface]

Marriage is a very old and very patriarchal cultural convention. But the contemporary religious ritual of marriage is only very recent. In medieval Europe, there was no ritual, there was no "marriage", there was cohabitation and a blessing at the church doorstep, only if it was marked religiously. But marriage was normalized during the Protestant Reformation where it was seen by the Reformers as the ground for social normality. And since the rise of Capitalism (another Protestant phenomenon), marriage and "coupled" relationships have all but been normalized and universalized as the notion of the fulfilled life. This is the modern perception of marriage, it's only very recent - back in medieval societies, marriage was more like a mutual adoption of the young man and woman by others parents; it was a family affair and it was about inheritance and kinship, ties, clans, money, land, etc.

The early Christian movement was entirely against marriage; Christianity most certainly is not a family friendly religion, there were two main ways of approaching marriage in the early Church: the first was celibacy, and the second was free-love. Celibacy won out in the end as being embraced by St Augustine, free-love was advocated for a short amount of time in very little popularity, influenced heavily by Plato's Republic. Celibacy was the biggest challenge to marriage in the early Church.

Allan

[John Goddard]

When the Bible talks about "fornication" what is it really talking about??

When the Law’s of Caesar contradict the Word of God then who do we obey??

When our culture contradict's the Word of God then what do we do??

You act like an idiot and try to break the laws of Caesar so you can feel like a big man by making a spectacle of yourself, rather than doing what you think is right by ignoring Caesar and doing what you want to do privately, before God.

Your arguments are lame because you want men to accept them, and keep griping because they don't.

Let God accept it and shut up about it.

[FredFlanders]

It seems to me that laws put in place to prevent sexual exploitation of minors are quite reasonable and do not constitute an unfair burden to any party involved.
S, where not talking about sexual exploitation of minors but a Christian couple under 18 who trust in the Lord not being groomed into marriage because after a sexual encounter but rather being condemned by the church.

[FredFlanders]

You act like an idiot and try to break the laws of Caesar so you can feel like a big man by making a spectacle of yourself, rather than doing what you think is right by ignoring Caesar and doing what you want to do privately, before God.
Your arguments are lame because you want men to accept them, and keep griping because they don't.
Let God accept it and shut up about it.
So John Boy your going to put your head in the sand and walk away from those who have faith in God and could be married if the church stood up for the Truth.

[Spartacus]

S, where not talking about sexual exploitation of minors but a Christian couple under 18 who trust in the Lord not being groomed into marriage because after a sexual encounter but rather being condemned by the church.

If they are truly in love, they can wait a few years and focus on other areas- for example, proper grammar- until they are both old enough.

[FredFlanders]

If they are truly in love, they can wait a few years and focus on other areas- for example, proper grammar- until they are both old enough.
But Sparty, if they have good grammar and cannot contain my Bible says they should marry rather than burn in lust one for another. It certainly does not tell them to wait a few years.

[Spartacus]

But Sparty, if they have good grammar and cannot contain my Bible says they should marry rather than burn in lust one for another. It certainly does not tell them to wait a few years.

If they are that desperate, to marry would most certainly be overly rash. Marriage is not a pact to be entered into lightly.

Also, they are not being prevented from marrying altogether- the passage you reference is talking about asceticism and whether or not to marry at all, not whether a couple ought to wait a reasonable period until both sides are truly ready to make the commitment.

[FredFlanders]

Marriage is a very old and very patriarchal cultural convention. But the contemporary religious ritual of marriage is only very recent. In medieval Europe, there was no ritual, there was no "marriage", there was cohabitation and a blessing at the church doorstep, only if it was marked religiously. But marriage was normalized during the Protestant Reformation where it was seen by the Reformers as the ground for social normality. And since the rise of Capitalism (another Protestant phenomenon), marriage and "coupled" relationships have all but been normalized and universalized as the notion of the fulfilled life. This is the modern perception of marriage, it's only very recent - back in medieval societies, marriage was more like a mutual adoption of the young man and woman by others parents; it was a family affair and it was about inheritance and kinship, ties, clans, money, land, etc.

The early Christian movement was entirely against marriage; Christianity most certainly is not a family friendly religion, there were two main ways of approaching marriage in the early Church: the first was celibacy, and the second was free-love. Celibacy won out in the end as being embraced by St Augustine, free-love was advocated for a short amount of time in very little popularity, influenced heavily by Plato's Republic. Celibacy was the biggest challenge to marriage in the early Church.

AllanAlan you pointed out an important fact that was changed during the NT time . God gave the parents authority over their childrens marriages yet some where along the line the church has incorrectly given this authority over to Caesar.

[RCNicholas]

S, where not talking about sexual exploitation of minors but a Christian couple under 18 who trust in the Lord not being groomed into marriage because after a sexual encounter but rather being condemned by the church.
So just to be clear, you're defending the morality of pre-marital sex by minors? Just want to be sure...

[Spartacus]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a person to graduate High School before they get married.

[Country Preacher]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a person to graduate High School before they get married.

Especially if they are separated by 10 or 15 years but are in the same grade!

(been a while since I've been abused by Fred, and I kinda miss it)

[FredFlanders]

So just to be clear, you're defending the morality of pre-marital sex by minors? Just want to be sure...
RC, I am defending the sanction of marriage to all believers regardless of age. The Bible is quite clear about a couple who have had pre-marital sex and that is to get engaged and then fulfill the marriage at an appropriate time and not to get involved with another party.

[RCNicholas]

RC, I am defending the sanction of marriage to all believers regardless of age. The Bible is quite clear about a couple who have had pre-marital sex and that is to get engaged and then fulfill the marriage at an appropriate time and not to get involved with another party.
OK, well there's nothing governmentally speaking that forbids minors from marrying, they just have to have parental consent, and most churches I'm aware of are the same way....so what's the issue? You don't think they should have to have parental consent?

[FredFlanders]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a person to graduate High School before they get married.
Regardless of education it would be reasonable that the couple could support themselves. This is why in the OT if a couple were sexually involved they would be engaged (so they could not get involved with a third party and cause fornication) then the Father of the Bride would determine the wedding date. This would be when the new home for the couple was provided.

[Spartacus]

Regardless of education it would be reasonable that the couple could support themselves. This is why in the OT if a couple were sexually involved they would be engaged (so they could not get involved with a third party and cause fornication) then the Father of the Bride would determine the wedding date. This would be when the new home for the couple was provided.

There was no high school in the Old Testament. Day-to-day life - the entire society of the Old Testament- was completely different.

[FredFlanders]

OK, well there's nothing governmentally speaking that forbids minors from marrying, they just have to have parental consent, and most churches I'm aware of are the same way....so what's the issue? You don't think they should have to have parental consent?Parental consent would be prefered but not always possible if you have prejudiced parents. This is why it is important to help a young couple into marriage rather than judge them. Many religions condemn pre-marital sex rather than help fulfill the marriage.

[Spartacus]

Parental consent would be prefered but not always possible if you have prejudiced parents. This is why it is important to help a young couple into marriage rather than judge them. Many religions condemn pre-marital sex rather than help fulfill the marriage.

Would you prefer the "shotgun wedding"?

[RCNicholas]

Parental consent would be prefered but not always possible if you have prejudiced parents. Prejudiced in what sense? "Hey you 14 year olds...don't get married! Feel my tyranny!":whack:

This is why it is important to help a young couple into marriage rather than judge them. Many religions condemn pre-marital sex rather than help fulfill the marriage.Or...maybe we should do both? Condemn pre-marital sex while counseling couples who have committed it that they can receive forgiveness and put their relationship on the right track...sound good?:smile:

[FredFlanders]

There was no high school in the Old Testament. Day-to-day life - the entire society of the Old Testament- was completely different.True, but it was not a plastic society either, forcing material fornication onto their children before marriage, like many parents do today.

[FredFlanders]

Especially if they are separated by 10 or 15 years but are in the same grade!

(been a while since I've been abused by Fred, and I kinda miss it)O learned one, your back with your usual scriptural content of OOOOOOOOOOO.

[FredFlanders]

Would you prefer the "shotgun wedding"?
That 'shotgun wedding' may be used at the Lords return if any of us are in fornication at that time. Better to marry than be dead.

[Spartacus]

That 'shotgun wedding' may be used at the Lords return if any of us are in fornication at that time. Better to marry than be dead.

:huh:

In Heaven, no one marries or is given in marriage. The proper way to deal with extramarital sex is not a shotgun wedding but honest repentance of sins committed.

[FredFlanders]

Prejudiced in what sense? "Hey you 14 year olds...don't get married! Feel my tyranny!":whack:

Or...maybe we should do both? Condemn pre-marital sex while counseling couples who have committed it that they can receive forgiveness and put their relationship on the right track...sound good?:smile:Forgiveness for what? They have commited no sin. The Bible direction is get engaged and married at an appropriate time. And the same direction is for 14 year olds as well. Where are you getting your information from. Obviously not the Bible.

[RCNicholas]

Forgiveness for what? They have commited no sin. The Bible direction is get engaged and married at an appropriate time. And the same direction is for 14 year olds as well. Where are you getting your information from. Obviously not the Bible.
So premarital sex is not sinful, to you? Sex outside the bounds of marriage is perfectly Biblical and acceptable?

[FredFlanders]

:huh:
In Heaven, no one marries or is given in marriage. The proper way to deal with extramarital sex is not a shotgun wedding but honest repentance of sins committed.
I understand there is no marriages in heaven but those in fornication will not enter into heaven. God will use his own shotgun. Repentance is to turn around and follow the Word of God. Which means the Christian couple couple fulfill the marriage. Not to do so and get involved with a third party is fornication. It is the Leaders in the Church responsability to see the marriage fulfilled.

[Spartacus]

I understand there is no marriages in heaven but those in fornication will not enter into heaven. God will use his own shotgun. Repentance is to turn around and follow the Word of God. Which means the Christian couple couple fulfill the marriage. Not to do so and get involved with a third party is fornication. It is the Leaders in the Church responsability to see the marriage fulfilled.

How do you get that idea?

[FredFlanders]

So premarital sex is not sinful, to you? Sex outside the bounds of marriage is perfectly Biblical and acceptable?It is only a sin if the marriage is not fulfilled. Show me in the Bible where it is a sin?

[Spartacus]

It is only a sin if the marriage is not fulfilled. Show me in the Bible where it is a sin?

Show us where in the Bible you get the idea that every matter of doctrine must come from the Bible :ahem:

But since you want Biblical evidence from us, how about a bit from you, first? It looks to me like you haven't given any direct citations at all.

[FredFlanders]

How do you get that idea?
Gal 5 v 19-21 Fornicators/immoral will not enter into the Kingdom of God.

[Spartacus]

Gal 5 v 19-tr Fornicators/immoral will not enter into the Kingdom of God.

That doesn't quite answer my question.

[FredFlanders]

Show us where in the Bible you get the idea that every matter of doctrine must come from the Bible :ahem:

But since you want Biblical evidence from us, how about a bit from you, first? It looks to me like you haven't given any direct citations at all.
Deut 22 v 25-29 , 1 Cor 7

[FredFlanders]

That doesn't quite answer my question.

If you are asking me what repentance means? It means to stop sinning and follow the Word of God. What do you think it means?

[RCNicholas]

Deut 22 v 25-29 , 1 Cor 7

The Deut. passage indicated what in the OT the Jews were to do in the case that an unmarried man and woman had sex. That doesn't mean that the sex was OK. That's your own odd assumption. In 1 Cor. 7, Paul indicates that a couple should get married to AVOID fornication...that makes no sense if fornication is perfectly alright as long as they're gonna get married someday.

[UrbanMonk]

If you are asking me what repentance means? It means to stop sinning and follow the Word of God. What do you think it means?

Yah, but to repent, you'd have to understand what sin is, and what the Word of God is. Most christians don't.

[FredFlanders]

The Deut. passage indicated what in the OT the Jews were to do in the case that an unmarried man and woman had sex. That doesn't mean that the sex was OK. That's your own odd assumption. In 1 Cor. 7, Paul indicates that a couple should get married to AVOID fornication...that makes no sense if fornication is perfectly alright as long as they're gonna get married someday.First of all we need to understand the meaning of the word 'fornication'. The English dictionary meaning is 'sex outside marriage'. The Bible dictionary's meaning is 'unlawfull sex'. you need to go back into the OT to find what was unlawfull. You will find incest, homosexuality, adultry, beastiality, and prostitution were all unlawfull. When the word 'fornication' was being used in the NT it was refering to one or all these sexual acts and not acts between two unmarried persons. The direction was for them to marry. There was no sin or penalty. In 1 Cor 7 v 2 we were told to avoid 'fornication' (the temptation of an unlawfull sexual act) by finding a wife or husband in the Church.

[FredFlanders]

Yah, but to repent, you'd have to understand what sin is, and what the Word of God is. Most christians don't.I agree that most christian religions are false. That is why we need to search the Word and find the Truth in Christ.

[popaface]

Alan you pointed out an important fact that was changed during the NT time . God gave the parents authority over their childrens marriages yet some where along the line the church has incorrectly given this authority over to Caesar.

That's not what I said. I was pointing out the historico-sociologico-religious evolving traditions of what might be categorized today as "marriage". I was subjectifying it by pointing out just how different it used to be back, even only in the Medieval era. And I was deconstructing it by suggesting that Christian history has long been against the violent institution.

Allan

[UrbanMonk]

I agree that most christian religions are false. That is why we need to search the Word and find the Truth in Christ.

The Word of God and the bible are not the same. Once upon a time, someone learned to listen to the Word of God. He became legendary. The NT records some versions of the legend. These are a collection of hearsay, rhetoric, sophistry, and allegorical embellishment along with a hand-ful of edited sound bytes. God has not left the salvation of his Son to such a rag tag assembly of disemblance. The Word of God is the Voice of God is the Spirit of Truth...is the Holy Spirit. This is the Savior who represents Christ to the lost. The Savior is Spirit, not paper and ink. Those who have ears to hear let them hear...then let them scribe.

[FredFlanders]

That's not what I said. I was pointing out the historico-sociologico-religious evolving traditions of what might be categorized today as "marriage". I was subjectifying it by pointing out just how different it used to be back, even only in the Medieval era. And I was deconstructing it by suggesting that Christian history has long been against the violent institution.

AllanAlan I cannot see that the NT is against the intitution of marriage what soever.

[FredFlanders]

The Word of God and the bible are not the same. Once upon a time, someone learned to listen to the Word of God. He became legendary. The NT records some versions of the legend. These are a collection of hearsay, rhetoric, sophistry, and allegorical embellishment along with a hand-ful of edited sound bytes. God has not left the salvation of his Son to such a rag tag assembly of disemblance. The Word of God is the Voice of God is the Spirit of Truth...is the Holy Spirit. This is the Savior who represents Christ to the lost. The Savior is Spirit, not paper and ink. Those who have ears to hear let them hear...then let them scribe.UM, the Word of God and the Bible are the same as I have experienced tangable proof of this by the Holy Spirit.

[Country Preacher]

UM, the Word of God and the Bible are the same as I have experienced tangable proof of this by the Holy Spirit.

Gold plates?

[popaface]

Alan I cannot see that the NT is against the intitution of marriage what soever.

Really? Second, third and fourth century Christians certainly thought they did.

Though, in all probability (?) they were fundamentally wrong and the truth is only now coming out about it, when FredFlanders picked up his Bible and said... "Hey! Wait a minute!"

Allan

[popaface]

Alan I cannot see that the NT is against the intitution of marriage what soever.

And, there was no "institution of marriage" when the NT was being written. At least certainly not in the same sense that the "institution" became popularized post-Reformation times.

Allan

[popaface]

UM, the Word of God and the Bible are the same as I have experienced tangable proof of this by the Holy Spirit.

And which Bible are you talking about? The Muratorian Fragment? The Cheltenahm canon? The Codex Alexandrius? It's not as if there has always been one standardized text for all of Christian history, in fact, there have been a great number of texts that have been understood of as Scripture at one time or another by various faith communities.

And by "experienced tangable proof of this by the Holy Spirit" - you do mean "have grown up believing this due to the very strong presence of contemporary Evangelical Christianities", right? I mean, if you grew up in the second century you might think that the Shepherd of Hermas deserves rightful recognition as Christian Scripture, (As I think it does now, in the 21st century).

Allan

[RCNicholas]

First of all we need to understand the meaning of the word 'fornication'. The English dictionary meaning is 'sex outside marriage'. The Bible dictionary's meaning is 'unlawfull sex'. you need to go back into the OT to find what was unlawfull. You will find incest, homosexuality, adultry, beastiality, and prostitution were all unlawfull. When the word 'fornication' was being used in the NT it was refering to one or all these sexual acts and not acts between two unmarried persons. The direction was for them to marry. There was no sin or penalty. In 1 Cor 7 v 2 we were told to avoid 'fornication' (the temptation of an unlawfull sexual act) by finding a wife or husband in the Church.Why would we need to find a wife or husband in order to avoid fornication, if it's not a sin to sleep with someone outside of marriage?

[UrbanMonk]

UM, the Word of God and the Bible are the same as I have experienced tangable proof of this by the Holy Spirit.

Freddy, let's be honest. You've been fornicating every since you got married and the bible is a book that helps you justify it by making it socially acceptable. The bible gives you P(s)aul, a neo-pharisee, who tells you that "the marriage bed is holy"...telling you this in the name of God. As such, the bible is not better than the oracle of Delphi...an idol not made of gold, but of paper and ink. It makes "god" "speak"...as you would imagine. Otherwise, your "god" would be a deaf, dumb and mute mishmash of delirius daydreams. There isn't anything "holy" about the "holy" bible. If you let the Holy Spirit interpret it for you, you can make it all go away, back to the nothingness from which it came. Then, only SPIRIT will remain, and "you" with it. Till then, the bible is a "private" interpretation...giving you your own fantasies as "the truth".

[FredFlanders]

Really? Second, third and fourth century Christians certainly thought they did.

Though, in all probability (?) they were fundamentally wrong and the truth is only now coming out about it, when FredFlanders picked up his Bible and said... "Hey! Wait a minute!"

Allan
Alan, Christians are contantly being led astray by the enemy. That is why God gave us His Son and the Bible to keep us on track.

[FredFlanders]

And, there was no "institution of marriage" when the NT was being written. At least certainly not in the same sense that the "institution" became popularized post-Reformation times.

Allan
Alan there was no institution of marriage by Caesar when the Bible was written as the institution of marriage was by the authority of the parents.

[FredFlanders]

And which Bible are you talking about? The Muratorian Fragment? The Cheltenahm canon? The Codex Alexandrius? It's not as if there has always been one standardized text for all of Christian history, in fact, there have been a great number of texts that have been understood of as Scripture at one time or another by various faith communities.

And by "experienced tangable proof of this by the Holy Spirit" - you do mean "have grown up believing this due to the very strong presence of contemporary Evangelical Christianities", right? I mean, if you grew up in the second century you might think that the Shepherd of Hermas deserves rightful recognition as Christian Scripture, (As I think it does now, in the 21st century).

AllanI am talking about the KJV Genesis to Revelation Bible. And I did not believe until God empowered me with the Holy Spirit 26 years ago when I was 26 years old.

[UrbanMonk]

Alan, Christians are contantly being led astray by the enemy. That is why God gave us His Son and the Bible to keep us on track.


What do you say is the "enemy"?

[FredFlanders]

Why would we need to find a wife or husband in order to avoid fornication, if it's not a sin to sleep with someone outside of marriage?
RC what the scripture is saying is to avoid prostitution, adultry, incest, homosexuality etc, find a life long partner (husband or wife) in the Lord. Remember when this was written there were no government marriage certificates. The marriage certificate today is only a registration for Ceasar for our taxes. The most important thing is that we remain faithfull to our chosen life long partner. It is a sin to sleep with someone else.

[RCNicholas]

RC what the scripture is saying is to avoid prostitution, adultry, incest, homosexuality etc, find a life long partner (husband or wife) in the Lord. Remember when this was written there were no government marriage certificates. The marriage certificate today is only a registration for Ceasar for our taxes. The most important thing is that we remain faithfull to our chosen life long partner. It is a sin to sleep with someone else.And how do you know someone is your life partner...until you marry them?!?!:wink: Even THAT doesn't mean much anymore. Again, I repeat the question: why would Paul encourage his followers to seek a husband or wife in order to avoid fornication, if sleeping with someone before marriage isn't fornication? If fornication has nothing to do with pre-marital sex, then getting a spouse wouldn't make you avoid it.

[UrbanMonk]

And how do you know someone is your life partner...until you marry them?!?!:wink: Even THAT doesn't mean much anymore. Again, I repeat the question: why would Paul encourage his followers to seek a husband or wife in order to avoid fornication, if sleeping with someone before marriage isn't fornication? If fornication has nothing to do with pre-marital sex, then getting a spouse wouldn't make you avoid it.

This is precisely my point. Fornication is fornication, in or out of such social constructs as "marriage". Fornication has a broader, much more metaphorical reference. It pertains to all things "flesh", symbolized by "pork". Flesh is not an institution established by Our Father. It is established by the "prodigal Son" as "the truth". The problem with flesh is it's a lie. Fornication is any argument which supports the lie against the truth of Spirit. Sex is just one kind of argument in support of the lie. It is a potent argument, a "temptation" of note. But it does not describe the full import of the word.

[FredFlanders]

Freddy, let's be honest. You've been fornicating every since you got married and the bible is a book that helps you justify it by making it socially acceptable. The bible gives you P(s)aul, a neo-pharisee, who tells you that "the marriage bed is holy"...telling you this in the name of God. As such, the bible is not better than the oracle of Delphi...an idol not made of gold, but of paper and ink. It makes "god" "speak"...as you would imagine. Otherwise, your "god" would be a deaf, dumb and mute mishmash of delirius daydreams. There isn't anything "holy" about the "holy" bible. If you let the Holy Spirit interpret it for you, you can make it all go away, back to the nothingness from which it came. Then, only SPIRIT will remain, and "you" with it. Till then, the bible is a "private" interpretation...giving you your own fantasies as "the truth".Monkey Man, get a good Bible Dictionary and you might see what fornication means. Some christians might be delirius but I asure you there is nothing fake in what I have experienced.

[UrbanMonk]

Monkey Man, get a good Bible Dictionary and you might see what fornication means. Some christians might be delirius but I asure you there is nothing fake in what I have experienced.

What have you experienced? I have experienced manhood. But I admit now that I have faked myself out.

[FredFlanders]

What do you say is the "enemy"?Any spirit that is againt the True and living God.

[UrbanMonk]

Any spirit that is againt the True and living God.

I'd say that's the spirit of guilt...the unholy spirit. Tell me, is guilt any kind of "truth" in your way of thinking?

[FredFlanders]

And how do you know someone is your life partner...until you marry them?!?!:wink: Even THAT doesn't mean much anymore. Again, I repeat the question: why would Paul encourage his followers to seek a husband or wife in order to avoid fornication, if sleeping with someone before marriage isn't fornication? If fornication has nothing to do with pre-marital sex, then getting a spouse wouldn't make you avoid it.RC, if you are sleeping with someone and both parties have no intention of marriage for life then you are in 'fornication' or 'prostitution' or 'adultry' if you go and find another partner. What do you think constitutes a marriage?

[FredFlanders]

This is precisely my point. Fornication is fornication, in or out of such social constructs as "marriage". Fornication has a broader, much more metaphorical reference. It pertains to all things "flesh", symbolized by "pork". Flesh is not an institution established by Our Father. It is established by the "prodigal Son" as "the truth". The problem with flesh is it's a lie. Fornication is any argument which supports the lie against the truth of Spirit. Sex is just one kind of argument in support of the lie. It is a potent argument, a "temptation" of note. But it does not describe the full import of the word.No, 'fornication' is idolitry and sex outside of the relationship with your life long partner.

[FredFlanders]

I'd say that's the spirit of guilt...the unholy spirit. Tell me, is guilt any kind of "truth" in your way of thinking?Guilt's a weapon of the enemy to take us away from the truth. False religion will use this tactic so they can try to control you. Faith in the Word of God is what brings us to the Truth.

[UrbanMonk]

Guilt's a weapon of the enemy to take us away from the truth. False religion will use this tactic so they can try to control you. Faith in the Word of God is what brings us to the Truth.

So, what does the Word of God say about guilt?

[FredFlanders]

What have you experienced? I have experienced manhood. But I admit now that I have faked myself out.I have experienced Christ's Holy Spirit which allows me to opperate in all the gifts we read in 1 Cor 12.

[UrbanMonk]

I have experienced Christ's Holy Spirit which allows me to opperate in all the gifts we read in 1 Cor 12.

What would you say are the gifts of the unholy spirit?

[FredFlanders]

So, what does the Word of God say about guilt?
If we follow Christ in obedience we have nothing to be guilty about. But to follow Him we first need the Holy Spirit to enable us to do so.

[UrbanMonk]

If we follow Christ in obedience we have nothing to be guilty about. But to follow Him we first need the Holy Spirit to enable us to do so.

So who is Christ, and who are "you"? What is the Holy Spirit telling you about this distinction?

[FredFlanders]

What would you say are the gifts of the unholy spirit?
I have never heard of an unholy spirit? But at a guess Ii would say false christianity would fit nicely. What do you think an unholy spirit is?

[FredFlanders]

So who is Christ, and who are "you"? What is the Holy Spirit telling you about this distinction?
I am a man of flesh like you but with the Spirit of Christ which allows me to do the same works as Him.

[UrbanMonk]

I have never heard of an unholy spirit? But at a guess Ii would say false christianity would fit nicely. What do you think an unholy spirit is?

An unholy spirit is what makes the prodigal Son leave the holiness (oneness, holiness, unity, equality, glory, magnitude) of his home. It is the desire to be separate, autonomous, different, unique, and special. It's what drives the prodigal son to manifest all things physical, fleshly, limited, and ranked among a heirarchy of unequals. Whatever religion supports any of these factors is operating according to the unholy spirit.

[UrbanMonk]

I am a man of flesh like you but with the Spirit of Christ which allows me to do the same works as Him.

Brother, it pains me to inform you of a grave mistake, one which you can recover from given time, patience, and forgiveness. This is not of the Holy Spirit.

[FredFlanders]

An unholy spirit is what makes the prodigal Son leave the holiness (oneness, holiness, unity, equality, glory, magnitude) of his home. It is the desire to be separate, autonomous, different, unique, and special. It's what drives the prodigal son to manifest all things physical, fleshly, limited, and ranked among a heirarchy of unequals. Whatever religion supports any of these factors is operating according to the unholy spirit.I can agree with this example.

[FredFlanders]

Brother, it pains me to inform you of a grave mistake, one which you can recover from given time, patience, and forgiveness. This is not of the Holy Spirit.
So Monkey Man, what works of Christ are not of the Holy Spirit?

[UrbanMonk]

So Monkey Man, what works of Christ are not of the Holy Spirit?

Me thinks the question was not phrased correctly. All of the works of the Holy Spirit are for Christ...for the salvation of the Son of God from his own illusions about himself. The Son of God is a holy spirit. The world is what happens when the Son of God sees himself as an unholy spirit...and manifests a desire to be separated (from the Kingdom of God). This is the function of bodies. The agent of separation is called in parable "the prodigal Son". The prodigal Son sees himself as a "sinner"...guilty and condemned. The world arises in his imagination to prove this is true. As such, the world is a false witness against the Son of God. The Holy Spirit informs the Son of who he truly is...a holy spirit. The Holy Spirit will never tell the Son of God that he is a son of man. The unholy spirit teaches the opposite. That is how I have "judged" your teacher/teaching. Yes, you are capable of doing the kinds of things Jesus did...but only as you accept the identity the Holy Spirit teaches is your inheritance. Only the "Son of God" does the kinds of things Jesus did. If we would follow, we would also confess the name of the Son of God our inheritance. In this way, we UNITE...reversing the effects of the unholy spirit. Unification and atonement are synonymous.

[Teluog]

:popcorn:

[FredFlanders]

Me thinks the question was not phrased correctly. All of the works of the Holy Spirit are for Christ...for the salvation of the Son of God from his own illusions about himself. The Son of God is a holy spirit. The world is what happens when the Son of God sees himself as an unholy spirit...and manifests a desire to be separated (from the Kingdom of God). This is the function of bodies. The agent of separation is called in parable "the prodigal Son". The prodigal Son sees himself as a "sinner"...guilty and condemned. The world arises in his imagination to prove this is true. As such, the world is a false witness against the Son of God. The Holy Spirit informs the Son of who he truly is...a holy spirit. The Holy Spirit will never tell the Son of God that he is a son of man. The unholy spirit teaches the opposite. That is how I have "judged" your teacher/teaching. Yes, you are capable of doing the kinds of things Jesus did...but only as you accept the identity the Holy Spirit teaches is your inheritance. Only the "Son of God" does the kinds of things Jesus did. If we would follow, we would also confess the name of the Son of God our inheritance. In this way, we UNITE...reversing the effects of the unholy spirit. Unification and atonement are synonymous.Actually Monkey Man you have a better understanding on who Jesus is and who the Holy Spirit is than most of the religious false christians on this web. There may be some hope for you in God's plan.

[Country Preacher]

Actually Monkey Man you have a better understanding on who Jesus is and who the Holy Spirit is than most of the religious false christians on this web. There may be some hope for you in God's plan.

Fred, did you ever pass 8th grade?

[UrbanMonk]

Actually Monkey Man you have a better understanding on who Jesus is and who the Holy Spirit is than most of the religious false christians on this web. There may be some hope for you in God's plan.

Fred, don't listen to "Country Preacher". We must learn to "discern the spirits". The Holy Spirit will never tell you that you are guilty. The unholy spirit will always tell you you are guilty for one thing or another. As such, the unholy spirit is the "accuser of the brethren". Let me ask you a question. Which religion(s) accuse everyone of being guilty? Which religion teaches no one is guilty?

[FredFlanders]

Fred, did you ever pass 8th grade?
Ah, one of the False Prophets turns up at the appropriate time. But to answer your question I dropped out of school as early as I could. Now I know everything as Chist teaches my dumb mind.

[FredFlanders]

Fred, don't listen to "Country Preacher". We must learn to "discern the spirits". The Holy Spirit will never tell you that you are guilty. The unholy spirit will always tell you you are guilty for one thing or another. As such, the unholy spirit is the "accuser of the brethren". Let me ask you a question. Which religion(s) accuse everyone of being guilty? Which religion teaches no one is guilty?
Monkey Man I do like CP jokes but his religion is with the fairies.
True Christianity doesnot condemn if you follow the Holy Spirit.

[Teluog]

Monkey Man I do like CP jokes but his religion is with the fairies.
True Christianity doesnot condemn if you follow the Holy Spirit.

Then stopping condemning CP, hypocrite.

[Country Preacher]

Ah, one of the False Prophets turns up at the appropriate time. But to answer your question I dropped out of school as early as I could. Now I know everything as Chist teaches my dumb mind.

That explains a LOT! :smile:
I love you, Fred, and Jesus does too.

[UrbanMonk]

Monkey Man I do like CP jokes but his religion is with the fairies.
True Christianity doesnot condemn if you follow the Holy Spirit.

What does "true" christianity condemn you for? I thought "there is no condemnation in Christ"?

[DesertBerean]

Well. Far as I'm able to understand this, the issue is minors having sex before marriage?

I don't know if that's the real issue, is it? Customs of marriagable age varies all over the world don't they? Yet there ARE some type of limits imposed by other than private parties on just how old the couple should be, correct?

Is the real issue about whether there should be outside restraints on the families' roles in marriages?

From the Biblical viewpoint, I would suggest that while in OT times custom did give the parents and families a lot of power in that decision, they were restricted in just how that marriage is recognized and acceptable, no? Otherwise Moses would not have outlined what was unlawful sex yes? For instance, what to do with the man who forces himself on an unwilling woman. (Whenever I read that passage, I get the impression the female is usually young. Is that a correct reading? If so, then there WAS an expection of certain marriagable age). The parents and/or families were restricted in what was to be recognized as marriage. In other words..there were outside controls on their customs for marriage.

NT times, far as I can see, that hadn't changed. Didn't Joseph not touch Mary until after marriage? Didn't the Bible say he was a righteous man? Why would he feel compelled to put Mary away? He thought the baby was not his. IF he was already having sex with her, and he was a righteous man, he would have no legitmate reason to put her away, would he? There were no DNA tests in those days to prove paternity. *And* I'm told that even in NT times there was a rule about waiting until the girl reached puberty before completing the marriage contract. Another outside restraint on the families's authority?

I suggest the conclusion is there was to be no sex until some kind of ritual took place to formalize the arrangement, something that not just the families would recognize.

How are we different today in outside controls that defines what is acceptable marriage at what age?

[Country Preacher]

Now I know everything

Besides being filled with Humility, right?

as Chist teaches my dumb mind.

You can't even SPELL Christ, let alone FOLLOW him. :smile:

[FredFlanders]

Well. Far as I'm able to understand this, the issue is minors having sex before marriage?

I don't know if that's the real issue, is it? Customs of marriagable age varies all over the world don't they? Yet there ARE some type of limits imposed by other than private parties on just how old the couple should be, correct?

Is the real issue about whether there should be outside restraints on the families' roles in marriages?

From the Biblical viewpoint, I would suggest that while in OT times custom did give the parents and families a lot of power in that decision, they were restricted in just how that marriage is recognized and acceptable, no? Otherwise Moses would not have outlined what was unlawful sex yes? For instance, what to do with the man who forces himself on an unwilling woman. (Whenever I read that passage, I get the impression the female is usually young. Is that a correct reading? If so, then there WAS an expection of certain marriagable age). The parents and/or families were restricted in what was to be recognized as marriage. In other words..there were outside controls on their customs for marriage.

NT times, far as I can see, that hadn't changed. Didn't Joseph not touch Mary until after marriage? Didn't the Bible say he was a righteous man? Why would he feel compelled to put Mary away? He thought the baby was not his. IF he was already having sex with her, and he was a righteous man, he would have no legitmate reason to put her away, would he? There were no DNA tests in those days to prove paternity. *And* I'm told that even in NT times there was a rule about waiting until the girl reached puberty before completing the marriage contract. Another outside restraint on the families's authority?

I suggest the conclusion is there was to be no sex until some kind of ritual took place to formalize the arrangement, something that not just the families would recognize.

How are we different today in outside controls that defines what is acceptable marriage at what age?DB, your conclusions on marriage are good. One point however that if a couple had sex without being married they were betrothed and then married at an appropriate time. There was no penalty for this nor was it unlawful as long as the marriage was fulfilled. The Jews still practice this formula today. It was unlawful for either party to get involved with a third party. Many young adults who get involved sexually today, rather being groomed for marriage they are wrongfully condemned by religion.

[FredFlanders]

Then stopping condemning CP, hypocrite.

Marilyn, I do not condemn anyone. False Prophets condemn themselves by what they say. If you speak against any of the gifts of the Spirit you speak against Christ.

[FredFlanders]

That explains a LOT! :smile:
I love you, Fred, and Jesus does too.

I love me too.



And you, that is why God wants you flowing in the Spirit operating all the gifts so you can teach and empower others in Christ Jesus.

[FredFlanders]

What does "true" christianity condemn you for? I thought "there is no condemnation in Christ"?

There is no condemnation walking in the Spirit of Christ. There is only comdemnation walking outside the Spirit of Christ or following the unholy spirit as you put it.

[FredFlanders]

Besides being filled with Humility, right?



You can't even SPELL Christ, let alone FOLLOW him. :smile:

Yer well, I'm emailing on my mobile phone again. Bad phone!

[DesertBerean]

DB, your conclusions on marriage are good. One point however that if a couple had sex without being married they were betrothed and then married at an appropriate time. There was no penalty for this nor was it unlawful as long as the marriage was fulfilled. The Jews still practice this formula today. It was unlawful for either party to get involved with a third party. Many young adults who get involved sexually today, rather being groomed for marriage they are wrongfully condemned by religion.

Just curious...which group of Jews have this practice today?

But I am a Christian. The teaching of the New Testament, is this: If we burn, we must marry. To quench the burning before marriage is to disobey that Scripture, isn't it? Can you show where it was considered okay for Christians to go to bed without being married first?

And if they should be minors...why should we as Christians interfere if the parents insist they cease and desist and NOT marry? It's messy enough with all the laws about what age anyone is allowed to marry and when parental consent is required at what age. Why are we even arguing this here? The Blble says the parents have the final say in what happens with their kids, and the kids are expected to obey their parents. If the parents say there is to be NO sex before marriage (which we Christians believe is Biblical), who are we to contradict them?

[Teluog]

Marilyn, I do not condemn anyone. False Prophets condemn themselves by what they say. If you speak against any of the gifts of the Spirit you speak against Christ.

Non sequitor.

[UrbanMonk]

There is only comdemnation walking outside the Spirit of Christ or following the unholy spirit as you put it.

Who is condemning who? For what?

[Country Preacher]

Who is condemning who? For what?

Fred is condemning all Christians who do not speak in tongues.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

But you have to after the Spirit the way Fred decides, or you're condemned. :shrug:

[FredFlanders]

Just curious...which group of Jews have this practice today?

But I am a Christian. The teaching of the New Testament, is this: If we burn, we must marry. To quench the burning before marriage is to disobey that Scripture, isn't it? Can you show where it was considered okay for Christians to go to bed without being married first?

And if they should be minors...why should we as Christians interfere if the parents insist they cease and desist and NOT marry? It's messy enough with all the laws about what age anyone is allowed to marry and when parental consent is required at what age. Why are we even arguing this here? The Blble says the parents have the final say in what happens with their kids, and the kids are expected to obey their parents. If the parents say there is to be NO sex before marriage (which we Christians believe is Biblical), who are we to contradict them?

DB, ask a Rabbi or do a search on the internet about Jewish marriage.

The Jewish allow 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)

DB, what is your definition of marriage? Remember when the scriptures were written there was no marriage certificate given by Caesar. There was however an agreement between parents which sometimes involved a dowry and proof of a marriage was signified by the shedding of blood by the bride.

If a couple burn in lust one for another the Bible direction is for them to marry. There is no were in NT does it say they must be totally abstinent. Actually 1 Cor 7 v 2 says Some of you say, "It is good for a man not to have sex with a woman." 2 But since there is so much sexual sin, each man should have his own wife. And each woman should have her own husband. 3 A husband should satisfy his wife's sexual needs. And a wife should satisfy her husband's sexual needs.

Exodus 22v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

It was never the parent’s duty not to allow their children to marry (within the faith). Whenever the time came for marriage the children would find a husband or wife or the parents would find a partner for their children.

What the Bible says is that once you have had sex with someone you marry and not to go find another partner as this is a sin and punishable by law.

Here is an act of fornication which was called evil and had the penalty of death.

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]

Fred is condemning all Christians who do not speak in tongues.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

But you have to after the Spirit the way Fred decides, or you're condemned. :shrug:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

1 Cor 14 v 21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

[Country Preacher]

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

1 Cor 14 v 21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

(Psa 137:9 KJV) Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

(1 Chr 26:18 KJV) At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

(Mat 27:5 KJV) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

OH, and I almost forgot....

68064

[FredFlanders]

(Psa 137:9 KJV) Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

(1 Chr 26:18 KJV) At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

(Mat 27:5 KJV) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

OH, and I almost forgot....

68064My wife would say that looks like me. But then my wife looks like Wilma.

[Country Preacher]

My wife would say that looks like me.

You finally said something intelligent! :smile:

But then my wife looks like Wilma.

Only much younger, eh? :wink:

[Bosco]

When the Bible talks about "fornication" what is it really talking about??

More times than not, IMO, it is speaking about idols and not sex. I know what modern dictionaries and lexicons say, but we are speaking about a word that had a different meaning then as it does now. (Heresy is another word whose meaning has been changed in modern times) Adultery was dealt with cheating on a spouse, or in sleeping with another's spouse.... but fornication generally best aligns to dealings with false gods and idols.

When the Law’s of Caesar contradict the Word of God then who do we obey??

God! His word is profitable for doctrine, for correction... for instruction in "righteousness." Not saying of course we should break civil laws, and we are forced due to living in a secular nation rules by a secular government to adhere to things not within the will of God. But we belong to God, not Ceasar... so God's will should be paramount regardless of the consequences.

When our culture contradict's the Word of God then what do we do??

In our personal life, awaiting the return of Messiah... stay true to the will of God. Make no mistake either, our culture and religious traditions (not all of them) indeed contradict the Word of God.

Peace.
Ken

[FredFlanders]

More times than not, IMO, it is speaking about idols and not sex. I know what modern dictionaries and lexicons say, but we are speaking about a word that had a different meaning then as it does now. (Heresy is another word whose meaning has been changed in modern times) Adultery was dealt with cheating on a spouse, or in sleeping with another's spouse.... but fornication generally best aligns to dealings with false gods and idols.



God! His word is profitable for doctrine, for correction... for instruction in "righteousness." Not saying of course we should break civil laws, and we are forced due to living in a secular nation rules by a secular government to adhere to things not within the will of God. But we belong to God, not Ceasar... so God's will should be paramount regardless of the consequences.



In our personal life, awaiting the return of Messiah... stay true to the will of God. Make no mistake either, our culture and religious traditions (not all of them) indeed contradict the Word of God.

Peace.
KenI agree on all Ken. Fornication is not an appropriate word used by the translators. In the OT yes, it was refering to idolitry and in the NT, immorality or unlawfull sex such as prostitution, homosexuality, adultry, etc. In most cases exceptable to Ceasar but not God.

[Bosco]

I agree on all Ken. Fornication is not an appropriate word used by the translators. In the OT yes, it was refering to idolitry and in the NT, immorality or unlawfull sex such as prostitution, homosexuality, adultry, etc. In most cases exceptable to Ceasar but not God.

It does make it more difficult to get through. There was a time when I thought looking at the Greek and Hebrew was not needed, that what I had in our English bibles (not saying it's all bad) was enough. But, when any language is brought into another there are times when the new language does not have a perfect equivelant for certain words which come from the old. Fornication is one of those words. It is used correctly in some places, and then in others it just doesn't work.

Peace.
Ken