Fornication or sexual immorality? Is fornication sexual immorality?

[Trackdayguy]

Part of the problem with those in the Biblical literalists camp, is a lack of understanding of the context of scripture. The scriptures can only be interpreted based on time and who was being spoken to. Once we fail to understand that then the whole book becomes about truth, when in reality NOTHING could be further from the truth.

For example if you incorrectly assume that the Bible is "the Word of God" then it becomes a a word for all people throughout all time. The important thing to remember here is which parts of scriptures have eternal truth in them and which parts were written specifically for the local audience.

Eg. Don't eat pork. To understand why this was written and to whom is critically important in trying to understand why it was being said. Is that relevant today, maybe in some hot countries it is, but to us here in the west when we have greater concept of hygiene & refrigerators, NO. So instead of the Bible becoming a book of exhortation, religion has turned it into an instruction book where the religious use it as a weapon to bring correction and judgement.

Please stop quoting Bible verses when you clearly dont understand how to interpret it.

 

[Skwim]

how so?

Well considering that fornication is limited to

for·ni·ca·tion
ˌfôrnəˈkāSH(ə)n/

noun: fornication; plural noun: fornications
sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.
​

OR (as elsewhere defined)

fornication
[fawr-ni-key-shuh n]

noun
1. voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.
​

and:

fornication
(ˌfɔrnɪˈkeɪʃən ; fôrˌnikāˈshən)
noun
1.
a.voluntary sexual intercourse engaged in by a man, esp. an unmarried man, with an unmarried woman
b.voluntary sexual intercourse engaged in by an unmarried person: if the other person is married, the act of the unmarried person is sometimes considered adultery
​

and sexual intercourse is:

1. a joining of the sexual organs of a male and a female, in which the erect penis of the male is inserted into the vagina of the female, usually with the ejaculation of semen into the vagina

​

All the other forms of sexual expression, such as oral sex, anal sex, B & D, mutual masturbation, "dry humping," etc., which could be considered to be sexually immoral, are not covered under the term "fornication."

.

 

[Holly]

Why?

Because that's what I believe since my life has changed and is being healed physically, mentally, and spiritually from praying and going to church and hearing/reading the word.

 

[Trackdayguy]

Because that's what I believe since my life has changed and is being healed physically, mentally, and spiritually from praying and going to church and hearing/reading the word.

Please to hear your moving forward.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In each of us there is desire. Sexual attraction to others doesn't stop just because we're in a long term partnership. A female client of mine was struggling that her husband of 3 years would often look at other women, she had huge jealousy issues , I told her that just because you put a ring on his finger doesn't automatically disconnect the nerves from his eyes to his genitals.

Due to the overwhelming divorce statistics the majority are becoming what we call "serial monogamist" its ok to love more than one person, but only one at a time, trade the old model in for a new one rather than Polyamory which is many loves. If monogamy is natural how to we explain the 40 million plus members of Ashley Madison?

Being sexual with another person is 100% natural, its the social system we have that places restrictions on us that are in conflict with our natural desires. A great book on the subject is Sex at Dawn.

Sex at Dawn - Christopher Ryan, Cacilda Jetha - Paperback

"Natural" doesn't equate to "moral and ethical". It's natural to lie, rape, murder, commit cannibalism, incest. etc. Christianity is basically a revolt against human nature. We're supposed to go against our desires and impulses, confirm ourselves to God's will and pursue holiness.

 

[Holly]

If you feel premarital sex is insurmountably wrong for whatever reason, then stick to your guns and don't do it. QUOTE]

Yeah. Just like some people may get the discertion to stay away from alcohol or pot completely, while I don't feel guilty having 1 or 2 beers or a little pot.. I'm still praying for guidance, but I may be getting signs and the feeling that premarital sex could lead me down the wrong path, especially if I want kids. Also, sexual immorality aside from plain premarital sex has taken a toll on me spiritually and God may want me to abstain completely to be sure that I'm healed and feel pure again.

 

[Kenny]

Well considering that fornication is limited to

for·ni·ca·tion
ˌfôrnəˈkāSH(ə)n/

noun: fornication; plural noun: fornications
sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.
​

OR (as elsewhere defined)

fornication
[fawr-ni-key-shuh n]

noun
1. voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.
​

and:

fornication
(ˌfɔrnɪˈkeɪʃən ; fôrˌnikāˈshən)
noun
1.
a.voluntary sexual intercourse engaged in by a man, esp. an unmarried man, with an unmarried woman
b.voluntary sexual intercourse engaged in by an unmarried person: if the other person is married, the act of the unmarried person is sometimes considered adultery
​

and sexual intercourse is:

1. a joining of the sexual organs of a male and a female, in which the erect penis of the male is inserted into the vagina of the female, usually with the ejaculation of semen into the vagina

​

All the other forms of sexual expression, such as oral sex, anal sex, B & D, mutual masturbation, "dry humping," etc., which could be considered to be sexually immoral, are not covered under the term "fornication."

.

Fornication:

zaw-naw'
Hebrew Definition

1. to commit fornication, be a harlot, play the harlot
   1. (Qal)
      1. to be a harlot, act as a harlot, commit fornication
      2. to commit adultery
      3. to be a cult prostitute
      4. to be unfaithful (to God) (fig.)
   2. (Pual) to play the harlot
   3. (Hiphil)
      1. to cause to commit adultery
      2. to force into prostitution
      3. to commit fornication
   
   shaw-kab' Verb
   Definition - used with animals
   1. to lie down
      1. (Qal)
         1. to lie, lie down, lie on
         2. to lodge
         3. to lie (of sexual relations)
         4. to lie down (in death)
         5. to rest, relax (fig)
      2. (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
      3. (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
      4. (Hiphil) to make to lie down
      5. (Hophal) to be laid
      
      
      Like the word Love (in English) has 5 words in Greek... fornication in Hebrew times isn't what you would think of it today so I'm not sure your position is correct. ( I give leeway to be wrong though)

 

[Stanyon]

-I like fornication and sexual immorality
-Why is this in new to RF?
Regardless, willkommen!

 

[Woberts]

Not another one of these threads..........

 

[Trackdayguy]

A section taken from my book on "Biblical Sexuality"

Adultery
Numerous published articles and reports discuss at length the meaning of adultery, as presented in the Bible, and the relevance of these teachings in the modern setting. Here, I only want to summarise these writings by saying that adultery in the Old Testament era meant stealing another man's wife, who was regarded as that other man’s physical property. In the New Testament, Jesus expands on this idea in such passages as Matthew 5 and 19, referred to above, and introduces the idea of "emotional property," an idea further expanded by the Apostle Paul in such passages as Ephesians 5.
The notion that adultery equals or means sexual intercourse is not present in these biblical teachings. Adultery is not properly defined as sexual intercourse, although this sexual act does typically take place. The sexual act, however, has become the basis of adultery's definition enshrined in Western legal codes. Definition of adultery by Unger's Bible Dictionary, printed by Moody Press, reads:

(1) Jewish. In ancient Biblical times, an exception was made among the nations generally in favor of the man. He might have more wives than one or have intercourse with a person not espoused or married to him, without being considered an adulterer. Adultery was sexual intercourse with a married woman, or what was equivalent, the betrothed bride of another man; for this act exposed the husband to the danger of having a spurious offspring upon him.

(2) Roman. The Roman law appears to have made the same distinction as the Hebrew between the unfaithfulness of the husband and wife, by defining adultery to be the violation of another man's bed. The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery. The Greeks held substantially the same view.

(3) Spiritual. In the symbolical language of the Old Testament adultery means idolatry and apostasy from the worship of Jehovah"…."Our Lord used similar language when he charged Israel with being an "adulterous generation" (Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38), meaning a faithless and unholy generation.

Adultery, was biblically understood by the Hebrews to mean the wrongful act of a married woman having sex with another man, as doing so violated her husband’s property rights. That a married man would have sex with women other than his wife or wives was never understood to be wrong since a wife had no such rights to her spouse as property as her husband did. The married man could have many wives, all at least thirteen years old, and concubines, or breeders, as long as those women were not married. Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means today.

Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount that the only law is the law of love. He demonstrated this by reversing four of the Old Testament laws which conflicted with loving people. Therefore, anything that was hurtful, not by mutual consent, etc., would be immoral for a Christian. This obviously did not include loving sexuality, regardless of marital status or natural sexual orientation.

For an extensive discussion of the biblical ideas about adultery, including ideas of property, as well as for excellent discussions of the notions of physical purity inherent in Hebrew culture, notions which have misled Christians relative to sexuality, I refer the reader to Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and their Implications for Today, by L. William Countryman. Lawrence's book, referred to above, also contains very helpful material on this subject.

Consensual polyamory has nothing to do with the biblical teachings concerning adultery. As a Jewish rabbi once said about swinging: "If a man steals my wife, its adultery; if I loan him my wife, it is not."

Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means today.

 

[Skwim]

A section taken from my book on "Biblical Sexuality"

Adultery
Numerous published articles and reports discuss at length the meaning of adultery, as presented in the Bible, and the relevance of these teachings in the modern setting. Here, I only want to summarise these writings by saying that adultery in the Old Testament era meant stealing another man's wife, who was regarded as that other man’s physical property. In the New Testament, Jesus expands on this idea in such passages as Matthew 5 and 19, referred to above, and introduces the idea of "emotional property," an idea further expanded by the Apostle Paul in such passages as Ephesians 5.
The notion that adultery equals or means sexual intercourse is not present in these biblical teachings. Adultery is not properly defined as sexual intercourse, although this sexual act does typically take place. The sexual act, however, has become the basis of adultery's definition enshrined in Western legal codes. Definition of adultery by Unger's Bible Dictionary, printed by Moody Press, reads:

(1) Jewish. In ancient Biblical times, an exception was made among the nations generally in favor of the man. He might have more wives than one or have intercourse with a person not espoused or married to him, without being considered an adulterer. Adultery was sexual intercourse with a married woman, or what was equivalent, the betrothed bride of another man; for this act exposed the husband to the danger of having a spurious offspring upon him.

(2) Roman. The Roman law appears to have made the same distinction as the Hebrew between the unfaithfulness of the husband and wife, by defining adultery to be the violation of another man's bed. The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery. The Greeks held substantially the same view.

(3) Spiritual. In the symbolical language of the Old Testament adultery means idolatry and apostasy from the worship of Jehovah"…."Our Lord used similar language when he charged Israel with being an "adulterous generation" (Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38), meaning a faithless and unholy generation.

Adultery, was biblically understood by the Hebrews to mean the wrongful act of a married woman having sex with another man, as doing so violated her husband’s property rights. That a married man would have sex with women other than his wife or wives was never understood to be wrong since a wife had no such rights to her spouse as property as her husband did. The married man could have many wives, all at least thirteen years old, and concubines, or breeders, as long as those women were not married. Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means today.

Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount that the only law is the law of love. He demonstrated this by reversing four of the Old Testament laws which conflicted with loving people. Therefore, anything that was hurtful, not by mutual consent, etc., would be immoral for a Christian. This obviously did not include loving sexuality, regardless of marital status or natural sexual orientation.

For an extensive discussion of the biblical ideas about adultery, including ideas of property, as well as for excellent discussions of the notions of physical purity inherent in Hebrew culture, notions which have misled Christians relative to sexuality, I refer the reader to Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and their Implications for Today, by L. William Countryman. Lawrence's book, referred to above, also contains very helpful material on this subject.

Consensual polyamory has nothing to do with the biblical teachings concerning adultery. As a Jewish rabbi once said about swinging: "If a man steals my wife, its adultery; if I loan him my wife, it is not."

Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means today.

Considering all the complaints about not taking words in the Bible with their "original" meaning, a lot of words in the Bible evidently don't mean what they used to. But so what? Either god isn't interested enough in what the Bibles say so as to insure that every translation says what he meant, or what he's said simply isn't that important.

Thing is, Bible editors choose to use the words they do to convey the meaning of those particular words. If the editors of a Bible believe that in interpreting the Hebrew "ra" in Isaiah 45:7 god wants the reader to believe he created "hard times"

hard time
noun
1.a period of difficulties or hardship.​

and not evil,

evil
noun
1. profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.​

then that's the term the editors will use: "hard times." They don't believe god means for the reader to believe he created evil, disaster, woe, doom, calamity, or any ancient meaning of "ra." So, no matter what the "original" Hebrew meaning of "ra" may have been, it's a moot issue. The editor intends that you believe god said:

"I cause light to shine. I also create darkness. I bring good times. I also create hard times. I do all these things. I am the Lord."
​

Don't like this interpretation of "ra"? Well there are there at least nine others to choose from in other Bibles.

.

 

[outlawState]

A section taken from my book on "Biblical Sexuality"

Adultery
Numerous published articles and reports discuss at length the meaning of adultery, as presented in the Bible, and the relevance of these teachings in the modern setting. Here, I only want to summarise these writings by saying that adultery in the Old Testament era meant stealing another man's wife, who was regarded as that other man’s physical property. In the New Testament, Jesus expands on this idea in such passages as Matthew 5 and 19, referred to above, and introduces the idea of "emotional property," an idea further expanded by the Apostle Paul in such passages as Ephesians 5.
The notion that adultery equals or means sexual intercourse is not present in these biblical teachings. Adultery is not properly defined as sexual intercourse, although this sexual act does typically take place. The sexual act, however, has become the basis of adultery's definition enshrined in Western legal codes.

Another man's property does not need to be "stolen" to be rendered unusable. It can be violated, destroyed defiled, etc. There are a host of ways to damage another man's property.

That a married man would have sex with women other than his wife or wives was never understood to be wrong since a wife had no such rights to her spouse as property as her husband did. The married man could have many wives, all at least thirteen years old, and concubines, or breeders, as long as those women were not married. Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means today.

It is true that adultery was a specific criminal offence carrying the death penalty, and involved other men's wives and fiancées but that did not mean that there was no sanction for sleeping around. In fact there was a hefty penalty to pay. Exo 22:16-17 shows that a man had to pay the bride price for any woman he slept with, even if the woman's father refused to give her in marriage. In other words it would bankrupt a man pretty quickly, I guess.

Also see Exodus 21:16. If a man merely kidnapped an unmarried woman, or stole her from her father's house, he stood to be put to death for kidnapping. I think you're forgetting that every woman was owned in those days, except perhaps widows.

Yet there were other collective punishments directly from God for engaging in or tolerating harlotry in the Old Testament. Especially being conquered and defeated in battle, which happened to the Israelites on numerous occasions cf. also golden calf episode where numerous Israelites were slaughtered. Such immorality would also lead to forsaking the law in other ways, incurring other punishments,

Consensual polyamory has nothing to do with the biblical teachings concerning adultery. As a Jewish rabbi once said about swinging: "If a man steals my wife, its adultery; if I loan him my wife, it is not."

Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means today.

There was an episode of consensual polyamory concerning the moabite women just as the Israelites were entering the promised land. 24,000 were put to death by God of the plague, which was only stopped by Phinehas killing some of those engaged in polyamory.

Thus the precedent was set very early that any such persons could be killed in the same way as any other adulterer.

So your Jewish rabbi was not being very clever;

 

[Milton Platt]

Why would sex be better outside of a loyal commitment? I think a person using one for sex, or being used for sex, wouldnt feel nothing but bad. A serious let down.

Intimacy is personal. Maybe im alien to that world, but im glad i am.

Well, I know people who have been in a committed relationship for decades and are doing just fine without a piece of paper from the state.
Outside of that, I see no reason that either women or men can't enjoy sex with no commitment.......I think it happens all the time. Why do you see sex outside of marriage as "using" someone when both people gain pleasure from it?

 

[Trackdayguy]

Well, I know people who have been in a committed relationship for decades and are doing just fine without a piece of paper from the state.
Outside of that, I see no reason that either women or men can't enjoy sex with no commitment.......I think it happens all the time. Why do you see sex outside of marriage as "using" someone when both people gain pleasure from it?

Its probably because they've never been with a women who wants sex, like you say both people get pleasure from it when you want to give.

Many men have had poor sexual experiences being with women who reluctantly give sex but dont really want it, so its something they have to take, rather than some thing that's being given freely.

I guess the comments on taking is something we hear often on this site, guess it says a lot about their own sexual experiences

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Its probably because they've never been with a women who wants sex, like you say both people get pleasure from it when you want to give.

Most men incorrectly assume that sex is something they they want and women have and aren't keen to give, so you have to take. I guess it says a lot about their own sexual experiences

That's a very rude assumption.

 

[Valjean]

Because that's what I believe since my life has changed and is being healed physically, mentally, and spiritually from praying and going to church and hearing/reading the word.

But "Because that's what I believe..." doesn't speak to a great deal of research and critical analysis. I'm happy you found healing through your religious practices, but people find comfort and healing from all sorts of conflicting beliefs and practices. I don't think your personal, anecdotal experience doesn't constitute objective evidence.

If you look into the bible, there are two systems of sexual morals, one being the Ba'alist / Asherah (etc.) or Canaanite or Babylonian non-Adamite system, which could be described as the "whoremonger" system, and the Israel YHWH "marriage" system, where marriage infers effective ownership of another's body.

There was said to be no agreement between the two systems. None. It's pointless holding any kind of debate, because there can be no agreement and no compromise. Each to their own, and each to their own consequences.

If you look into the anthropological literature, you'll find a great many more than two systems of sexual morals, each of which seems to work for the culture in question.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But "Because that's what I believe..." doesn't speak to a great deal of research and critical analysis. I'm happy you found healing through your religious practices, but people find comfort and healing from all sorts of conflicting beliefs and practices. Your personal, anecdotal experience doesn't constitute objective evidence.

You're being ridiculous. She's a Christian. Get over it. She doesn't need to prove anything to you, rationalize or justify it.

 

[Milton Platt]

Its probably because they've never been with a women who wants sex, like you say both people get pleasure from it when you want to give.

Many men have had poor sexual experiences being with women who reluctantly give sex but dont really want it, so its something they have to take, rather than some thing that's being given freely.

I guess the comments on taking is something we hear often on this site, guess it says a lot about their own sexual experiences

Nobody has to "take" sex from someone. I find that idea rather abhorrent.

 

[Trackdayguy]

Nobody has to "take" sex from someone. I find that idea rather abhorrent.

Its called rape. But the people who use the term are usually with people that haven't experienced a women freely giving because she likes sex. I think there is an underlying assumption in men that sex is something that women have an men want, so if its not being offered you gotta take it.

 

[Milton Platt]

Its called rape. But the people who use the term are usually with people that haven't experienced a women freely giving because she likes sex. I think there is an underlying assumption in men that sex is something that women have an men want, so if its not being offered you gotta take it.

No way to rationalize away the underlying fact that sex isn't something to be "taken". It is something you give, something you share. Sex isn't something women "have". Sex is a physical act between individuals.