Fournication, homosexuality & sin.

[Jeremiah61]

P.S. As of yet I have found no grounds on which to place one sin over another, but instead have reached the conclusion that all are equal in the eyes of God.

 

[Mike182]

P.S. As of yet I have found no grounds on which to place one sin over another, but instead have reached the conclusion that all are equal in the eyes of God.

so telling a small white lie to your parents is the same as murder in Gods eyes........ well, your welcome to that oppinion :bounce

 

[Quiddity]

Fornication is a sin. Homosexuality is not a sin, it is a temptation. Homosexual sex acts are acts of fornication (sex outside of wedlock) and so neither heterosexual or homosexual fornication is seen as a worse sin than the other. In fact, we don't actually have differing categories of sin. Sin is sin, full stop (period, for you Americans). However you sin you are falling short of the mark and any sin can be repented of.

James

Quite similar to us RC's. But as I am sure James is aware of our differences I will leave it at that.

 

[jeffrey]

I don't consider either a sin. I think sometimes people use bad judgement sleeping around, but that's about it.

 

[Mister_T]

Progress is made only into a resisting material. It is not the place of the Christian to skip, slur, or ignore those doctrines of Christianity which he personally finds obscure or repulsive.

This same argument can be used against yourself. Church goers are taught to follow the "elite" and not think for themselves. And anyone who thinks outside of their box is a Heretic. Us "liberals" like thinking for ourselves and are always on a quest for the real truth and not the religious dogma that is being presented.

The truth is that the same shame that drives us to clothe our nudity, is the same shame that fuels the "elite" to force restrictions on sex for others. History can corroborate that.

Correct me if I am mistaken, ite?

I will. Please show me the command were God specifically states for two people in love not to have sex before marriage. Please show me where in the Bible fornication is defined as pre-marital sex (the word fornication is only found in the King James version. And the meaning of that word could possibly mean something different). Not your interpretation, not what you feel is an implied message. I want a clear-cut command.

You will not find either.

 

[Sunstone]

This might be a rather uniformed question, but if the Bible is consistent in its condemnation of "fornication", then how is it that Solomon had hundreds of concubines? I'm not trying to point out hypocricy, but asking if the fact Solomon had hundreds of concubines does not, in some way or to some extent, qualify and modify the Bible's other teachings about "fornication"?

 

[Jeremiah61]

Mister_T

Would the Chapter Seven of the First Epistle to the Corinthians suffice to support the idea of sex within the limits of marriage?

But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The 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.(1Cor7:2-4)

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1Cor7:8-9)

Of course, others will have there own spin on such a passage, but tell me your thoughts, please.

 

[Jeremiah61]

I came upon another interesting passage the other day. In a sense it addresses homosexuality.

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. 'So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

I would like some input on whether this passage confines marriage to heterosexuality or not. For in speaking of marriage, Christ did not refer homosexual marriage, but heterosexual, and also alluded to God's intention for marriage to remain a heterosexual institution. Tell me your thoughts, please.

 

[Mister_T]

Mister_T

Would the Chapter Seven of the First Epistle to the Corinthians suffice to support the idea of sex within the limits of marriage?

But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The 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.(1Cor7:2-4)

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1Cor7:8-9)

Of course, others will have there own spin on such a passage, but tell me your thoughts, please.

Well first, you have to define what "marriage" actually is. Is it a ritual? Or is it a commitment between 2 people (love). If 2 people are in love with each other, chances are they are planning to be commited to each other as long as they both exist. I would define marriage as a common love and commitment for one another. There are plenty of couples out there who have remained in a monogomus relationship without particpating in the ritual. To say that 2 people can't share the ultimate expression of love without a ritual is ridiculous and a biblical argument in support of that does not hold water. The marriage ritual is just that....a ritual. You don't need a ritual as a prerequisite to express love for one another. With things such as divorce, "marriage" is no different than dating (it is however more expensive) Commitment is marriage.

Second, marriage in that period of time was completley different than what we know as marriage today. There was no dating or courting process. Marriages were arranged. Usually from an early age. If a person did not love their future spouse it was tough luck for that person. Marriage was more of a social law than a genuine love for one another.

As far as those passage you pointed out, I am in agreement with Paul that a person should involve themselves in a commited relationship rather than sleeping with whomever. But there is the key word......"should". It is suggestive. Unlike the commandments that God gave Moses such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill". That's cut and dry. Killing = bad. "Thou Shall Not Have Sex before The Marriage Ritual" is nowhere in the Bible. Also, pre-marital sex is not forbidden in Judaism which is where the Christian religion originates from.

The argument that sex before marriage is condemned in the Bible, is an argument that does not hold water.

 

[Jeremiah61]

Commitment is marriage.

That makes sense, good point.:bow: