• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is premarital sex really a sin?

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
And so do you testify/witness.

No, they can figure it out for themselves. There is no need for me to. There is no eternal reward if I do and there is no eternal torture if I don't. I'll tell them what I believe, and if they agree, great, and if they don't... also great.

TL, The ""I'll tell them what I believe"" IS YOUR WITNESS.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
"Jewish texts"??? Where in those Scriptural texts do you find that the Creator GOD is not the GOD of ALL mankind who seek to have the Creator GOD as their GOD??? You can NOT find such a acknowledgement.

Num.15:14-16, "And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever be among you in your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD; as ye do, so he shall do. One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD. One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you."

Lev.19:33-34, "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."

Levite, to remind you, those who were gathered at the foot of Sinai when the Creator GOD gave the Decalogue on those tablets of stone and spoke to "all the Camp"(the Israelites and that "Mixed Multitude"), GOD referenced that group as "MY PEOPLE" AND "THEIR GOD".

None of the commandments you quoted have anything to do with the Torah being Jewish text.

Which it is. It was written by Jews, for Jews, in the Jewish language. As for the "mixed multitude," the non-Israelites who came out of Egypt with the Israelites, they accepted the covenant at Sinai along with the Israelites-- thus converting to Judaism.

Levite, The instructions given were GOD'S Laws/Instructions for a right relationship to GOD and one another. Those of the "Mixed Multitude" were accepting GOD as their GOD instead of the false gods they had been worshiping. They were NOT "converting to a tribe of people".

The fact that centuries after it was written, our sacred texts were appropriated by non-Jews and used for their own ends confers absolutely no authenticity to the idea that somehow Jewish text belongs rightfully to anyone but Jews.

Levite, those texts quoted above are GOD'S instructions/Laws that HE acknowledged that All peoples who wanted the Creator GOD to be their GOD was NOT to be hindered.

Add to those Deut.31:12, "Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: "
AND
vs.16, "And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them."
AND
Jer.31:31-34, attested to that fact. "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

God is indeed the God of all humanity, and for that reason, presumably He is capable of communicating what He wants to various peoples, in their own ways, after the fashion of their own cultures.

Levite, you are contradicting yourself. Since GOD is the "GOD of all humanity", "humanity is humanity" and is not "various peoples" to be dealt with in "their own way". "GOD is NOT a respecter of persons" as Deut.10:17 establishes, "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: " Your posts make GOD A LIAR.


There is really no reason to go around taking the sacred texts of other people's cultures; but if one really has to do it, at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that the text is taken, and did not originate as some sort of transcultural, humanistic phenomenon.

The Scriptures by the Prophets are clear that the reason for their visits/warnings/chastisement to the "kingdoms of Israel and Judah" was the taking of the false "beliefs" of the "nations" and their "gods" about them.

As Ezek.18 stipulates,(vss.31-32)---"repent and live".
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
"Jewish texts"??? Where in those Scriptural texts do you find that the Creator GOD is not the GOD of ALL mankind who seek to have the Creator GOD as their GOD??? You can NOT find such a acknowledgement.

Num.15:14-16, "And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever be among you in your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD; as ye do, so he shall do. One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD. One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you."

Lev.19:33-34, "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."

Levite, to remind you, those who were gathered at the foot of Sinai when the Creator GOD gave the Decalogue on those tablets of stone and spoke to "all the Camp"(the Israelites and that "Mixed Multitude"), GOD referenced that group as "MY PEOPLE" AND "THEIR GOD".



Levite, The instructions given were GOD'S Laws/Instructions for a right relationship to GOD and one another. Those of the "Mixed Multitude" were accepting GOD as their GOD instead of the false gods they had been worshiping. They were NOT "converting to a tribe of people".



Levite, those texts quoted above are GOD'S instructions/Laws that HE acknowledged that All peoples who wanted the Creator GOD to be their GOD was NOT to be hindered.

Add to those Deut.31:12, "Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: "
AND
vs.16, "And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them."
AND
Jer.31:31-34, attested to that fact. "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."



Levite, you are contradicting yourself. Since GOD is the "GOD of all humanity", "humanity is humanity" and is not "various peoples" to be dealt with in "their own way". "GOD is NOT a respecter of persons" as Deut.10:17 establishes, "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: " Your posts make GOD A LIAR.




The Scriptures by the Prophets are clear that the reason for their visits/warnings/chastisement to the "kingdoms of Israel and Judah" was the taking of the false "beliefs" of the "nations" and their "gods" about them.

As Ezek.18 stipulates,(vss.31-32)---"repent and live".

You're going to twist your readings of your translations of Jewish text to suit your fundamentalist Christian purposes anyhow. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain or defend the writings of my people to someone uninterested in respecting them or trying to comprehend them in any reasonable fashion.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post Levite, you are contradicting yourself.

Since GOD is the "GOD of all humanity", "humanity is humanity" and is not "various peoples" to be dealt with in "their own way". "GOD is NOT a respecter of persons" as Deut.10:17 establishes, "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: " Your posts make GOD A LIAR.

The Scriptures by the Prophets are clear that the reason for their visits/warnings/chastisement to the "kingdoms of Israel and Judah" was the taking of the false "beliefs" of the "nations" and their "gods" about them.

As Ezek.18 stipulates,(vss.31-32)---"repent and live".

You're going to twist your readings of your translations of Jewish text to suit your fundamentalist Christian purposes anyhow. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain or defend the writings of my people to someone uninterested in respecting them or trying to comprehend them in any reasonable fashion.

Levite, Well did Moses say, Deut.31:27, "For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?"
Except for the intervention of Moses there would have been none of Judah's or the other tribes.(Ex.32:7-14; Deut. 9:13-29), "And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation."

Levite, the Creator GOD of all things doesn't "respect" rebellion/disobedience, But that doesn't mean that GOD nor others are not "interested" in the truth of the "Writings" of the GOD who Created all things and the restoration of All things as those "writings attest to presenting.

2000 years ago the Jewish leaders were still rebelling against GOD's "Thus saith the Lord thy GOD"---and therefore, the "stiffnecked attitude" is still prevalent.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Is premarital sex really a sin? The Bible condemns sexual immorality but not premarital sex. I personally do not believe that premarital sex is a sin. What do you believe?

Still...NO.

And it's not a "belief". :)

10000 years ago, monotheism was not even a gleam in anyone's eye.

Yet, here we are.

Go figure...
 

Triumphant_Loser

Libertarian Egalitarian
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
And so do you testify/witness.



TL, The ""I'll tell them what I believe"" IS YOUR WITNESS.

Not really. I only really speak about my beliefs if I'm asked about it, or if religion comes up in conversation.
"Witnessing" would be me enticing them to share the same ideology as myself, which I don't do.
I do not hand out pamphlets, I do not leave tracts on peoples' windshields, and I do not hold up signs out on street corners while screaming "join me or burn in hell" at oncoming traffic.
 

McNap

Member
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
McNap, The GOD of the Scriptures who Created all things made the Rules/laws to be followed by HIS Creatures and is NOT "double-minded".

The Creator said the Male and the Female(married) were to be "one flesh", Just as the Female was created from the "flesh" of man.

GOD called man's sexual relationship between other than one's wife(female)--SIN.

Rom.13: isn't speaking of erotic/love, but brotherly--Philo/love.



McNap, When a single---male and female has sex with each other, they have joined their bodies into that "one relationship" as GOD said. They are considered "married" by GOD. At that point---NO SIN. However, if they then have sex with another person---ADULTERY is committed---SIN( one of the Decalogue).





McNap, re-think your example above. Matt.5:32 is NOT saying that which you are proposing. Even if you were the one that the put away wife for fornication loved more that the husband which put her away.



That verse is true, but your application is wrong scripturally.
Those Ten Commandments which you admit points out SIN is the guidance for one's actions and relationship to the Almighty GOD (and to one another) who gave them.

The Same procedure for the sins of stealing, lying, not honoring one's parents also apply to Sexual sins. Confession of the sin, Repentance of that SIN, Submitting to the Will of the Father.
Condoning of, enabling one to continue in SIN is to be a party to that which is an abhorrence to GOD.
Charity(love) is in the speaking the truth on the streets. GOD does/is LOVE, but HE, also, hates these things Prov.6:16-19, "An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, "

Where does the "love for most" rest with/in obedience to GOD or defense of unrepentant sinful mankind?
I already answered this question of yours. I said that it wouldn't be necessary to defend anyone if double hearted brothers like you didn't have such condemning spirits in the first place.

Sure, if you want the truth to be spread, I'll tell them everything you told me.
I'll tell them how you didn't answer my questions, so maybe they can help me find my answers.

And I happen to know that there are a lot of brothers like you in the church, so I will advice them not to go to church either. To protect them for the mental damage they have also caused me. (I used to believe in the errors you do and even worse, I acted after them)

In 1 Thessalonians 4:6 Paul described that the one brother should not hinder another brother in matters of sex, since THAT would be fornication (verse 3).
You said that 2 people are considered married once they have joined their bodies into that one relationship. But at the same time you expect them to stop being joined, so you expect them to divorce.
If I say you are double hearted, and anyone else says that I'm a liar, then something must be terribly wrong with his conscience.
I mean, how can you say they should sin for the sake of repentance?
You're the one who should reconsider!
 

jidex

Member
Is premarital sex really a sin? The Bible condemns sexual immorality but not premarital sex. I personally do not believe that premarital sex is a sin. What do you believe?

The only people who seem to have a problem with fornication are the ones who are endorsing it.
Why even take the risk with your immortal soul. Is it so hard to find a wife and abstain until marriage
Sex before marriage is not even working for the longevity of the relationship:shrug:
 

jidex

Member
:biglaugh:


who would ever want that mythology to be true? :facepalm:

God intended us to enjoy sex within the sanctity of marriage for close intimacy.
I see nothing wrong with this plan
Any fathers of daughters here can relate to this. God is our Father in heaven. You have to trust him at some point and not think that there's some trick in this to make you miss out.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Doodlebug02 View Post
Is premarital sex really a sin? The Bible condemns sexual immorality but not premarital sex. I personally do not believe that premarital sex is a sin. What do you believe?

Still...NO.

And it's not a "belief". :)

10000 years ago, monotheism was not even a gleam in anyone's eye.

Yet, here we are.

Go figure...

s2a, The Scriptures are still telling the fact that a male and female having sex without the intent to marry each other is sin.
A "belief" is what one deems the message given conveys. IN this case---it is sin.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
And so do you testify/witness.

TL, The ""I'll tell them what I believe"" IS YOUR WITNESS.

Not really. I only really speak about my beliefs if I'm asked about it, or if religion comes up in conversation.
"Witnessing" would be me enticing them to share the same ideology as myself, which I don't do.
I do not hand out pamphlets, I do not leave tracts on peoples' windshields, and I do not hold up signs out on street corners while screaming "join me or burn in hell" at oncoming traffic.

T_L, that which one conveys to another is their "witness".
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Read the bible, people...

Paul said that in order to keep from sexual immorality, get married..he said

1Corin 7:8-9
8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

If being married is the solution to not being able to "control yourself", then obviously being unmarried and unable to control yourself (fornicating) is improper as a Christian.

Hey, I know, it is tough. It is tough thing to accept in this life. But, God's word is what it is.

Hey, I just have a couple thoughts here.
First, when we read our English translations of our Bibles, we ought to always take time to study the words we are reading.

The Bible was supposedly written nearly 2,000 years ago.
The word fornicate is a Latin word.
It's first use was in the year 1552.
Someone chose to translate the original Greek word to it's Latin form for a reason. I personally don't know the precise reason why the word fornicate was chosen by the church and its translators, but the last thing we should do is assume that modern English definitions for the word fornicate accurately define the concept of fornication that was intended and understood by those early Bible translators, let alone the actual Greek word as used and intended by the author himself.

As far as we know, 1 Corinthians was first written in Greek. We don't even know for sure, do we, that Paul wrote this letter in Greek. Well, I don't know that. Perhaps I'll look into that, but I doubt anyone knows.

Anyhow, the modern English definition for the word fornicate is "to commit fornication". Well, that's a lexicographical joke, isn't it - defining a word with the same word?
Fornicate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Well the modern English definition for the word fornication is "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other" It's first use was in the 14th century.
Fornication - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So when this word was first developed, what was it's purpose? What particular concept was it employed to symbolize? What was its original definition back then, when the word was first created in Latin? Well, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary had this to say:

fornicate -
"Late Latin fornicatus, past participle of fornicare to have intercourse with prostitutes, from Latin fornic-, fornix arch, vault, brothel.

So, is having intercourse with some particular woman the same thing as having sex with a prostitute? I don't think so.

Now, Paul wrote the verse in Greek, not Latin, and he wrote it about 1500 years earlier than this particular Latin word was created. The Greek word that the Apostle Paul used was "γαμησάτωσαν". The root word here is γαμησo. Go ahead, look up that word. You will find the F word. It has nothing to do with the social construct of marriage. It has nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. It is about the very act of marriage, or in other words, copulation, and sex. It doesn't seem to have had anything at all to do with prostitutes, nor the institution of marriage as we know it today.

Therefore we could rewrite this verse in English, replacing the word "fornicate" with another F word.

Here it is

NASB
But if they do not have self-control, let them {F}; for it is better to {F} than to burn [with passion].

KJB
But if they cannot contain, let them {F}: for it is better to {F} than to burn.

WNTB
If, however, they cannot maintain self-control, by all means let them {F}; for {F}ing is better than the fever of passion.

I would love to be wrong here, so please show me my errors.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Is premarital sex really a sin? The Bible condemns sexual immorality but not premarital sex. I personally do not believe that premarital sex is a sin. What do you believe?

Just as a follow-up...is there any age cut-off for such a "sin"?

Is there ANY difference to be found betwixt, say, two 18 year olds, and two unmarried 80 year olds? Is there ANY difference?

ANY?

IF so, then what is the difference?

Please describe and define the distinctions.

Thank you.

You are permitted to inject whatever religious biases, fears, or utter distaste where you please,
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Originally Posted by Doodlebug02 View Post
Is premarital sex really a sin? The Bible condemns sexual immorality but not premarital sex. I personally do not believe that premarital sex is a sin. What do you believe?



s2a, The Scriptures are still telling the fact that a male and female having sex without the intent to marry each other is sin.
A "belief" is what one deems the message given conveys. IN this case---it is sin.

OK.

For the rest of us NOT living in a 2000 year old past...(you know, when things were ever so "clear"), then what?

Your "version" of "sin" is to be the only applicable understanding and therefore applied "interpretation" of "sin"?

Really?

I think you are wrong, and I remain a citizen of the United States.

Now what?

I suggest you not marry a gay person, ever. Fair enough?

How's about we leave estimations of "sin" for your "god" to evaluate in the "hereafter" instead? Or perhaps you were specifically appointed as "HIS" arbiter and judge in this realm? Is it so much to ask that you just be patient instead? I have no interest whatsoever in your beliefs. What possible interests would then motivate you to interfere with my own?

Can you not simply accept that it will NEVER be your call?

EVER?
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Originally Posted by Doodlebug02 View Post
Is premarital sex really a sin? The Bible condemns sexual immorality but not premarital sex. I personally do not believe that premarital sex is a sin. What do you believe?

s2a, The Scriptures are still telling the fact that a male and female having sex without the intent to marry each other is sin.
A "belief" is what one deems the message given conveys. IN this case---it is sin.

OK.

For the rest of us NOT living in a 2000 year old past...(you know, when things were ever so "clear"), then what?

Your "version" of "sin" is to be the only applicable understanding and therefore applied "interpretation" of "sin"?

Really?

I think you are wrong, and I remain a citizen of the United States.

Now what?

I suggest you not marry a gay person, ever. Fair enough?

How's about we leave estimations of "sin" for your "god" to evaluate in the "hereafter" instead? Or perhaps you were specifically appointed as "HIS" arbiter and judge in this realm? Is it so much to ask that you just be patient instead? I have no interest whatsoever in your beliefs. What possible interests would then motivate you to interfere with my own?

Can you not simply accept that it will NEVER be your call?

EVER?

Hi s2a this is a debate topic and you placed your comments concerning it. The Scriptures say it is sin. The arguments you posted do not change the fact---However, those scriptures(Not me) will be determining factor in whether it is a SIN with consequences or not.

I was married the female sweetheart of my youth for 62 1/2 years---and have no interest in another mate.(Snow may be on the roof, but that doesn't mean there is no fire inside.) Time is to short to add more accountability/responsibility to my life.

The Scriptures are only for those who acknowledge that there is a Creator GOD and one desires to obey HIM in Love. Denying GOD will not change HIS Inspired Scriptures.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild View Post
Read the bible, people...

Paul said that in order to keep from sexual immorality, get married..he said

1Corin 7:8-9
8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

If being married is the solution to not being able to "control yourself", then obviously being unmarried and unable to control yourself (fornicating) is improper as a Christian.

Hey, I know, it is tough. It is tough thing to accept in this life. But, God's word is what it is.

Hey, I just have a couple thoughts here.
First, when we read our English translations of our Bibles, we ought to always take time to study the words we are reading.

The Bible was supposedly written nearly 2,000 years ago.
The word fornicate is a Latin word.
It's first use was in the year 1552.
Someone chose to translate the original Greek word to it's Latin form for a reason. I personally don't know the precise reason why the word fornicate was chosen by the church and its translators, but the last thing we should do is assume that modern English definitions for the word fornicate accurately define the concept of fornication that was intended and understood by those early Bible translators, let alone the actual Greek word as used and intended by the author himself.

As far as we know, 1 Corinthians was first written in Greek. We don't even know for sure, do we, that Paul wrote this letter in Greek. Well, I don't know that. Perhaps I'll look into that, but I doubt anyone knows.

Anyhow, the modern English definition for the word fornicate is "to commit fornication". Well, that's a lexicographical joke, isn't it - defining a word with the same word?
Fornicate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Well the modern English definition for the word fornication is "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other" It's first use was in the 14th century.
Fornication - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So when this word was first developed, what was it's purpose? What particular concept was it employed to symbolize? What was its original definition back then, when the word was first created in Latin? Well, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary had this to say:

fornicate -
"Late Latin fornicatus, past participle of fornicare to have intercourse with prostitutes, from Latin fornic-, fornix arch, vault, brothel.

So, is having intercourse with some particular woman the same thing as having sex with a prostitute? I don't think so.

Now, Paul wrote the verse in Greek, not Latin, and he wrote it about 1500 years earlier than this particular Latin word was created. The Greek word that the Apostle Paul used was "γαμησάτωσαν". The root word here is γαμησo. Go ahead, look up that word. You will find the F word. It has nothing to do with the social construct of marriage. It has nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. It is about the very act of marriage, or in other words, copulation, and sex. It doesn't seem to have had anything at all to do with prostitutes, nor the institution of marriage as we know it today.

Therefore we could rewrite this verse in English, replacing the word "fornicate" with another F word.

Here it is

NASB
But if they do not have self-control, let them {F}; for it is better to {F} than to burn [with passion].

KJB
But if they cannot contain, let them {F}: for it is better to {F} than to burn.

WNTB
If, however, they cannot maintain self-control, by all means let them {F}; for {F}ing is better than the fever of passion.

I would love to be wrong here, so please show me my errors.

Hi Sonofason, Yes, the words have to do with "sexual intercourse" between a male and a female who are not married to each other.
The problem is NOT how mankind views the action, but how the Creator GOD sees it. As CALL pointed out, that is very different from how mankind wants to acknowledge the action.

ALL your thinking and comparing word meanings didn't change the "Thus saith the Lord GOD " concerning the matter.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild View Post
Read the bible, people...

Paul said that in order to keep from sexual immorality, get married..he said

1Corin 7:8-9
8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

If being married is the solution to not being able to "control yourself", then obviously being unmarried and unable to control yourself (fornicating) is improper as a Christian.

Hey, I know, it is tough. It is tough thing to accept in this life. But, God's word is what it is.



Hi Sonofason, Yes, the words have to do with "sexual intercourse" between a male and a female who are not married to each other.
The problem is NOT how mankind views the action, but how the Creator GOD sees it. As CALL pointed out, that is very different from how mankind wants to acknowledge the action.

ALL your thinking and comparing word meanings didn't change the "Thus saith the Lord GOD " concerning the matter.

Actually, what I am saying, or was attempting to suggest is that the verb "marry" that we see in these verses of the bible that were written in Greek as γαμησo is sexual intercourse.

I am suggesting that the Bible is quite possibly saying here that it is better to have sex than to burn with lust.

However, we know from Genesis and other Bible verses that God's intention is one man and one woman. To me, that still means one mate for life.

I don't think the marriage ceremony is all that important here.

If you can't control yourself, have sex. But if you do that, that mate is for life, and any sex with any other partner is adultery.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Actually, what I am saying, or was attempting to suggest is that the verb "marry" that we see in these verses of the bible that were written in Greek as γαμησo is sexual intercourse.

I am suggesting that the Bible is quite possibly saying here that it is better to have sex than to burn with lust.

However, we know from Genesis and other Bible verses that God's intention is one man and one woman. To me, that still means one mate for life.

I don't think the marriage ceremony is all that important here.

If you can't control yourself, have sex. But if you do that, that mate is for life, and any sex with any other partner is adultery.

That is what the Scriptures indicate.
 
Top