• 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?

H

Harikrish

Active Member
sojourner said:
Simply repeating yourself doesn't answer the question. Please find in the bible where it specifically lists "lowered expectation" or "disappointment" as sins.

Mary didn't remain a virgin. Where do you think James came from? And the other siblings mentioned in the gospels?

Jesus? No one's sure. he may or may not.




Take your own advice, Pal.
Click to expand...
Read the OP. It is about premarital sex. Mary was a virgin and so was Jesus , both did not engage in premarital sex.
 
JerryL

JerryL

Well-Known Member
H

Harikrish

Active Member
JerryL said:
From your cite:

" the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way"
So what is the logical justification for your statement?

"a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense"
What is your explanation?
Click to expand...
Obviously, there is much that is not self-evident to you. An explanation has been offered.

"Nothing can be self evident to any person that is incapable of reason.
Reason is the thing that makes all facts intelligible."
Reason - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
JerryL

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Harikrish said:
Obviously, there is much that is not self-evident to you. An explanation has been offered.
Click to expand...
Repeating it doesn't make it true.

"Nothing can be self evident to any person that is incapable of reason.
Reason is the thing that makes all facts intelligible."
Reason - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...
Your claim self-evidently conflicts with your definition.

It's ok. We understand "self-evident" is the code-word for "wrong and won't admit it".
 
H

Harikrish

Active Member
JerryL said:
Repeating it doesn't make it true.


Your claim self-evidently conflicts with your definition.

It's ok. We understand "self-evident" is the code-word for "wrong and won't admit it".
Click to expand...
Self-evident
adj.
Requiring no proof or explanation.
That is not to say there isn't proof or an explanation. It simply means you don't get it.
 
Sonofason

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
JerryL said:
From your cite:

" the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way"
So what is the logical justification for your statement?

"a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense"
What is your explanation?
Click to expand...

It would be impossible for anything to be self evident to any person if that person did not possess the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way.

It would be impossible for anything to be self evident to any person who lacks sufficient ground for explanation or logical defense.

However, a person can have sufficient ground for explanation and logical defense as to why he believes some particular truth is self evident whether or not he chooses to offer his explanation and defense to others. Quite honestly, I believe that those who cannot see why sodomy is depraved behavior are so depraved that they don't deserve to even hear my explanation as to why I believe it is so utterly depraved.
 
JerryL

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Sonofason said:
It would be impossible for anything to be self evident to any person if that person did not possess the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way.
Click to expand...
The exact opposite of what you just said is the case. "Self-Evident" is rather the opposite of "proven by logical deduction".

Quite honestly, I believe that those who cannot see why sodomy is depraved behavior are so depraved that they don't deserve to even hear my explanation as to why I believe it is so utterly depraved.
Click to expand...

And the apologetics begin.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Sonofason said:
Quite honestly, I believe that those who cannot see why sodomy is depraved behavior are so depraved that they don't deserve to even hear my explanation as to why I believe it is so utterly depraved.
Click to expand...

This is why I don't believe you about so many other things. It is self evident that you are arrogantly ignorant. You believe whoever tells you what you prefer to hear, such as Lemaire, and don't believe that people who disagree with you "deserve" to even hear your explanation.

Tom
 
gsa

gsa

Well-Known Member
Sonofason said:
.
3. Okay, Paul's endorsement of human sex trafficking is yours. agreed.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. It seems probable to me, based on scholarship that situates Paul's writings within the system of slavery in place at the time that he wrote. This is from Jennifer Glancy, for example:

As these communities struggled to define themselves as one body in Christ, Paul specified the limits of behavior, sexual and otherwise, compatible with membership in that body. Given the ubiquity of the sexual use of slaves, Paul would inevitably have encountered slaves whose obligations included sexual relations with their owners and those to whom their owners permitted sexual access, including enslaved prostitutes. In this section I examine Paul’s advice on sexual matters in light of these wider contexts. I argue that recognition of the somatic obligations of ancient slaves leads us to revise or modify commonly held positions in Pauline studies. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the sexual obligations of slaves were an obstacle to their participation in the Christian community, or whether, like others in the first century, Paul and the churches regarded some sexual activity as morally neutral. Two interrelated questions structure the inquiry. First, how does a recognition that slaves were treated as available bodies affect our interpretation of Paul’s instructions on sexual ethics? Second, in light of what we have learned about the sexual use of slaves, how does Paul’s discourse on porneia, or sexual immorality, affect our reconstruction of primitive Christianity as a social movement, especially among slaves?
......
The NRSV translation renders the passage with artificial clarity, lending cogency to Paul’s advice that is not warranted by his own phrasing: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication [=porneia]; that each of you know how to control your own body in holiness and honor, not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one wrong or exploit a brother or sister in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, just as we have already told you beforehand and solemnly warned you” (4:3–6; emphasis added). This translation glosses over several difficulties. First, Paul instructed the (male) Thessalonian Christians to abstain from porneia, or sexual immorality. Whether Paul understood porneia to encompass precisely the field of activities connoted by the modern concept of “fornication” is unclear and even unlikely. Second, by supplying gender-neutral language in place of Paul’s gender-specific language, the NRSV translation artificially abstracts Paul’s advice from the patriarchal culture in which he wrote. Paul expressed concern that some Christians might wrong their brothers in sexual matters, an uneasiness that derived its particular charge from its patriarchal context. The NRSV neutralizes and obscures this context by implying that Paul was concerned with injuries to men or women in the community. Third, and most problematically, in the NRSV translation Paul tells the Thessalonian Christians that it is important that “each of you know how to control your own body.” What Paul actually wrote is that each (male) Thessalonian Christian should know how to “obtain his own vessel.” While some translators and commentators understand this as an idiomatic expression for controlling one’s own body or, possibly, sexual organs, other translators take “vessel” (skeuos) as a euphemism for wife, so that the passage would encourage the (male) Thessalonians to avoid sexual immorality by obtaining wives.I propose a third possibility. Paul’s advice could be construed as instructions to the male Thessalonian Christians to find morally neutral outlets for their sexual urges. And in the first century, domestic slaves were considered to be morally neutral outlets for sexual urges—vessels, we might say.
Click to expand...

Glancy is no slouch. Nor is Joseph Marchal, who suggests, provocatively, that Paul used Onesimus sexually, and alluded to the same in his letter to Philemon, in his article "The Usefulness of an Onesimus." While shocking to modern readers, the status of Onesimus would have rendered him sexually available to his master, certainly. Any directive to slaves to obey their masters likewise commands them to engage in sexual activities demanded by their masters. This has implications for understanding Paul, because it situates him more comfortably in the world of his time yet also suggests that his understanding of sexual immorality was likewise informed by relevant cultural norms, not least of which is slavery.
 
Sonofason

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
columbus said:
This is why I don't believe you about so many other things. It is self evident that you are arrogantly ignorant. You believe whoever tells you what you prefer to hear, such as Lemaire, and don't believe that people who disagree with you "deserve" to even hear your explanation.

Tom
Click to expand...
I gave my explanation.
 
Sonofason

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
gsaseeker said:
Not exactly. It seems probable to me, based on scholarship that situates Paul's writings within the system of slavery in place at the time that he wrote. This is from Jennifer Glancy, for example:



Glancy is no slouch. Nor is Joseph Marchal, who suggests, provocatively, that Paul used Onesimus sexually, and alluded to the same in his letter to Philemon, in his article "The Usefulness of an Onesimus." While shocking to modern readers, the status of Onesimus would have rendered him sexually available to his master, certainly. Any directive to slaves to obey their masters likewise commands them to engage in sexual activities demanded by their masters. This has implications for understanding Paul, because it situates him more comfortably in the world of his time yet also suggests that his understanding of sexual immorality was likewise informed by relevant cultural norms, not least of which is slavery.
Click to expand...
Your use of the word scholarship is not impressive. Please cite the verses of scripture that you are referring to.
 
gsa

gsa

Well-Known Member
Sonofason said:
I am not going to visit those links for a reason. No one can interpret the Bible for me better than myself.
Click to expand...

Really? I am assuming that you have a thorough command of ancient Greek and Hebrew, then, and that you are familiar with the idiomatic expressions used in the relevant periods, which presupposes familiarity with a much larger body of literature, Christian and otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top