Is premarital sex really a sin?

[sojourner]

It is a merciful God who provides loopholes for his children.

A merciful God doesn't provide loopholes to the oppressor. Which is what you're suggesting. The "wonder of faith" that allows people to label, and discriminate, and oppress is, indeed, a "loophole" of the facts that is used by the "faithful" to continue to label, and discriminate, and oppress. Whether you like it or not, the (embarrassingly few) references to the "evils of homosexuality" are troublesome for the biblical literalist when weighed against what we now know about sociology, human sexuality, and human psychological health. The "wonder of faith" certainly doesn't magically make that juxtaposition disappear. Happily, critically-thinking, educated, liberal Christians aren't held to this ridiculous, arbitrary standard of biblical "inerrancy," so they don't have to justify treating those who identify as homosexual as real and equal human beings, who are perfectly healthy and eligible for the same rights as everyone else. Only the fundamentalist has to move goal posts and twist meanings, and must justify her or his gross inhospitality to the "stranger."

 

[Sonofason]

We're not talking about the "wonder of faith." We're talking about the reality of the Law. You don't get to discriminate against people and oppress them based on the "wonder of faith." That's what they did to Jesus. had him killed based on the "wonder of faith."

Why do you suppose that Congress has created loopholes in the law for married couples with children to pay less taxes than single taxpayers? Loopholes are often included in the law, and for good reason.

Why are you bringing up discrimination and murder. This is an even greater defilement of the conversation then me speaking of the wonder of faith.

Perhaps you can make a connection here to the discussion at hand. I have provided evidence that bigamy is against Biblical principles, and that a bigamist is, according to the scriptures I provided, adultery, and therefore a form of fornication.

Murder and discrimination are not what this discussion is about. And I'm surprised such things are on your mind. Do you often dwell on discrimination and murder?

 

[JerryL]

A man is indeed one man. It could be any man, but the text is written in the singular form of man. It is one man.
The word wife, as you already know, is written in the singular form. It is referring to one wife.

In Hebrew?

That's not how the Jews interpreted it. Do you have a better understanding of the meaning of a sentence written thousands of years ago than his contemporaries do?

Matthew 5:28

- But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

My wife is a woman. Is looking at her lustily adultery? If not, you admit that there's a lot assumed and not said. Can you prove only one wife applies?

Hebrews 13:4

- Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Assuming the consequent. AFAICT from the OT, "adultery" was defined as "a man having sex with a woman who was married to another man", and nothing else. There is not a single example of adultery which does not have that condition.

Exodus 20:14

- Thou shalt not commit adultery.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

This all sounds very condemning to me for the adulterer.

What does that have to do with polyamory? It's begging the question.

 

[Sonofason]

A merciful God doesn't provide loopholes to the oppressor. Which is what you're suggesting. The "wonder of faith" that allows people to label, and discriminate, and oppress is, indeed, a "loophole" of the facts that is used by the "faithful" to continue to label, and discriminate, and oppress. Whether you like it or not, the (embarrassingly few) references to the "evils of homosexuality" are troublesome for the biblical literalist when weighed against what we now know about sociology, human sexuality, and human psychological health. The "wonder of faith" certainly doesn't magically make that juxtaposition disappear. Happily, critically-thinking, educated, liberal Christians aren't held to this ridiculous, arbitrary standard of biblical "inerrancy," so they don't have to justify treating those who identify as homosexual as real and equal human beings, who are perfectly healthy and eligible for the same rights as everyone else. Only the fundamentalist has to move goal posts and twist meanings, and must justify her or his gross inhospitality to the "stranger."

I'm sorry, but discrimination and the death penalty have it's place under the law.

We routinely discriminate against offenders of the law. We discriminate between the law abiding citizens and the law breakers in our society, and condemn to punishment those who disobey our laws. If it should be that the law was to include for the discrimination against homosexuals and adulterers and the like, that would be a just discrimination.

However, having said that. The Christian should realize that we are living under a new covenant with God, and that we no longer are required to incarcerate and even kill the offenders of The Laws of God, but are fully entitled and expected to have compassion and to show mercy on those who continue to offend God's Laws, leaving their final and irreversible condemnation in the hands of God. Under this new covenant, we can even allow them the right to engage in such crimes as same sex marriage, and adultery. The more Christ minded we are the greater our ability and tendency is to forgive.

 

[Sonofason]

In Hebrew?

אדם הוא אכן אדם אחד. זה יכול להיות כל אדם, אבל את הטקסט שכתוב בצורת היחיד של גבר. זה אדם אחד.
מילת האישה, כפי שאתה כבר יודע, כתובה בלשון היחידה. הוא מתייחס לאישה אחת.

That's not how the Jews interpreted it. Do you have a better understanding of the meaning of a sentence written thousands of years ago than his contemporaries do?

You telling me that "That's not how the Jews interpreted it." is so far an unsupported claim by you. Care to provide some evidence for this unsupported claim of yours?
It is not likely that I have a better understanding of the meaning of a sentence written thousands of years ago than the author's contemporaries do, but I'd like to see you provide someone who has at least an equal understanding to those contemporaries. Otherwise, it would seem to me that you have nothing to offer. And so far you haven't provided anything even close to that.

My wife is a woman. Is looking at her lustily adultery? If not, you admit that there's a lot assumed and not said. Can you prove only one wife applies?

Well, considering the context surrounding that verse of scripture we are referring to, I believe it would not be adultery for you to have sexual desires towards your own wife. But I'll leave it up to you to make your own judgement about that, whether it be right or wrong.

Assuming the consequent. AFAICT from the OT, "adultery" was defined as "a man having sex with a woman who was married to another man", and nothing else. There is not a single example of adultery which does not have that condition.

And Jesus modified that command to make it even more stringent. As the Son of God, He has that authority.

What does that have to do with polyamory? It's begging the question.

Because the question was asked by Mestemia,

Mestemia asked:

Where is it forbidden?
I mean, where is it forbidden/condemned/not allowed/ a bad idea/etc. without your adding to the scripture?

To clarify his question, we refer to the statements I made which prompted His question.

I had said:

Exactly, the above quote makes no reference at all to multiple wives.
God said that a man (that is one man) shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his (one) wife (singular).

There is no mention of such a man being permitted to cleave to any other person than his one wife. In fact, Jesus goes on to say that if a man does have a wife, that he has committed adultery even my merely looking at another woman with lust.

Thus we see, it has everything to do with polygamy. Polygamy is clearly a form adultery, and without God's forgiveness, a condemnable offense to God.

 

[sojourner]

fully entitled and expected to have compassion and to show mercy on those who continue to offend God's Laws, leaving their final and irreversible condemnation in the hands of God. Under this new covenant, we can even allow them the right to engage in such crimes as same sex marriage, and adultery. The more Christ minded we are the greater our ability and tendency is to forgive.

The point I was making that you patently ignored was that many of the sexual "crimes" are only "crimes" under the "wonder of faith." Same-sex marriage is not a crime. The true "Christ-minded" will not see it as a "forgiven" or "overlooked crime," but will see it as no crime at all.

 

[sojourner]

Why do you suppose that Congress has created loopholes in the law for married couples with children to pay less taxes than single taxpayers? Loopholes are often included in the law, and for good reason.

Why are you bringing up discrimination and murder. This is an even greater defilement of the conversation then me speaking of the wonder of faith.

Perhaps you can make a connection here to the discussion at hand. I have provided evidence that bigamy is against Biblical principles, and that a bigamist is, according to the scriptures I provided, adultery, and therefore a form of fornication.

Murder and discrimination are not what this discussion is about. And I'm surprised such things are on your mind. Do you often dwell on discrimination and murder?

You're presenting a twisted and biased interpretation of what I wrote. You're doing it to be provocative. You know what I meant (unless you're incredibly, unbelievably dense); why don't you simply provide a legit response, rather than spamming up the bandwidth?

 

[Sonofason]

The point I was making that you patently ignored was that many of the sexual "crimes" are only "crimes" under the "wonder of faith." Same-sex marriage is not a crime. The true "Christ-minded" will not see it as a "forgiven" or "overlooked crime," but will see it as no crime at all.

According to God's law, same sex marriage is indeed a crime. It is a crime against God.

According to the NIV, Jesus said,

"until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
(Mathew 5:18)

 

[Sonofason]

You're presenting a twisted and biased interpretation of what I wrote. You're doing it to be provocative. You know what I meant (unless you're incredibly, unbelievably dense); why don't you simply provide a legit response, rather than spamming up the bandwidth?

Allow me to repeat myself,

Perhaps you can make a connection here to the discussion at hand. I have provided evidence that bigamy is against Biblical principles, and that a bigamist is, according to the scriptures I provided, adultery, and therefore a form of fornication.

Please make the connection between the facts that I have stated, and discrimination and murder, that you seem desirous to speak of.

 

[McBell]

The words I added where only included to help you understand the verse.

Correction: the words you added were to help me understand your interpretation of the verse.
Do you not find it the least bit interesting how your added words merely eliminated other possible interpretations?

A man is indeed one man. It could be any man, but the text is written in the singular form of man. It is one man.
The word wife, as you already know, is written in the singular form. It is referring to one wife.

If playing pigeon chess with semantics is all you have...

Matthew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Exodus 20:14 - Thou shalt not commit adultery.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

This all sounds very condemning to me for the adulterer.

Good thing he married all those wives before having sex, right?

All you have offered is semantic type mental gymnastics.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying your interpretation is wrong, I am merely saying that all you have done is demonstrated by your interpretation it is one man one woman.

What you have not done is shown that it cannot be one man many women and given the fact there are numerous men with multiple wives in the Bible...

 

[McBell]

It is a merciful God who provides loopholes for his children.

Sorry.
I am not interested in any deity that has such lawyer tendencies.

 

[Sonofason]

Correction: the words you added were to help me understand your interpretation of the verse.

I can accept that.

Do you not find it the least bit interesting how your added words merely eliminated other possible interpretations?

No, the words I added only clarified the correct interpretation. You can't turn "a wife" into wives, no matter how hard you try.

If playing pigeon chess with semantics is all you have...

I like chess. And I love semantics. God and proper semantics are necessary for clarity.

Good thing he married all those wives before having sex, right?

who are you referring to exactly? Please submit chapter and verse.

All you have offered is semantic type mental gymnastics.

I offer what I can. And I'm pleased that you've noticed. Thank you.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying your interpretation is wrong, I am merely saying that all you have done is demonstrated by your interpretation it is one man one woman.

Wow, I think that was indeed the first time since I've been here on RF that you suggested that I might not be wrong. Thank you.
Well, that is all I intended to demonstrate. God intends marriage between one man and one woman. All other combinations are to be considered disassociated from God's desired plan.

What you have not done is shown that it cannot be one man many women and given the fact there are numerous men with multiple wives in the Bible...

No, the word wife is also singular. God did not say, therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wives: and they shall be one flesh. And all twenty of them were naked, the man and his wives, and were not ashamed.

That would be another story.

 

[McBell]

No, the words I added only clarified the correct interpretation.

Prove your interpretation is the "correct" one?
Now since we both know you cannot do so...

You can't turn "a wife" into wives, no matter how hard you try.

I did not try.
Thus making it your strawman.

. God intends marriage between one man and one woman.

You have not demonstrated this outside your own wishful thinking.


Since this discussion is nothing more than you defending your interpretation of the scriptures which you cannot demonstrate is the "correct" version any more than I can demonstrate it is the "wrong" one...

 

[Sonofason]

Sorry.
I am not interested in any deity that has such lawyer tendencies.

But He, I am told is a righteous and good judge, not a lawyer. The sinners advocate, if he should be appointed to advocate for them by grace, according to scripture is Yeshua Ha-Mashiach (Jesus).

God is judge.
"God is a fair judge, a God who is angered by injustice every day"
(Psalm 7:11) GOD'S WORD® Translation

That is fine. You don't have to be interested in God. You have your freedom to choose God or not. But if you're not interested in this God, why do you spend so much of your time arguing against Him? Why not go out and play some soccer or do something else with your time. Why debate against something your not interested in?

 

[Sonofason]

Prove your interpretation is the "correct" one?

I thought I did, you'll have to judge my interpretation for yourself.

Now since we both know you cannot do so...

see my answer above

I did not try.
Thus making it your strawman.

I hardly see a strong interpretation such as that which I have given to be a straw-man, but if that's how you see it, then that's how you see it. There's little more I can say about it. I think I built a pretty strong case.

You have not demonstrated this outside your own wishful thinking.

Surely, it's not wishful thinking at all. I'd love to have several wives actually. I think it'd be spicy. But that is wrong thinking on my part. But I digress. I repent from such thoughts.

Since this discussion is nothing more than you defending your interpretation of the scriptures which you cannot demonstrate is the "correct" version any more than I can demonstrate it is the "wrong" one...

Yes?

Since.....then?

 

[sojourner]

According to God's law, same sex marriage is indeed a crime. It is a crime against God.

According to the NIV, Jesus said,

"until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
(Mathew 5:18)

"According to 'God's law'" is a product of "wondrous faith," not fact. Only those who espouse a particular belief view it as "God's law." According to fact, the law is the product of knowledge and bias of the person who wrote it.

 

[Sonofason]

"According to 'God's law'" is a product of "wondrous faith," not fact. Only those who espouse a particular belief view it as "God's law." According to fact, the law is the product of knowledge and bias of the person who wrote it.

You can't please everyone, and neither would you want to.

 

[sojourner]

Allow me to repeat myself,

Perhaps you can make a connection here to the discussion at hand. I have provided evidence that bigamy is against Biblical principles, and that a bigamist is, according to the scriptures I provided, adultery, and therefore a form of fornication.

Please make the connection between the facts that I have stated, and discrimination and murder, that you seem desirous to speak of.

Sorry -- not interested in playing pigeon chess with you. You know what I meant -- which is not what you've regurgitated here.

 

[Sonofason]

Sorry -- not interested in playing pigeon chess with you. You know what I meant -- which is not what you've regurgitated here.

Actually, with regard to the OP of this thread, it is my position that pre-marital sex is an oxymoron. Pre-marital sex is marriage IMHO.

 

[JerryL]

You telling me that "That's not how the Jews interpreted it." is so far an unsupported claim by you. Care to provide some evidence for this unsupported claim of yours?
It is not likely that I have a better understanding of the meaning of a sentence written thousands of years ago than the author's contemporaries do, but I'd like to see you provide someone who has at least an equal understanding to those contemporaries. Otherwise, it would seem to me that you have nothing to offer. And so far you haven't provided anything even close to that.

Does Jewish Law Forbid Polygamy? - Marriage
POLYGAMY - JewishEncyclopedia.com
THE ORTHODOX JEWISH PRO POLYGAMY PAGE
Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could also bring up OT commands which could force polygamy. For example, if your brother died without children:
Deut 25-5: "When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her."

Note the lack of an exception for a brother that's already married.

Well, considering the context surrounding that verse of scripture we are referring to, I believe it would not be adultery for you to have sexual desires towards your own wife. But I'll leave it up to you to make your own judgement about that, whether it be right or wrong.

Which means you are assuming the consequent. If we can assume it doesn't apply towards my wife, we can equally assume it doesn't apply towards my wives.

And Jesus modified that command to make it even more stringent. As the Son of God, He has that authority.

Which is fine. But you don't take his statement literally without modification. You don't think that looking at your own wife is adultery.

So Jesus moved the bar from "sex" to "looking with lust"... that we agree. But looking at whom?

Jesus just says "a woman", but you don't believe that. You believe only certain women. So what's the existing standard? In the OT it's the wives of other men.

[quoteThus we see, it has everything to do with polygamy. Polygamy is clearly a form adultery, and without God's forgiveness, a condemnable offense to God.[/QUOTE] No. We see that you are making a case based solely on plurality of a word.

Plurals would have been silly given that it was being said to Adam and Eve. If it had been plural would you assert that it didn't apply to singular marriage? No? Then why apply the standard to a use of singular?