Is premarital sex really a sin?

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Muffled View Post
I don't believe same gender couples can be married in anything but name only.

Fortunately, you yourself don't get to determine that, for the people who determine the truth or falsity of your statement are same gender people themselves. Not outsiders to their marriages.

Hi SS, True, the One who issued the containing prohibitions is the one who will judge actions.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Muffled View Post
I don't believe same gender couples can be married in anything but name only.

Where did Jesus specifically say that?
Please please don't quote Paul.... he was so messed up, sexually... ?

Who said so?

How do you think God sees it?

Are you married?

OB, Lev.18:22-23, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. "
Lev. 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

GOD said it! And that's how HE sees it. My wife of 62.75 years died 18 months ago.

 

[McBell]

OB, Lev.18:22-23, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. "
Lev. 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

GOD said it! And that's how HE sees it. My wife of 62.75 years died 18 months ago.

You forgot to present the verses where Jesus said same sex couples are not to marry.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Originally Posted by Muffled View Post
I don't believe same gender couples can be married in anything but name only.



OB, Lev.18:22-23, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. "
Lev. 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

GOD said it! And that's how HE sees it. My wife of 62.75 years died 18 months ago.

Here is what I see: Jews following Torah are discouraged from having sex with men and women within their own families. This makes a lot of sense for families. Leviticus 18 lists many forbidden incestuous relations between men and women in families but leaves open the possibility of relations between brothers etc until verse 22, which extends the prohibition for the heterosexual family members to relations between male family members.

It all depends upon what 'Defile' means. So, the law says that eating bacon defiles the country where I live. Ok. What does the law mean by 'Defiles the country'? If you say the answer is 'It means that people in the country eat bacon' then what you have is a circular, not a useful, definition for 'Defilment'. It is a failure to admit that the definition has been lost or is a secret. Example: In the thread "For the Christians" I posed the question of what was wrong with eating bacon. The answer I got was "It defiles us." That is no answer at all, because it does not address the question of how bacon defiles a country. So, what I see is that the definition of 'Defile' does not exist today. Instead defilement is a question of context.

Here is my reasoning: A fair question to ask is "What was defilement?" but a question that receives no answer. "What is it that was bad about those other countries?" This is a reasonable question, since it was so long ago and so many people have died. In particular so many Jews have been killed over the centuries, and the 'Book of the Law' was lost at least one time, Hebrew has no vowels and there is no specific definition for 'Defiled'. Most people today just take the use for 'Defiled' in the law as its definition, because there has been so much cultural loss that there aren't a lot of relevant texts extant to provide a thorough definition. Yes, that provides a kind of definition with the Torah but a circular reference for what the word means or meant. The question that often goes unasked is 'What is the defilement that breaking these laws causes?" or "What does the law really do for a country?" That in turn affects what Leviticus 18:22 is about.

In the context of Leviticus 18, sexual relations of men and women within the same family unit, between first cousins and between uncles & nephews, nieces and aunts, that is forbidden except between spouses. That would 'Defile a country' if by 'Defile a country' you mean make the country worse.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
OB, Lev.18:22-23, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. "
Lev. 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

GOD said it! And that's how HE sees it.

You forgot to present the verses where Jesus said same sex couples are not to marry.

Mestemia, I answered OB.
Since Jesus had said, (john 14:10, 24), "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me]/u], he doeth the works...He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me."---then if the subject had been dealt with, Jesus would have quoted those Leviticus verses.

How could they marry---since at that time---they would be dead??

 

[McBell]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
OB, Lev.18:22-23, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. "
Lev. 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

GOD said it! And that's how HE sees it.



Mestemia, I answered OB.
Since Jesus had said, (john 14:10, 24), "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me]/u], he doeth the works...He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me."---then if the subject had been dealt with, Jesus would have quoted those Leviticus verses.

How could they marry---since at that time---they would be dead??

Still waiting for the Jesus quote...

Not holding my breath mind you for I happen to know that if Jesus ever said anything about same sex couples not getting married it was not recorded.

 

[sincerly]

Still waiting for the Jesus quote...

Not holding my breath mind you for I happen to know that if Jesus ever said anything about same sex couples not getting married it was not recorded.

Right! There was no Recording, because during the life time of Jesus there was no activity of that sort practiced. Like Adultery, they would have been stoned. There was no cause to address something that wasn't a problem. (but was an abomination/defilement/uncleanness/polluting of the person/place or things involved.)
However, when the Gospel message was taken to the surrounding nations, there were temple prostitutes--Male and female. And Paul did address the problem in his epistles.

 

[Muffled]

Originally Posted by Muffled View Post
I don't believe same gender couples can be married in anything but name only.



Hi SS, True, the One who issued the containing prohibitions is the one who will judge actions.

I believe your statement contradicts SS's statement.

 

[Muffled]

Whether there is honor or nor not in having a same gender relationship. The point is, within a marriage your bed is undefiled no matter how much seks you have.
If you do seks outside a marriage your sheets are going to be defiled, which of course also happens literally within a marriage. The only difference is that no one has to feel guilty for literally defiling the sheets within a marriage, since figuratively the sheets are undefiled because of everybody's honor for marriage.

But I don't see why you said there is no honor in having the relationship for same gender couples?

I believe there is no homour in committing sin.

A bed of sin is a defiled bed.

I believe yo are talkinl about the honour among thieves concept but I believe one sin can lead to more sins. A concept that sin is OK defiles the person's thinking about everything.

 

[Muffled]

Hi Doodlebug........ (My Granny used to 'go on' about the doodlebugs.! )

I think that pre-marital sex is most important for a couple, so that sexual compatibility is certain, before marriage.

Too many married couples discover that they are not suited, which leads to affairs, break-ups, divorces etc. Not good.

I believe if a person is not willing to get married for better or worse then he has no business getting married but I do recognize that some people get married for the sake of convenience. My daughter got married for that reason but is now divorced because her husband beat her.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Originally Posted by Muffled View Post
I don't believe same gender couples can be married in anything but name only.

Hi SS, True, the One who issued the containing prohibitions is the one who will judge actions.

I believe your statement contradicts SS's statement.

HI Muffled, The "True"! was in acknowledging that you and I will not be the "judge", that will be the GOD who made the laws.

 

[s2a]

I don't think an intelligent designer hangs a pecker on a guy and says 'Don't use it 'til you get married.' I think an intelligent designer would just design it to pop out after you were married.

Wow, just another major fail bound fer Hell again I am.

*sigh*

 

[Levite]

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?

No, it isn't. The Torah says that a woman who is not a virgin at marriage cannot falsely claim virginity at marriage. But if she never presents herself as a virgin, there is no problem. Of course, in ancient times, a woman's bride-price (now entirely symbolic) went to her father or her clan, and so virginity was prized; and because girls were usually part of their father's household until they married, and they were usually married at or soon after they came of age, it was usually not permitted to them to have sex (given that it would have required his consent). But by today's standards, we would not permit minor children of either gender to have sex, for different (better) reasons.

Once a girl was of age, if she no longer lived under her father's authority, it was entirely her decision whether to have sex.

Males were never forbidden premarital sex, probably in part because boys also got married soon after coming of age, and prior to that, a boy is likely to be physically unable to and uninterested in having sex.

Today, since we no longer have the same concept of an unmarried girl (or a boy, for that matter) being subject to her father's authority in that sense, nor do we place excessive social value on virginity at marriage, it seems to me that young men and women are both permitted to have sex before marriage, so long as they are safe.

 

[sincerly]

No, it isn't. The Torah says that a woman who is not a virgin at marriage cannot falsely claim virginity at marriage. But if she never presents herself as a virgin, there is no problem.

Wrong on this account as well. Deut.22:13-21, "
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.."

Today, since we no longer have the same concept of an unmarried girl (or a boy, for that matter) being subject to her father's authority in that sense, nor do we place excessive social value on virginity at marriage, it seems to me that young men and women are both permitted to have sex before marriage, so long as they are safe.

Levite, that is bad advice. The GOD of the Scriptures is the same yesterday, today and forever. HIS precepts/principles are as valid TODAY as they were when first given.

"Safety"?? Have you not noticed the statistics concerning "sexually transmitted diseases"? Your "seems to me" is not scriptural and for the "pleasure minded", it is setting one's self up for painful/remorseful cogitations.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wrong on this account as well. Deut.22:13-21, "
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.."

How lovely.

 

[Levite]

Wrong on this account as well. Deut.22:13-21, "
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.."

Levite, that is bad advice. The GOD of the Scriptures is the same yesterday, today and forever. HIS precepts/principles are as valid TODAY as they were when first given.

"Safety"?? Have you not noticed the statistics concerning "sexually transmitted diseases"? Your "seems to me" is not scriptural and for the "pleasure minded", it is setting one's self up for painful/remorseful cogitations.

I suppose I should have clarified that my opinion is not based on fundamentalist, absolutist, and excessively literalist Christian readings of translations of Jewish text.

A sane and reasonable use of analysis and exegesis using both the classical tools of Rabbinic thought and the critical methods of modern liberal Jewish scholars leads me to my opinions. That, and the CDC's evidence that good sex ed, consistent use of condoms, and use of spermicidal lubricants during intercourse do more for preventing sexually transmitted diseases than do attempts to enforce abstinence using fundamentalist theology.

 

[s2a]

I'd like you to point out when Jesus said that premarital sex is forbidden.

Just for he record. I "looked lustfully" upon many gals in my early years of Junior High, and has NO "fornication" with any of them (sigh).

Any guy that suggests differently is either a drone worker bee slaved to a queen bee, or has no nuts.

You were saying...?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Wrong on this account as well. Deut.22:13-21, "
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.."

How lovely.

No! Sin is not "lovely", nor is the remedy. Obedience is "lovely" and its results are satisfying.

 

[outhouse]

A sane and reasonable use of analysis and exegesis .

Not going to happen.

Ignore function is a feature that cures this illness.

 

[outhouse]

I don't need mythology to tell me right and wrong.