Is premarital sex really a sin?

[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.."

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.

Levite, It isn't "exegesis" of the Scriptures given by the Creator GOD, but the eisegesis seen in the "Rabbinic thought" and "the methods of modern Jewish scholars" that leads one to conclude that the Scriptures given to the Prophets for a right relationship to GOD and other human Beings is false. That concluded "opinion" then is contrary to the Scriptural meaning given by the Creator GOD.

It is the Creator GOD who gave Eve to Adam to be "One flesh". GOD did not make multiple Adams or multiple Eves.
Also, GOD abhors the sin of adultery, as HE likened the Israelites as playing the whore/harlot by taking the nation's 'gods' to themselves instead of being loyal to HIM.(As Israel's husband.)

You do err in regards to the safety of sex outside of marriage and one partner.
Condoms and all the "deterrents" to pregnancy and diseases are not fool-proof. There are many diseases which condoms do not prevent---like premarital sex is ok--- it is false security---the only premarital sex which is condoned is that---the couple then marry.

Total abstinence as a way of life is safe and the only way to be in harmony with the Creator GOD.

 

[sincerly]

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

A denial of a GOD with rules/laws and there is no right or wrong.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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

I was being sarcastic. That verse is disgusting.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A denial of a GOD with rules/laws and there is no right or wrong.

[tongue in cheek]
Exactly. This is why 'Ad exstirpanda' is so misunderstood. There has to be boundaries somewhere, else 'right' and 'wrong' simply become terms of popular opinion.
[/tongue in cheek]

 

[Levite]

Levite, It isn't "exegesis" of the Scriptures given by the Creator GOD, but the eisegesis seen in the "Rabbinic thought" and "the methods of modern Jewish scholars" that leads one to conclude that the Scriptures given to the Prophets for a right relationship to GOD and other human Beings is false. That concluded "opinion" then is contrary to the Scriptural meaning given by the Creator GOD.

It is the Creator GOD who gave Eve to Adam to be "One flesh". GOD did not make multiple Adams or multiple Eves.
Also, GOD abhors the sin of adultery, as HE likened the Israelites as playing the whore/harlot by taking the nation's 'gods' to themselves instead of being loyal to HIM.(As Israel's husband.)

You do err in regards to the safety of sex outside of marriage and one partner.
Condoms and all the "deterrents" to pregnancy and diseases are not fool-proof. There are many diseases which condoms do not prevent---like premarital sex is ok--- it is false security---the only premarital sex which is condoned is that---the couple then marry.

Total abstinence as a way of life is safe and the only way to be in harmony with the Creator GOD.

Again, fortunately, I remain uninterested in fundamentalist Christian readings of Jewish text. As, I also believe, God is similarly uninterested in fundamentalism of any sort.

 

[McBell]

A denial of a GOD with rules/laws and there is no right or wrong.

Just because you require the threat of punishment to behave as a good person does not mean everyone else does.

 

[sincerly]

[tongue in cheek]
Exactly. This is why 'Ad exstirpanda' is so misunderstood. There has to be boundaries somewhere, else 'right' and 'wrong' simply become terms of popular opinion.
[/tongue in cheek]

LNM, What is/was "popular opinion"---yesterday or today will not be the same tomorrow.
That Papal Bull (Ad extirpanda) for the forcing of conscience was not Scripturally true.
The Truths and eternal characteristics of the Laws of GOD are in LOVE to/with a right relationship to Creator GOD and one's fellow Beings---therefore, as you acknowledge--"there has to be boundaries somewhere".

With the Free-will(choice) given to mankind, one can choose to be a part of the "kingdom" HE made---or just live this preliminary life which mankind corrupted by disobedience.

"popular Opinion" can not be counted upon to be truth or fact.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
A denial of a GOD with rules/laws and there is no right or wrong.

Just because you require the threat of punishment to behave as a good person does not mean everyone else does.

The point being that "without laws" there is neither "right" nor "wrong".
There is/are no man made "laws" which can not be changed by man.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

LNM, What is/was "popular opinion"---yesterday or today will not be the same tomorrow.

Yep, I'd agree on that.

That Papal Bull (Ad extirpanda) for the forcing of conscience was not Scripturally true.

If it were?

There are a lot of religious denominations in this world, each of whom is certain in their own beliefs. Of those, at most one can be right. You're certain it's your belief system.
Others are certain it's theirs.

The Truths and eternal characteristics of the Laws of GOD are in LOVE to/with a right relationship to Creator GOD and one's fellow Beings---therefore, as you acknowledge--"there has to be boundaries somewhere".

I also acknowledged that my last post was satirical. Nevertheless, I'll set out a couple of basic boundaries as I see them.
1) The Golden Rule is sensible. It's neither owned by Christianity, nor invented by Christianity, but whatever encourages people to act with empathy towards their fellow man is a step forwards. Application of this would suggest to me that 'Ad extirpanda' was evil, regardless of belief in scripture, God, or anything else.
2) Spelling 'truth' as 'Truth' does little other than scare me. Believers in Truth have a compelling reason to step away from the Golden Rule, dependent on how they define said 'Truth'.

With the Free-will(choice) given to mankind, one can choose to be a part of the "kingdom" HE made---or just live this preliminary life which mankind corrupted by disobedience.

What you call 'preliminary life' is something I refer to as 'life'. Whilst you might live it in preparation for the next life, I don't. I value this one. It's not a preliminary step, nor a test, to my mind. I'd be interested in your definition of God, freewill, and love, incidentally. I commonly find it hard to reconcile the definition provided for these three things alongside certain beliefs in the afterlife.

"popular Opinion" can not be counted upon to be truth or fact.

Thankfully this is true, and is always worth remembering. It's also worth remembering that within the 'democracy' of yourself, you have the only vote. However, that ALSO doesn't mean it can be counted on to be truth or fact.

 

[s2a]

A denial of a GOD with rules/laws and there is no right or wrong.

Bull. Just another wish your heart makes...

 

[McBell]

The point being that "without laws" there is neither "right" nor "wrong".

Demonstratively false.
Right and Wrong have nothing to do with the law.

There is/are no man made "laws" which can not be changed by man.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

 

[sincerly]

What you call 'preliminary life' is something I refer to as 'life'. Whilst you might live it in preparation for the next life, I don't. I value this one. It's not a preliminary step, nor a test, to my mind. I'd be interested in your definition of God, freewill, and love, incidentally. I commonly find it hard to reconcile the definition provided for these three things alongside certain beliefs in the afterlife.

LNM, My definition of those terms is the Scriptural seen one---and those are consistent with the hope in the Promised new earth. But, that is another topic.

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
"popular Opinion" can not be counted upon to be truth or fact.[/quote]

Thankfully this is true, and is always worth remembering. It's also worth remembering that within the 'democracy' of yourself, you have the only vote. However, that ALSO doesn't mean it can be counted on to be truth or fact.

True. When one's vote has been guided by information concluded by the "democracy" one has in processing the information---"fears", "fantasies"; "feelings" or "facts", the results may appear acceptable, but be detrimental.

In this topic, GOD is explicitly stating---"as with woman".

 

[sincerly]

Demonstratively false.
Right and Wrong have nothing to do with the law.

Mestemia, Without there being a prohibiting factor/law, all things are permissible. That is obvious.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia, Without there being a prohibiting factor/law, all things are permissible. That is obvious.

Law does not matter.

Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the law.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Mestemia, Without there being a prohibiting factor/law, all things are permissible. That is obvious.

Law does not matter.

Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the law.

Mestemia, What is it that makes anything wrong?

 

[McBell]

Mestemia, What is it that makes anything wrong?

What society decides is wrong.

Take the Bible for instance.
I say slavery is wrong.
I am not talking about indentured servants, i am talking slavery.
It is wrong.

If you agree that slavery is wrong, you disagree with the Bible.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Considering the amount of premarital sex in the Bible, no. Actually this whole concept of premarital sex is twisted because the only mandate for marriage in the Bible is children out of wedlock or rape. This is where that notion of "doing the right thing"(marrying a girl) comes from.

 

[Levite]

Considering the amount of premarital sex in the Bible, no. Actually this whole concept of premarital sex is twisted because the only mandate for marriage in the Bible is children out of wedlock or rape. This is where that notion of "doing the right thing"(marrying a girl) comes from.

FWIW, at least in the Hebrew Bible (the so-called "Old Testament") there is actually no condemnation of children born out of wedlock. The word mamzer-- usually translated "b.a.s.t.a.r.d," and which is erroneously taken by Christianity to refer to children born out of wedlock-- actually refers only to children born of forbidden unions (i.e., adultery or incest).

 

[Sha'irullah]

FWIW, at least in the Hebrew Bible (the so-called "Old Testament") there is actually no condemnation of children born out of wedlock. The word mamzer-- usually translated "b.a.s.t.a.r.d," and which is erroneously taken by Christianity to refer to children born out of wedlock-- actually refers only to children born of forbidden unions (i.e., adultery or incest).

Personally I am astonished by the amount of mistranslation when Christians took the Tanakh. I hear that the word Messiah is overly used by Christians in regards to Judaism.
Is it not true that there is more than one "messiah" in the Hebrew Bible?

 

[Levite]

Personally I am astonished by the amount of mistranslation when Christians took the Tanakh. I hear that the word Messiah is overly used by Christians in regards to Judaism.
Is it not true that there is more than one "messiah" in the Hebrew Bible?

Actually, the term mashiach did not come to mean specifically and exclusively the one promised redeemer and restorer of the Davidic line until very late in the Second Temple period, if not even in the early Rabbinic Period (Common Era). When it is used in the Tanach, it can mean any leader appointed by God for a great task, or marked by God for some sort of authority.