Sex Before Marriage

[Passerbye]

s2a, I just want to make two comments on what you have said.

1. It only works if the God of the Bible does not exist. It only works if we are really all animals, as you obviously think. It only works if the theories that are lumped under the catagory of 'evolution' are correct. Since none of that has been proven at all, and all of those theories have large holes in them that have become apparent, you can't simply say that we are monkeys and should act as such.

I agree that if there is no God then go have sex all you want... it's all meaningless anyway. If nothing has decided write or wrong from the begining... and pain is nothing but electrical signals in your brain, chemical reactions, and such... then there is no reason to refrain from anything (other than for the reason of punishment from local law ofcourse). As such (I shall now speak as a fool) let us go live in Korea for a few weeks ... grab 30 women (Korean women are very beautiful) from different clubs (over a period of 2 days)... take them by boat (a stolen one... with the owners killed as well) into the middle of the ocean... and rape and kill every one of them for the next few weeks. Don't worry about food... we can eat their flesh until they are no more (all science teachers have told me that the most healthy food a human can eat is a human). As for the bones... we can put them in the safe that is on the boat... and throw that overboard... above an underwater volcano. Then, after that, we can do the same thing next month... from another country, so people don't suspect anything. We would have collected enough money from the women that we killed so that by then we would be able to do it again, and again, and again. Next time we can grab some little girls too... or boys even. Doesn't that sound nice? I hear 5 year old testicals taste good. How else would you want to spend the rest of your meaningless life?

No God... No Judgement... No Rules. Man can do just what he really wants to do. He can ignore what his own feelings say is good or bad. He can forget about the pain others would experience. He can forget about their families. After all... they are just monkeys.

As the Bible says, "'Vanity, Vanity' says the teacher. 'All is Vanity.' The word translated Vanity also means Absurdity, Frustration, Futility, Nonsense. But in the same place it says, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil."

That is all we have to do. God is a judge... and if there is no judge then there is no reason to not do what I have outlined above. Does this seem wrong to you? It should! IT IS! Don't be a fool. The very fact that you have an idea of right and wrong shows that there is at least something to look at in the catagory of a designed world.

2. You should try to be a little nicer to people who present other viewpoints than your own. They may use words that are far smaller than the ones you use, but that doesn't make you better or smarter than them...

Nor does it mean they need Viagra!

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

This is the best article I have ever read on the subject. I have yet to hear or read a decent rebuttle for it and the best part is that it gives logical unbiblical reasons: http://www.equip.org/free/DR508.htm

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Smoke]

This is the best article I have ever read on the subject. I have yet to hear or read a decent rebuttle for it [...]

There's nothing to rebut. The article provides no evidence or reasoned argument for its conclusions:

What, then, are the ramifications if sexual relationships are pursued outside the marriage bed? At least four consequences follow, varying in particular cases with the degree to which sex is pursued and the other elements of marriage are missing:

• (1) significant moral harm is done to the parties involved, corresponding to that described in comparing rape to other assaults;
  
• (2) loss of meaning occurs in the life and relationships of the people involved, as the significance of sexuality (which is ultimately fulfilled only in marriage) becomes unmoored from its foundation;
  
• (3) sexual assault (e.g., rape, molestation, harassment) may become increasingly common in a culture that (in circumstances other than rape) fails to respect the significance of sex; and
  
• (4) in the strictest sense, it may be technically impossible to provide informed consent to sex outside the marriage bed.

Bare, fantastic assertions, no more, and unworthy of a response.

 

[MaddLlama]

No God... No Judgement... No Rules. Man can do just what he really wants to do. He can ignore what his own feelings say is good or bad. He can forget about the pain others would experience. He can forget about their families. After all... they are just monkeys.

Are you suggesting that all atheists and non-Christians are amoral monkey-men with no respect for life, law, or knowledge of concequences, while all Christians are good, upstanding moral citizens who hold the world together with the pages of the Bible?

Pardon me while I laugh uncontrollably.

 

[s2a]

[Extended apologies in overdue reply. Inordinately pressing priorities required my attentions elsewhere.]

Hello Passerbye,

You said:

s2a, I just want to make two comments on what you have said.

1. It only works if the God of the Bible does not exist. It only works if we are really all animals, as you obviously think. It only works if the theories that are lumped under the catagory of 'evolution' are correct. Since none of that has been proven at all...

Evolution theory remains one of the most rigorously tested and validated scientific theories extant today. You can choose not to believe it if you please, but evolution is as much a validated fact as anything can be lacking a claim of 100% absolute certainty (which no scientific conclusion will ever render).

...and all of those theories have large holes in them that have become apparent, you can't simply say that we are monkeys and should act as such.

No need to act like monkeys (nor to imply that I ever suggested as much). Being human is challenge enough...

I agree that if there is no God then go have sex all you want... it's all meaningless anyway.

Gee thanks. Now if I could only mangage some way to actually get all the sex I want...(wifey sometimes says "not now", and I gotta respect that).

Just know that if your god is non-existent, you're missing out on some really enjoyable, meaningless sex for for no good reason whatsoever (by your proffered rationale). Oh well...

If nothing has decided write or wrong from the begining... and pain is nothing but electrical signals in your brain, chemical reactions, and such... then there is no reason to refrain from anything (other than for the reason of punishment from local law ofcourse).

Personal conscience and ingrained values may play a role too...

Just so happens that some of us don't need/require a god belief to find value, meaning, morality, or purpose in existence. Unfortunately (as some religious adherent's testimonies attest), any and all sense of personal morality/ethics is apparently impossible absent some god-belief. Personally, I find such testimonial realizations of pessimistic self-awareness and empty conscience pathetically sad. I am admittedly both godless and heretical, yet find both within myself, and amongst many others - an abiding and sincere commitment to personal accountability and responsibility - for both choices made, and the consequences derived therefrom; with great remaining optimism and hope for the future of the human condition, and the remaining unrealized potential of our species.

Have ancient religious standards of "right and wrong" made people any more moral or ethical today - after thousands of years of evagelization, persecution, "native pacification", and "enlightenment" - than mankind ever was at the outset?
Has god-belief offered any new insights or directions as to better the human condition, or does it offer very same "guidelines" that were introduced millennia ago?
Has religion brought more people together over great distances than say, the telephone, TV, or the internet?
How about the numbers of children dying of disease, malnutrition, starvation, and senseless war, compared to say, 2000, 1500, 800, or even 100 years ago? Better, worse, or about the same?
Has religion significantly improved anything within the human condition, in any measurable and sustainable way, since man first fearfully and ignorantly worshipped fire, thunderbolts, and cave bears?
Howzabout about hate, ignorance, racism, indifference, cruelty, injustice, and irrational fear? Still around?
Has any god "Truth(s)" (or claimed existence), and their attendant "rules", "commandments", and/or dogmatic declarations of what constitutes "right and wrong"...managed to significantly mitigate or eradicate any of these persistent conditions?
Is god-belief really the best of any tested, and track-record proven, viable "solutions" to amend mankind's seeminglt intractable woes...or is it, perhaps, the primary source of man's worst moral failings?

God-belief. You tell me. How's it going so far?

[There is one speculation that I would offer regarding the persitence of god-beliefs. Virtually all promise some sort of personalized and "earned" godly reward, to be "cashed in" after "cashing out" of this mortal realm. Understandable personal motivation to self-interest, to be sure...but not much reason nor motivation to improve the human condition in it's entirety; either today, or for the generations to come. Gods typically don't punish their loyal adherents for their failure to gain converts alone. Gods know that humans are inherently flawed, weak, and prone to failure (after all, they purposefully made humans that way). And talk about "meaningless". What's the point of even trying to make a Creator's "creation" a better place, when in the end, the god is going to blow it all up anyway? Now there's an exercize in ultimate futility! So, as long as you got yer rear in gear, and all your afterlife bets covered, it's just kinda tough luck for the rest that don't. After all, you don't need to be perfect (or even responsible for anyone/anything else), as long as you're "saved". I can understand that manner of thinking, really I can. I just happen to think it's lousy.]

As such (I shall now speak as a fool) let us go live in Korea for a few weeks ... grab 30 women (Korean women are very beautiful) from different clubs (over a period of 2 days)... take them by boat (a stolen one... with the owners killed as well) into the middle of the ocean... and rape and kill every one of them for the next few weeks. Don't worry about food... we can eat their flesh until they are no more (all science teachers have told me that the most healthy food a human can eat is a human). As for the bones... we can put them in the safe that is on the boat... and throw that overboard... above an underwater volcano. Then, after that, we can do the same thing next month... from another country, so people don't suspect anything. We would have collected enough money from the women that we killed so that by then we would be able to do it again, and again, and again. Next time we can grab some little girls too... or boys even. Doesn't that sound nice? I hear 5 year old testicals taste good.

Oh my. I commend your creepy, yet vivid imagination. Extra credit for creative use of hyperbolic, slippery-slope fallacy too.

How else would you want to spend the rest of your meaningless life?

My life has plenty of self-derived meaning and purpose (keeping me quite intrigued, occupied, absorbed, and involved), despite my "unbelief" in your, or any other God. Strange that...
[You did mention that thing about having all the sex I want, right? That's one expenditure I'd merrily indulge. Oh, and toss in some extra fine cigars (Partagas Lonsdales would do nicely) and an unlimited supply of 100-year-old cognac to boot. And maybe a really nice telescope. And a pony...just so I could have two things to ride silly.]

No God... No Judgement... No Rules. Man can do just what he really wants to do. He can ignore what his own feelings say is good or bad. He can forget about the pain others would experience. He can forget about their families. After all... they are just monkeys.

Our species has managed to evince civil "rules" and criminal "justice" (in varying forms and degrees) since the very dawn of civilization itself (some more crude and unjust than others). Coincidentally, cultures have invented and worshipped their own multi-faceted or singular god(s) for nearly as long. Your god is but one (amongst many) in an ongoing and ever evolving process (and reprocess) of faith-based deistic beliefs, myths, legends, and superstitions retained by those that prefer or readily accept supernaturalistic explanations in answer to questions that lack absolute certitude by any other process or rationale. If our species manages to propagate itself for a few more hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of years, your god (like all others before) will likely be but another historical footnote alongside the likes of Osiris, Cronus, Zeus, Apollo, and Huitzilopochtli.

 

[s2a]

[cont. for Passerbye]

As the Bible says, "'Vanity, Vanity' says the teacher. 'All is Vanity.' The word translated Vanity also means Absurdity, Frustration, Futility, Nonsense. But in the same place it says, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil."

Do I strike you as emotionally frustrated or confused? Do I seem equivocal, unconfident, or somehow unsure of myself? Do I evince qualities of doubt, dread, or abject fatalism?

It could be worse though. There's just good ole' fashioned vanity to consider...you know, as in; "an attitude of self-conceited arrogance"; "an egotistical disregard of others" (thanks WordNet 2.0). Kinda like...

Nahum 1:2 -
"The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies."

Heck. Even I'm not that self-important or unforgiving...

Job 11:7-12

And whither, pray tell, is the measure of thine own vanity, in laying righteous rebuke upon my door, whilst never knowing the breadth nor depth of your own God?

That is all we have to do. God is a judge... and if there is no judge then there is no reason to not do what I have outlined above.

Reason is what precludes me from accepting the claims of existent god as fact beyond reasonable doubt.

Does this seem wrong to you? It should! IT IS! Don't be a fool.

Your rationale is flawed by your adherent faith, but I won't hold that against you.

The very fact that you have an idea of right and wrong shows that there is at least something to look at in the catagory of a designed world.

I would agree that evidence of "design" is everywhere. Lots of seemingly imperfect, and chaotic "design". Evidence of a supernatural (either ordered or chaotic) "designer" or "creator" is, to date...non-existent.

2. You should try to be a little nicer to people who present other viewpoints than your own. They may use words that are far smaller than the ones you use, but that doesn't make you better or smarter than them...

Your earnest counsel is noted. I can only respond to what people say. I do not speculate nor specifically accommodate personalized aspects of "who they are". To claim to "know" someone in a virtual (albeit communal) realm such as REF would constitute vainglory indeed.

I offer neither claims nor false pretense of any (personally) superior intellect, wisdom, or character (heck, there's plenty of folks here in REF than evince greater abundance of such qualities, than I might ever presuppose to garner for myself). I rarely offer estimations of other's capacities or personal character. I have nil but my own experience and understanding to offer in commentary and debate.

Anything more would be vanity indeed.

 

[zombieharlot]

Well, Mister_T, from what I understand covetting or lusting for something is violating the tenth commandment (thou shalt not covet). Once you marry you are unified and have become one. Your sex now belongs to her and hers to you.

That's the best arguement I have known about the situation.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

There's nothing to rebut. The article provides no evidence or reasoned argument for its conclusions:

What, then, are the ramifications if sexual relationships are pursued outside the marriage bed? At least four consequences follow, varying in particular cases with the degree to which sex is pursued and the other elements of marriage are missing:

• (1) significant moral harm is done to the parties involved, corresponding to that described in comparing rape to other assaults;
  
• (2) loss of meaning occurs in the life and relationships of the people involved, as the significance of sexuality (which is ultimately fulfilled only in marriage) becomes unmoored from its foundation;
  
• (3) sexual assault (e.g., rape, molestation, harassment) may become increasingly common in a culture that (in circumstances other than rape) fails to respect the significance of sex; and
  
• (4) in the strictest sense, it may be technically impossible to provide informed consent to sex outside the marriage bed.

​

It never ceases to amaze me where I find this copout response. All this response indicates is that all that was read or paid attention to by the respondent was the paragraph titled "The Fallout". You know, there is footnotes at the bottom of the page containing 19 sources for where the author of the article managed to get it's evidence and reasoned argument, inlcuding U.S. Suprme Court and other court decisions about rape, elementary school studies, etc. I would love to see you debate some of the proofs in this article with a victoms rights advocate.

Bare, fantastic assertions, no more, and unworthy of a response.

And yet you managed to type out a response. Is responding to articles that contain "Bare, fantastic assertions, no more" and are "unworthy of a response" a regular thing for you or was this a special occasion?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Mister_T]

Well, Mister_T, from what I understand covetting or lusting for something is violating the tenth commandment (thou shalt not covet). Once you marry you are unified and have become one. Your sex now belongs to her and hers to you.

That's the best arguement I have known about the situation.

Read it again. The argument is having sex with someone whom you're in love with (monogamous relationship) before the marriage ritual. Churches assert that a monogamous couple expressing that kind of love for one another is wrong and is a terrible sin. When the fact is such a concept (the fact that it is evil and condemned) does not exist in the Bible. It is a dogma that was formed by churches due to guilt and shame.

 

[Mister_T]

[/list][/indent]It never ceases to amaze me where I find this copout response. All this response indicates is that all that was read or paid attention to by the respondent was the paragraph titled "The Fallout". You know, there is footnotes at the bottom of the page containing 19 sources for where the author of the article managed to get it's evidence and reasoned argument, inlcuding U.S. Suprme Court and other court decisions about rape, elementary school studies, etc. I would love to see you debate some of the proofs in this article with a victoms rights advocate.

Could you elaborate on that article a little more? I was having trouble understanding the point the author was trying to make.

 

[MaddLlama]

Other than those four points, I wasn't able to find much of any coherent argument that wasn't based on the Biblical morality of it. Not to mention the article is fairly biased, if we're going to talk about the harms to secular society, and why it shouldn't happen rather than that it offends Christian moral sensibilities.

I especially liked the part where he twists some sarcastic "liberal" ideology into the article by saying that rape might not be a crime, because the rapist doesn't define sex as including consent.

My contention is that it would be special pleading to restrict the recognition of sexual significance, identified in the paragraphs above, to the crime of rape. Either sex is significant or it is not. To be consistent, we should be ready to apply that significance in circumstances other than rape. It seems fair to say that if rape demonstrates the significance of sexuality apart from what the consent-only ethic intends, then in other circumstances, sex must be accompanied by something in addition to consent — something that reflects and protects that profound significance. Otherwise, sex is reduced, by practical logic, to something more trivial than it is.

This is terrible terrible logic, and a sneaky way of saying "I'm better and more moral than all you dirty liberals", which really gets under my skin. Sex without consent is wrong in any circumstance for several reasons - first, a person has the right to have control over thier body. It would be a crime if someone assaulted me, and rape is no different. It's not being inconsistent at all, the problem is the author is working under the incorrect assumption that pre-martial sexual activity is insignificant. Not everyone who chooses to have sex before marriage is having non-commital sex with a complete stranger every day. Not everyone considers sex to be a "ho-hum" everyday activity. Far from it, I think, is the majority. And, with all of the focus on disease and pregnacy prevention, how can a person say that it isn't signifigant? And, getting married doesn't make sex any different at all. I've been with my husband for 5 years, we've been sexually active all 5 of those years, and I'm glad to say that our sex life hasn't changed at all sice we got married. What is it about getting married that makes sex more signifigant?

Consider one such case of reduction to triviality. Wendy Shalit, author of the book A Return to Modesty, writes of the New Jersey sex education program Family Life, which she described as beginning “instruction about birth control, masturbation, abortion, and puberty in kindergarten.”6 She observes: “Ten years ago, when the program was first instituted, there was some discomfort because according to the coordinator of the program…‘some of our kindergarten teachers were shy — they didn’t like talking about scrotums and vulvas.’ But in time, she reports, ‘they tell me it’s no different from talking about an elbow.’”

First of all, I highly highly doubt that the state required sex edcuation for children in kindergarden in 1999. That strikes me as very implausible.
Second, her book "Return to Modesty" annoys me. I haven't read it, nor do I plan to, but whoever designed the cover may not have realized that modesty was the sign of the sin of Adam and Eve, so I'm not sure why that's considered a good thing.
Third, this point about teachers being uncomfortable talking about any part of the body is not making sex trivial. Rather, it's teaching people that every part of the body is just that, a part. Some things may function differently than others, but having a problem saying "vulva" to a 13 year old is like a bunch of little kids giggling because someone said "poopy". It's immature, and it displays just how uncomfortable a person is with thier body and it's functions.
If you don't understand how things work, and refuse to do so because you can't get over a silly taboo, then that is trivializing sex - you're telling the world that it isn't important enough to learn about it.
And, the NJ sex edcuation thing reference is quite outdated. http://www.iwhc.org/resources/congress/real.cfm

Shalit turns a corner to talk about “the new problem of sodomy-on-the-playground” — that is, of sexual assault among children — making the logical connection between this act and the perception of sex within our culture: “The associative link between the disenchanting of sex and increased sexual brutality among children works like this: if our children are raised to believe, in the words of that New Jersey kindergarten teacher, that talking about the most private things is ‘no different from talking about an elbow,’ then they are that much more likely to see nothing wrong in certain kinds of sexual violence. What’s really so terrible, after all, in making someone touch or kiss your elbow?”

This is just stupid. First of all I don't believe for a second that NJ was requiring sex education for kindergardeners....I'll have to ask some of my friends who live in Jersey.
Second, to say that real sexual education about how the sexual organs function is going to make kids sodomize and sexually assualt one another during recess is assanine. If it is true that they reuqired this level of edcucation at that age, and at that time, then I wonder why there haven't been any reports about kindergardeners having sex on the swingset. I notice that such proof of this stupid notion is lacking from the article, and probably from the book as well.

I'll have to come back to the rest later - the type is so damn small it hurts my eyes.

 

[Mister_T]

I especially liked the part where he twists some sarcastic "liberal" ideology into the article by saying that rape might not be a crime, because the rapist doesn't define sex as including consent

I though that's what he was getting at, but I wasn't quite sure. Which is why I asked for clarification on the article before I made any comments.

I agree with you: Rubbish.

 

[zombieharlot]

Read it again. The argument is having sex with someone whom you're in love with (monogamous relationship) before the marriage ritual. Churches assert that a monogamous couple expressing that kind of love for one another is wrong and is a terrible sin. When the fact is such a concept (the fact that it is evil and condemned) does not exist in the Bible. It is a dogma that was formed by churches due to guilt and shame.

Well that's why I'm not a Christian anymore.:biglaugh:

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Could you elaborate on that article a little more? I was having trouble understanding the point the author was trying to make.

Sorry That I couldn't do this earlier, something to do with work. You know, bills can't pay themselves.

Anyways, I had actually presented some of the basic tenets of this article in a debate titled "Consent?" ( http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15864&highlight=consent ) and actually had a very good discussion over the topic.

To put it in a nutshell, what I got out of the article was that given the various court proclaimations and other studies on the issue of what treating sexual relations other than of extreme importance is completely ignoring the fact that those who have suffered from sexually oriented crimes suffer from for the rest of their lives. We may as well declare rape to be no more of a misdemeanor than me taking one's wallet which is also a violation of one's consent and lacking in "love".

The argument is having sex with someone whom you're in love with (monogamous relationship) before the marriage ritual

Since you seem to be concentrating on the "love" issue, I can't help but be curious as to how you would define "love" and how would you affirm that someone's "love" for you isn't like "loving" a certain flavored ice cream? Let's quit being naive here. There are plenty of people willing to go the "extra mile" to influence others that there "love" is genuine and "forever" for the sake of getting their "jollies". How many times do we need to hear those types of stories to get the point?! (sheesh)

Churches assert that a monogamous couple expressing that kind of love for one another is wrong and is a terrible sin. When the fact is such a concept (the fact that it is evil and condemned) does not exist in the Bible. It is a dogma that was formed by churches due to guilt and shame.

LOL, you're going to have to go much further back than the church to get to the origins of this "unbibblical dogma" formed by "guilt and shame". It wouldn't take a masters degree in history to find how reverent the Jewish culture has treated marriage and virginity for centuries. I have even seen documentaries in Isreal about traditional Jewish marriages where the virginity of the couple and consumation of the marriages was treated with such importance, that what we might call "the best man" would cut themselves in order to bleed on the consumated on blanket in order to validate the virginity of the female participant. To claim that your wife was not a virgin when you married her could mean dire consequences if not death (Deut. 22:13-29 Matt 1:18-19). Given the fact that the first Chrsitians were actually of Jewish descent, it is no suprise that when gentile converts started popping up and the question arrose of whether or not these converts needed to first convert to Judaism and follow it's many laws (Acts 15:5), the conclusion at "the Counsel at Jerusalem" was that (Acts 15:28-29) "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication..."
*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Fornication \For`ni*ca"tion\, n. [F. fornication, L.
fornicatio.] 1. Unlawful sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried
person; the act of such illicit sexual intercourse between
a man and a woman as does not by law amount to adultery.
[1913 Webster]

Then, before further clearing up the "food issue" (1 Cor.8:1-13), The Apostle Paul still affirms that "fornicators" "shall not inherit the Kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9). To assert that the condemnation of fornication is not Biblical but rather a "dogma" based on "guilt and shame" shows not only true ignorance of the subject matter but a true asserted effort to either not do any research to validate one's claims or complete unbased denial of the facts. If only I had a nickle for every time I have had these conversations with self proclaimed "believers".

I though that's what he was getting at, but I wasn't quite sure. Which is why I asked for clarification on the article before I made any comments.

Your patience is greatly appreciated:areyoucra

I agree with you: Rubbish.

All this response does is reveal your true intention for starting this thread. If you want to get your "jollies" off before you get married, by all means do so. On a side note, the refference to "fornicators" in 1 Cor.6:9 is not a condemnation of those who have failed but of those who know the truth and continue to fail with absolutely no remorse or repentive attitude about it till the day they die. (Hot dog!!! now you even have a biblically twisted excuse for doing so!!!) I'll even go so far as to state that marriage isn't the surest way of avoiding unwanted consequences over sexual relations . At the same time, I'm not willing to "throw the baby out with the bath water" and give up on one of the best ways of testing one's love for another before giving up one of the most precious things almost anybody can claim to have, their sexuality.
I highly doubt that you are as ignorant as you make yourself out to be in this thread when it comes to the subject matter at hand. You know the facts. Do with them what you will. When you are done, blame nobody but yourself.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[hakeem]

Actually sex before marrige is totally forbidden ,at least in islam ,but I think in maony other religions

 

[Mister_T]

Since you seem to be concentrating on the "love" issue, I can't help but be curious as to how you would define "love" and how would you affirm that someone's "love" for you isn't like "loving" a certain flavored ice cream? Let's quit being naive here. There are plenty of people willing to go the "extra mile" to influence others that there "love" is genuine and "forever" for the sake of getting their "jollies".

Love is 2 people in a monogomous relationship. I hope you're not trying to imply that 2 people having sex before a marriage ritual are not really in love. That would be EXTREMLEY ignorant.

I have even seen documentaries in Isreal about traditional Jewish marriages where the virginity of the couple and consumation of the marriages was treated with such importance, that what we might call "the best man" would cut themselves in order to bleed on the consumated on blanket in order to validate the virginity of the female participant.

A few things: Marriage in the OT culture had little to do with love and a lot to do with culture. Marriages were usually pre-arranged and if you did not like your spouse....tough. If your spouse dies you had to marry his brother whether you loved him or not (for women). The Taliban lives closer to the culture in the OT than any "Christian" today. There are many OT cultural practices that are not enforced or practiced by todays "Christians". I will not comment on the blantent hypocrasy.

Given the fact that the first Chrsitians were actually of Jewish descent, it is no suprise that when gentile converts started popping up and the question arrose of whether or not these converts needed to first convert to Judaism and follow it's many laws (Acts 15:5), the conclusion at "the Counsel at Jerusalem" was that (Acts 15:28-29) "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication..."

Here's an intersting take on that if you care to read it.

http://www.gerrior.net/Resources/Sex...03.Porneia.htm

"In the New Testament we see the word "Porneia" used several times by the authors. It can be found in the original texts from which the Testament is derived up to twenty-six times. The agreement on the translation of this word, which is the modern English root of pornography, is as wide as the translators involved.
In the following table, the word Porneia is taken from Matthew 19:9

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:9 KJVA)










​

Bible Basic EnglishLoss of virtueCommon EnglishTerrible sexual sinKing JamesFornicationStrong's DictionaryHarlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry Young's LiteralWhoredomLiteral TranslationFornication Various meanings of Porneia by Translation
From the above, we see that the bias is toward some egregious sexual error. Is it any wonder that this becomes the common theme given the anti-sex nature of the Conservative Christian church. However, it is vital to note the figurative meaning of idolatry from Strong's Dictionary. We must ask at what point did the word become a metaphor for idol worship.

Take a look sometime at Studylight.org's definition of porneia. If you read definition number one, you see the mainstream concept: illicit sexual intercourse. However, read definition number two and you will note the metaphor is for idolatry, just as we see with Strong's Dictionary. The sub note on number two reads, "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols". There are other places in the New Testament where we see this very topic.[/FONT]

"In your letter you asked me about food offered to idols. All of us know something about this subject. But knowledge makes us proud of ourselves, while love makes us helpful to others." (1 Corinthians 8:1 CEV)










​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]The Corinthians had written Apostle Paul posed a series of dilemmas and questions to which he answered via this Epistle. [/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]They mentioned that there existed a member sleeping with his step-mother.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]They had continued using Lawsuits rather than fixing the problems personally.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]They wanted to know if it was better to marry or stay single.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]They asked if eating food sacrificed to idols was okay.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Paul goes o[/FONT]n with his answers. The word porneia appears several times in Paul's many letters, in each case it is beside the word, 'arsenokoitais'. In his book, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" (1980), Boswell argued that the term 'arsenokoitais' in 1Co 6:19 and 1Ti 1:10 signified a male prostitute rather than a generic homosexual, as it is commonly translated. The arguments presented are based on several factors. The primary reason is that vice listing exactly what is prohibited, Paul's focus is instead on anything related to false god worship.

What exactly was Paul's problem with idolatry? It violated Law Number One, Love God. Though he recognized there are no other gods but the Creator, he still had his Pharisaic roots which included the prohibition of idols. In the modern state of Israel, prostitution is legal. In Judaism, pre-marital sex is not forbidden. What is forbidden in the modern version of Judaism is exactly what was forbidden thousands of years ago; Idol worship. Looking to that as the root issue, we can see that when Paul used the word Porneia, he was not refuting sexual activities, but idolatry.

How can this be concluded? Look to a later verse from the same letter to the Corinthians:

"We are free to do all things, but there are things which it is not wise to do. We are free to do all things, but not all things are for the common good." (1 Corinthians 10:23 BBE)










​

Paul knew that nothing is forbidden under the new covenant. He could only advise strongly to avoid that which might violate the Law of Love. Over time, the Bible's many translations have changed the original meaning of porneia from idolatry to fornication. Why is this the case? Because Paul and the subsequent church did such a good job in wiping out idol worship that the translators needed something to fill in the blank."

To assert that the condemnation of fornication is not Biblical but rather a "dogma" based on "guilt and shame" shows not only true ignorance of the subject matter but a true asserted effort to either not do any research to validate one's claims or complete unbased denial of the facts

Speaking of facts here's one: Sex before the marriage ritual is not condemned anywhere in the Bible.
The Bible gives clear definitions of things such as adultery (which is often used to describe sex before marriage). Adultery is always and only defined as cheating on your spouse and sleeping with someone else's spouse in the Bible. The word "fornication" means to have sex before the marriage ritual. Such a defintion does not exist in any Bible translation. The KJV is the only version that contains the word "fornication" and there is no such definition in there. Which is why the word does not appear in the NIV or the NASV (which are far more accurate). There's your facts. Do with them as you please.

If only I had a nickle for every time I have had these conversations with self proclaimed "believers".

This reminds of The Borg from Star Trek. If Im not an exact copy then I'm not one of them or my faith isn't genuine. Whatever makes you feel more holy.

All this response does is reveal your true intention for starting this thread. If you want to get your "jollies" off before you get married, by all means do so

Congratulations on being the first person ever to make a 100% accurate judgment about me with only 5 words to work with.
Comparing pre-marital sex to rape is ludacris. It is rubbish.

On a side note, the refference to "fornicators" in 1 Cor.6:9 is not a condemnation of those who have failed but of those who know the truth and continue to fail with absolutely no remorse or repentive attitude about it till the day they die. (Hot dog!!! now you even have a biblically twisted excuse for doing so!!!)

I'm not doing any twisting. It's a fact that condemnation of sex before the marriage ritual is not in the Bible. There is no command that says "you shall not have sex before marriage ritual" There is no definition for sex before the marriage ritual. Churches are twisting scripture by saying something is when it isn't. This is a fine example of dogma. And quite an effective manipulation tactic for churches.

I highly doubt that you are as ignorant as you make yourself out to be in this thread when it comes to the subject matter at hand. You know the facts. Do with them what you will. When you are done, blame nobody but yourself.

Ignorant? You can call it whatever you want. I've researched the subject quite extensivley. Enjoy your facts.

 

[Mister_T]

Your patience is greatly appreciated:areyoucra

Gotta be quicker on the draw.

 

[Haas]

You have a car 5 to 10 yrs.? you take that for a test drive don't ya? Marriage is a life time....

 

[Bishka]

You have a car 5 to 10 yrs.? you take that for a test drive don't ya? Marriage is a life time....

I never test-drove my 'car' so-to-speak, and my 'car' works just fine. Although, I don't know if he would appreciate being labeled a car.

 

[Mister_T]

This is the best article I have ever read on the subject. I have yet to hear or read a decent rebuttle for it and the best part is that it gives logical unbiblical reasons: http://www.equip.org/free/DR508.htm

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

Speaking of articles that don't get a decent rebuttal
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/fornication.html
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/fornication.html