Sex Before Marriage

[s2a]

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.

MORAL OF THE STORY:
Better to be dumb-*** lucky than informed and enlightened.

WHAT I'VE NOW LEARNED:
I'll buy my next house sight-unseen, without investigating the locals schools, shopping, and cultural facilities. Trust my instincts, or those little whipsers in my head.
I'll buy my next major household appliance without doing any consumer reasearch into reliability, construction, or warranty. Prospective ownership will be predicated solely upon how pretty it looks, or whether I feel pretty today...
A book CAN be judged by it's cover alone! I knew it!
Love and lust are the same, but true love endures a lousy lay.

It would seem that some gods are no better than many used car salesmen; "Trust me, you'll love it"!

At least you can test-drive a used car...

 

[s2a]

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.

MORAL OF THE STORY:
Better to be dumb-*** lucky than informed and experienced.

WHAT I'VE NOW LEARNED:
I'll buy my next house sight-unseen, without investigating the locals schools, shopping, and cultural facilities. Trust my instincts, or maybe those little whipsers in my head.

I'll buy my next major household appliance without doing any consumer reasearch into reliability, durability, or warranty. Prospective ownership will be predicated solely upon how attractive it looks, or whether I feel especially pretty and willing today...

A book CAN be judged by it's cover alone! I knew it!

Love and lust are the same, but true love endures an everlasting series of lousy lays.

..............................

It would seem that some gods offer no better than many used car salesmen; "Trust me, you'll love it"!

At least you can test-drive a used car...

 

[MaddLlama]

Actually I lied, I'm not coming back to it. So, take my rebuttal of the article as it is, if anyone wants to disagree.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

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.

The fact that this statemnt implies that "sex equals love" and due to the various slang terms indicating the exact opposite "friends with benefits", etc, this statement is still left with an absence for a definition of the word "love", is based on nothing more than personal experience, and leaves more holes (questions) in it than a slice of swiss cheese. Outside of that, If this is what you truely believe "love" is, than I anticipate a major dissapointment for you in the future and truly feel for you.

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).

First off, The OT law recognized the cultural practice of prearranged mariages and made provisions for it. Nowhere in the OT are prearranged marriages stated as being a mandatory for all marriages. This point is made abundantly clear in the fact that there are plenty of examples of marriages in the OT that were not prearranged and sometimes could be stated to be based on a desire from both parties to be married (which could be arguably stated as a loving desire). Examples of non-prearranged marriages which are not criticized or condemned for not being prearranged in the traditional sense are: Rahab & Salmon (Josh. 6:25, Matt. 1:5), Boaz & Ruth (Ruth), David & Abigail (1 Sam. 25:39-42), etc..

There are many OT cultural practices that are not enforced or practiced by todays "Christians". I will not comment on the blantent hypocrasy.

Probably a good idea due to your blatant refusal to acknowledge that this very issue was dealt with at the Council of Jerusalem which I already refferenced in my previous post:

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)

Maybe you should read Acts 15 and then the whole book of Galations to get a better idea of why Christians practice this "blantant hypocracy".

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.

This completely contradicts Deut. 22:13-29 which clearly stated that if the female in a marriage was found not to be a virgin then there were dire consequences (usually death) to be carried out. It makes absolutely no provisions for whether or not this violation was due to the practice of idolatry or not. Now if Paul was as a devout follower of Judaism as you clearly state (which I completely agree with) he knew of this and took this into consideration.

On top of that being as how Paul did indeed refference the sexual aspect of these idolatrous practices and indeed condemn them; since other aspects of idolatrous practices are not even mentioned in the NT, take for instance sacrificing one's children (Lev.18:21 Deut.12:31), it logically follows from your argument that these practices, as long as they are not done in an idolatrous fashion must be Biblically ok.

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."

Gal.5:13 NASB "For you were called to freedom, bretheren, only do not turn your freedom into an oppertunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another" The same Paul wrote thise letter too.

(continued in the next post)

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

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.

For the third time, will you please quit ignoring Deut. 22:13-29.

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.

Did you take somebody elses opinion on this or have you looked this up for yourself? BTW, The only version I have quoted is the NASV which does indeed use the word "fornication" in both the Acts 15 and 1Cor.6:9 and is considered to be the most literal translation by many, even when compared to the NIV. I do not adhere to the "King James only" doctrine.

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.

Neeto. I'm having a debate with a "Trekee". You practicing fornication doesn't make me feel anything.

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.

This reminds me of a debate I recently had with another smart fellow at work who tried to tell me that when someone gets sick and their body temperature raises, they actually grow hair:areyoucra !!! While I knew that there are many distinct differences between Kemo Therapy, standing in the sun light too long, and catching a cold, I asked why is it that these instances which can also raise body temperature do not cause the same and why is it that some experience hair loss due to kemo theray (I may have spelled kemo wrong). This person was under the assumtion that catching a cold originated inside the body, which is obviously untrue, and because of that, my comparisons were not valid. Outside of him being wrong about catching a cold originating inside the body, even if he were right, he was wrong in supposing that I was comparing these things as if they were the same thing. The only comparison that I mnade was that these things all could cause raised body temperatures.
The same has happened with your ludicrous analysis that the article I reffered to is comparing pre-marital sex to rape. First off, the article acknowledges that both sides of this argument agree that rape is wrong, which is the first distinction it makes between rape and pre-marital sex. It never equates forcing one's self in a sexual matter with two parties consenting to have a sexual relationship. The only remote comparison it makes is that both instances are sexually manifested. It then acknowledges this fact and asks why is it that if people acknowledge the impact a rape does more damage to the victom than violate their consent, than it could be also stated that consentual sexual relationships also impact more than mere consent. To make the ludicourous analysis that you have can also logically conclude that the article is comparing all sexual relationships with rape and therefore considering all sexual relationships as rape. The article in no way, shape, or form remotely does this and to conclude that it does is just as much "rubbish" as if the article had indeed done so. On top of that, your obvious agreement with another poster who first came up with this "assenine" statement and questioning me on what my conclusion of the article was; plus given your blatant presupposition in the OP to this subject makes your "conclusion" highly suspicious and shows absolutely no objective analysis of your own doing.

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

Do I really need to repeat myself a fourth time before you trully deal with the facts?!

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

With your errant comments about the NASV, I can clearly see the extent of what you call "research" and "facts".

Gotta be quicker on the draw.

Maybe if you took some time to aim one shot instead of blindly shooting off twenty rounds and hoping to hit the target, you might be more effective in your posts. I also noticed that you have not been here as long as I have by a few months and still have managed to post well over double the posts I have. Must be nice. Since you seem to be an aspiring "word buff", why don't you do me a favor and look up the words "priority" and "responsibility" for me and tell me what you come up with or if you have any.

Sincerely,
SoliDeogloria

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Actually I lied, I'm not coming back to it. So, take my rebuttal of the article as it is, if anyone wants to disagree.

Well, if that's the case...

Translation= "I'm not going to do any real research to validate the profound statements I made." or:
"I did some research and it didn't substantiate any of the profound claims I made and I am not willing to do anything about it"

It's actually too bad because I was waiting for your findings before I responded to your previous posts. I was actually looking foward to what you were going to find.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Mister_T]

The fact that this statemnt implies that "sex equals love" and due to the various slang terms indicating the exact opposite "friends with benefits", etc, this statement is still left with an absence for a definition of the word "love", is based on nothing more than personal experience, and leaves more holes (questions) in it than a slice of swiss cheese. Outside of that, If this is what you truely believe "love" is, than I anticipate a major dissapointment for you in the future and truly feel for you

??? That is not what I meant at all. Look up the definition of monogomous relationship.
You're seeing what you want to see to. Not a surprise, seeing as how you do the same with scripture. Try and look passed you preconceived prejudices and judgements about me instead of jumping to inaccurate conclusions.

Nowhere in the OT are prearranged marriages stated as being a mandatory for all marriages

Marriages were usually pre-arranged and if you did not like your spouse...tough

A fine display of your reading and comprehension skills.

This point is made abundantly clear in the fact that there are plenty of examples of marriages in the OT that were not prearranged and sometimes could be stated to be based on a desire from both parties to be married (which could be arguably stated as a loving desire). Examples of non-prearranged marriages which are not criticized or condemned for not being prearranged in the traditional sense are: Rahab & Salmon (Josh. 6:25, Matt. 1:5), Boaz & Ruth (Ruth), David & Abigail (1 Sam. 25:39-42), etc

This completely contradicts Deut. 22:13-29 which clearly stated that if the female in a marriage was found not to be a virgin then there were dire consequences (usually death) to be carried out. It makes absolutely no provisions for whether or not this violation was due to the practice of idolatry or not. Now if Paul was as a devout follower of Judaism as you clearly state (which I completely agree with) he knew of this and took this into consideration.

Nor is it as clear as you state. 13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," The passage is referring to when a husband sleeps with his new wife and he does not like her after he has slept with her and then tries to slander her to get out of his marriage vow. Women were treated as property and Fathers often promised their virgin daughters at a young age to be wed. If the "property" was not in the condition as promised, then the deal was off and the girl was punished for dishonoring her fathers name by making him out to be a liar. A fine example of how much more social/culture was involved in marriage rather than love. People were forced to love. Anyone who reads those verses you quoted in Deutrenomy can see that the issue was not necessarily the girls virginity.

For the third time, will you please quit ignoring Deut. 22:13-29.

I'm not ignoring it at all. And pre-arranged marriages was not the point. I was showing how many OT cultural laws are not practiced by "Christians" and how they pick and choose what they want from the Bible to suit their own agenda (which would be fine if they didn't claim the Bible to be without error). The Taliban (who opress their women and stone them when they break a cultural rule) lives closer to those verses you quoted from the Bible than "Christians". Since you're such a stickler for for the infallible word of God, why don't you move out of the kush life you have here in the States and live in the middle east? So you can start living how God commands you to live. BTW, that's not my article. I didn't state any of that.

take for instance sacrificing one's children (Lev.18:21 Deut.12:31), it logically follows from your argument that these practices, as long as they are not done in an idolatrous fashion must be Biblically ok.

Yeah! That's totally what I mean! Twist it to however you want. You do it with the Bible, why wouldn't you do it with me?

If you don't know the difference in morals between killing children and 2 people in love expressing a mutual feeling for one another, well then....you should peel the sticker off of a handicapped person's vehicle and place on your own...where it is truley needed.

Did you take somebody elses opinion on this or have you looked this up for yourself? BTW, The only version I have quoted is the NASV which does indeed use the word "fornication" in both the Acts 15 and 1Cor.6:9 and is considered to be the most literal translation by many, even when compared to the NIV. I do not adhere to the "King James only" doctrine.

Please show me where in the NT there is a definition for fornication? Please show me where in the NT Paul decribes what the act of fornication is? He gives definitions for adultery, idolatry, etc.

The only version I have quoted is the NASV which does indeed use the word "fornication" in both the Acts 15 and 1Cor.6:9 and is considered to be the most literal translation by many

Most literal? http://www.hopeofisrael.net/nasv.htm

Neeto. I'm having a debate with a "Trekee". You practicing fornication doesn't make me feel anything

Once again with the judgments and conclusions. Because I made a reference to Star Trek I must be a Trekie. And I never said you feel anything about my views. I was responding to your comment about my "so called Christiandom" which you took the liberty of pointing out. Yet another great display of your questionable mentality and thinking process.

To make the ludicourous analysis that you have can also logically conclude that the article is comparing all sexual relationships with rape and therefore considering all sexual relationships as rape

Comparing consensual sex to a violation of one's body and mind in any way, shape, or form, is ludacris.

Do I really need to repeat myself a fourth time before you trully deal with the facts?!

Actually, I would be quite relieved if you stopped repeating yourself and show me where in the Bible fornication is CLEARLY (not possibly implied) defined as sex before a marriage ritual instead of clinging to one section of the bible that has a list of culture that is no longer practiced. Where does such a definition exist in the NT?

With your errant comments about the NASV, I can clearly see the extent of what you call "research" and "facts".

A mistake on my part. What I should've said about the NASV was that when compared to the KJV, the word appears in some places and not others. Such as Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. The word does not appear at all in the NIV which many consider to be more reliable due to the fact that it was translated internationally and not just by Americans (who are nortorious for going to extremes for the idea of fundamentalism). Yet another reason to question the reliability of certain Bible "translations"

Maybe if you took some time to aim one shot instead of blindly shooting off twenty rounds and hoping to hit the target, you might be more effective in your posts. I also noticed that you have not been here as long as I have by a few months and still have managed to post well over double the posts I have

And what exactly does the number of my posts and my time here have to do with the topic? This speaks volumes about your character and your ignorance. In case you havn't noticed (which I'm positive you haven't) this forum isn't just for debating. It's also for socializing. I have friends on here whom I talk with on a frequent basis which is what a majority of my posts consist of. And you're telling me that my research is faulty?! Do your homework about somebody before you shoot your mouth off. :foot: :bonk:

Must be nice. Since you seem to be an aspiring "word buff", why don't you do me a favor and look up the words "priority" and "responsibility" for me and tell me what you come up with or if you have any.

Where do you get this crap? Stay on topic and keep your personal judgments to yourself.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wow you guys are working hard on such a minute detail.

Offhand I think that "fornication" is malakria in Greek, used by Paul and Jesus to refer to an array of sexual things, and perhaps other stuff too.

EDIT: I have some notes on this - I can't find it online. There is some discussion of pornia, but malakria is more specific. Both are used by Paul and Jesus to describe sexual sins.

 

[pedro]

Sex before marriage cannot be a problem in a modern world. If anyone can tell me why it would be please do so.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sex before marriage cannot be a problem in a modern world. If anyone can tell me why it would be please do so.

I guess the assumption is the same stuff that peeved God off several thousand years ago still makes her upset today.

 

[MaddLlama]

Well, if that's the case...

Translation= "I'm not going to do any real research to validate the profound statements I made." or:
"I did some research and it didn't substantiate any of the profound claims I made and I am not willing to do anything about it"

It's actually too bad because I was waiting for your findings before I responded to your previous posts. I was actually looking foward to what you were going to find.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

Translation:
"I couldn't find anything wrong with what you said, so I'll just make the argument personal as a distraction."

Hey, we're both pretty good at this I think.

 

[Mystic-als]

Okay..... So.... Sex before marriage. Hmmm.... Yes please!
No seriously. I don't think that sex should be reserved for marriage. I do however believe that the act of making love is sacred. And should be done with utmost respect to/for yourself and your partner. I personally will wait for a while in a relasionship before even approching the subject. We're not porn stars we're lovers. Develope the love and then let the love making follow.

 

[egroen]

In my experience, those frineds of mine whom have 'waited until marriage' have rushed into marriage the first chance they get, all marrying directly out of school to their first steady relationship. About half of them are now divorced.

-Erin

 

[MaddLlama]

Really I think it comes down to personal choice, and whether or not one particular religion's morality has the right to be considered the societal standard. And, whether or not there even should be a societal standard.

 

[Mystic-als]

MaddLlama you are correct. I agree with this.

 

[Mister_T]

Okay..... So.... Sex before marriage. Hmmm.... Yes please!
No seriously. I don't think that sex should be reserved for marriage. I do however believe that the act of making love is sacred. And should be done with utmost respect to/for yourself and your partner. I personally will wait for a while in a relasionship before even approching the subject. We're not porn stars we're lovers. Develope the love and then let the love making follow.

I agree :yes:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree :yes:

But some of us are porn stars.

 

[Mister_T]

But some of us are porn stars.

I can picture it now: Angellous' Naughty Guitar Lessons Pt 5

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I can picture it now: Angellous' Naughty Guitar Lessons Pt 5

That's a great idea.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Translation:
"I couldn't find anything wrong with what you said, so I'll just make the argument personal as a distraction."

Hey, we're both pretty good at this I think.

:jiggy: frubals for that one.

Really I think it comes down to personal choice, and whether or not one particular religion's morality has the right to be considered the societal standard. And, whether or not there even should be a societal standard.

I'm not really interested in social standards. To try to get society to adhere to religious standards has failed so many times, it would be silly to even attempt anymore. The only interest I have here is defending a Christian doctrine. It's one thing to state that one does not agree with a certain religious standard and that they are going to live another way. It is quite another to attack that religious standard as if to accuse them of some sort of major conspiracy plot that they know they are attempting. The funny thing is, I have struggled with the fornication issue myself and could come up with better arguments than the OP. Take for instance their is no established Biblical standard for what the official recognition of or "marriage ceremony" is. As a matter of fact there are plenty of places where it states that the couple layed together and were married, almost indicating that the consumation was the marriage. Besides that, being as how this is predictably getting too personal, I'm just going to bow out of this one as usual.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria