Fornication or sexual immorality? Is fornication sexual immorality?

[osgart]

Why would sex be better outside of a loyal commitment? I think a person using one for sex, or being used for sex, wouldnt feel nothing but bad. A serious let down.

Intimacy is personal. Maybe im alien to that world, but im glad i am.

 

[Kenny]

Interesting replies. Does anyone know why it is that there are different versions of Jesus's quotes? (I.e. fornication vs. Sexual immorality) Was he speaking a language besides English at the time?

I believe it is just different ways of saying the same thing. Fornication is sexual immorality. But, no, Jesus didn't speek English at that time.

 

[Skwim]

I believe it is just different ways of saying the same thing. Fornication is sexual immorality.

But not all sexual immorality is fornication, so it can't be said that "it is just different ways of saying the same thing."

.

 

[Skwim]

Interesting replies. Does anyone know why it is that there are different versions of Jesus's quotes? (I.e. fornication vs. Sexual immorality) Was he speaking a language besides English at the time?

The different versions of Biblical scripture, whether its the words of Jesus or not, arise because of special interests. In the olden days the various Bible versions arose out of commissions created by rulers, kings, religious conclaves, and such, who wanted the Bible to read as they saw fit. In later years the different versions rose out a desire to conform to particular theologies. Sometimes this amounted to nothing more than a desire to put an emphases on some aspect of an issue. Or, deemphasize it. I suspect that those bibles using "sexual immorality" instead of "fornication" wanted to be more inclusive.

.

 

[outlawState]

Does God want me to save myself for marriage? I want to obey Him but I'm not sure if this is actually his commandment.

You have entered a realm of considerable complexity where the very words "marriage" and "fornication" as used in our English bibles do not easily reflect the ancient customs to which they refer.

For a start the modern conception of marriage as governed by the law of the State - i.e. State recognized marriage - simply has no parallel in the bible. Even contractual marriage was denouced by Jesus where it involved adultery.

Fornication is not a biblical word of itself, which is probably best translated as "harlotry."

There is no definite biblical rule against pre-marital relations. Was not Joseph only "betrothed/espoused/pledged" to Mary when he went cavorting off with her to Bethlehem? This, and Levitical law, shows that the pledge of a woman to a man (i.e. the contract) was of more importance than the wedding ceremony itself.

Thus bible concepts have a crude application in today's ultra-legal world, where the customs of today are vastly different from, and one might say, more hypocritical than, the customs of yesteryear. The State is not the custodian of biblical morals. In fact it is frequently the enemy of biblical morals.

I think the word "harlotry" survives intact. Everyone knows what harlot means - it means a woman who sleeps with more than one man. In the prohibition on harlotry lies the core biblical prohibition. Another biblical principle is that if a woman sleeps with someone, the rule is that she should marry that person, unless parental disapproval etc supervenes (and rape/coercion etc is not involved). Women must not sleep with people in secret. If there is parental consent to a relationship, it is as good as married, in biblical terms.

So it all depends (as it usually does) on context, the facts, etc, which in your case, I don't know.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Holly, it's probably best for you to ask this question in the Christian or Abrahamic DIR. But, yes - Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, traditionally teach that all non-martial sex is sinful. Fornication would definitely be seen as a sin.

 

[Deeje]

Some versions of the bible use the word fornication, while others use sexual immorality. Also, there's that list in Leviticus 18 of commandments on who you shouldn't sleep with, being relatives, animals, the same sex, and it doesn't say anything about premarital sex. Paul is clear about having sex before marriage, but I'm,not sure if Jesus ever really said anything about sex before marriage. I am wondering if sexual immorality includes fornication. Or could it mean just things like whoredom and promiscuity. It feels to me like there is morality in a committed unmarried relationship with the possibility of marriage as opposed to one night stands. Does God want me to save myself for marriage? I want to obey Him but I'm not sure if this is actually his commandment.

"At Matthew 5:32 Jesus’ words are: “However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication [Greek, por·neiʹa], makes her a subject for adultery [Greek, moi·kheiʹa], and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
At Matthew 19:9 Jesus again says.... “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication [por·neiʹa], and marries another commits adultery [moi·kheiʹa].”

The accounts use two distinct words. A marriage is ‘adulterated’ when one of the parties defiles the marital relationship by having relations with someone outside that relationship. Both in Greek and in English, the focus is on the effect illicit sexual relations have on the marriage relationship, the adulterous mate being guilty of introducing someone else into that relationship, corrupting the union that should include just the husband and wife.

“Fornication” focuses attention, not on the effect sexual immorality may have on a marital relationship, but on the nature or quality of the sexual activity itself. This is true, not only of the English word “fornication,” but also of the Greek word, por·neiʹa, used in Matthew’s account. No matter what the word “fornication” may commonly be understood to mean by English-speaking people, it is what the word used in the Bible meant to the writer and the people at that time that really counts and is decisive.

Does por·neiʹa, the word used in Matthew’s account, refer only to such natural sexual relations? Or did it include all forms of immoral sexual relations, including those between individuals of the same sex and also perverted forms of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex? Just what did por·neiʹa mean to people in the first century when Jesus was on earth?

A thorough study of the matter shows that por·neiʹa refers to all forms of immoral sexual relations. It is a broad term, somewhat like the word “pornography,” which is drawn from por·neiʹa or the related verb por·neuʹo.

Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery."

Excerpts from https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1972927

 

[exchemist]

You have entered a realm of considerable complexity where the very words "marriage" and "fornication" as used in our English bibles do not easily reflect the ancient customs to which they refer.

For a start the modern conception of marriage as governed by the law of the State - i.e. State recognized marriage - simply has no parallel in the bible. Even contractual marriage was denouced by Jesus where it involved adultery.

Fornication is not a biblical word of itself, which is probably best translated as "harlotry."

There is no definite biblical rule against pre-marital relations. Was not Joseph only "betrothed/espoused/pledged" to Mary when he went cavorting off with her to Bethlehem? This, and Levitical law, shows that the pledge of a woman to a man (i.e. the contract) was of more importance than the wedding ceremony itself.

Thus bible concepts have a crude application in today's ultra-legal world, where the customs of today are vastly different from, and one might say, more hypocritical than, the customs of yesteryear. The State is not the custodian of biblical morals. In fact it is frequently the enemy of biblical morals.

I think the word "harlotry" survives intact. Everyone knows what harlot means - it means a woman who sleeps with more than one man. In the prohibition on harlotry lies the core biblical prohibition. Another biblical principle is that if a woman sleeps with someone, the rule is that she should marry that person, unless parental disapproval etc supervenes (and rape/coercion etc is not involved). Women must not sleep with people in secret. If there is parental consent to a relationship, it is as good as married, in biblical terms.

So it all depends (as it usually does) on context, the facts, etc, which in your case, I don't know.

Interesting post. But what about men? I see a lot here about women, but nothing about the behaviour expected of men.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

The Bible (and Tanakh) has been long bent to use to impose on others, when in truth it is collectively very contradictory on such matters - in a moral context. In a over-all context, it's easy to work out that not everything in the Bible is directed to us - some of it is law, some of it is lesson, some of it is just continuing the story of the Hebrews/Israelites/etc.etc.etc.
Depending on where you read and with what context you read it, sometimes it appears as God supports polygamy, rape, murder and so on but in other areas condemns the very same kind of thing. A lot of our atheists here may use that as their argument against Christianity (and Judaism/Islam) but you really do need to weed-out what is meant morally, what is meant symbolically and what is meant historically.






Outside of Christianity, in my own religion we have a very different view on sexuality to Orthodox RHP religious view:

"It is a lie, this folly against self. The exposure of innocence is a lie. Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this." - Liber AL 2:22

There are several other verses that this goes in conjunction with, which form the moral guidelines of it but in essence, God is not for restricting us of the pleasures that he has given us. We are called to experience life in God as God intended it, through love and beauty.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

In contrary, I am very interested in how in various religious/spiritual practices, people have been known to abstain from sexual activity and various other things for long periods of time to achieve such a result. Some in Buddhist, Hindu hermit lifestyles and also in Christian-mystic magical operations.

There is the complete opposite of it too, used to also achieve certain other results, such as in Tantra/Sex Magick (same thing really but one is in an "eastern" context and the other "Western")


Over-all, the role of sex and sexuality in religion is too often underestimated both in positive and negative ways.

 

[Kenny]

But not all sexual immorality is fornication, so it can't be said that "it is just different ways of saying the same thing."

.

how so?

 

[outlawState]

Interesting post. But what about men? I see a lot here about women, but nothing about the behaviour expected of men.

The converse applies. See Jesus' teaching on this. A man who turns women into harlots is obviously the male equivalent of a harlot (fornicator perhaps), and an adulterer if with another's wife or with a woman pledged to be married, or if married himself, a violator of his own marriage covenant.

 

[Valjean]

Why would sex be better outside of a loyal commitment? I think a person using one for sex, or being used for sex, wouldnt feel nothing but bad. A serious let down.

Intimacy is personal. Maybe im alien to that world, but im glad i am.

Variety.
No matter how much you like chocolate eclairs or Free Bird, you wouldn't want to eat or listen to these exclusively.

I believe it is just different ways of saying the same thing. Fornication is sexual immorality. But, no, Jesus didn't speek English at that time.

But isn't morality concerned with harm?
How are you defining 'fornication', and is it inevitably harmful?

 

[Valjean]

harlot | Origin and meaning of harlot by Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[Trackdayguy]

In each of us there is desire. Sexual attraction to others doesn't stop just because we're in a long term partnership. A female client of mine was struggling that her husband of 3 years would often look at other women, she had huge jealousy issues , I told her that just because you put a ring on his finger doesn't automatically disconnect the nerves from his eyes to his genitals.

Due to the overwhelming divorce statistics the majority are becoming what we call "serial monogamist" its ok to love more than one person, but only one at a time, trade the old model in for a new one rather than Polyamory which is many loves. If monogamy is natural how to we explain the 40 million plus members of Ashley Madison?

Being sexual with another person is 100% natural, its the social system we have that places restrictions on us that are in conflict with our natural desires. A great book on the subject is Sex at Dawn.

Sex at Dawn - Christopher Ryan, Cacilda Jetha - Paperback

 

[Trackdayguy]

Variety.
No matter how much you like chocolate eclairs or Free Bird, you wouldn't want to eat or listen to these exclusively.

But isn't morality concerned with harm?
How are you defining 'fornication', and is it inevitably harmful?

I think that part of the problem is we have put being sexual into a very small and restrictive box and said "this is what is should be like" Intimacy - Connection - Bonding. All positive and all can add to a great relationship, but what about being less restrictive, more creative. Being sexual with someone because you both like sexual play and exploring is a wonderful experience, it doesn't have to be about bonding and connection, it can just be about having sexual fun.

Once we've define every meal as having to be a banquet then it eliminates the BBQ and quick snack. An open relationship with your partner based on transparency eliminates cheating, lying and betrayal.

What's all the fuss about

 

[outlawState]

IWhat's all the fuss about

If you look into the bible, there are two systems of sexual morals, one being the Ba'alist / Asherah (etc.) or Canaanite or Babylonian non-Adamite system, which could be described as the "whoremonger" system, and the Israel YHWH "marriage" system, where marriage infers effective ownership of another's body.

There was said to be no agreement between the two systems. None. It's pointless holding any kind of debate, because there can be no agreement and no compromise. Each to their own, and each to their own consequences.

 

[Trackdayguy]

If you look into the bible, there are two systems of sexual morals, one being the Ba'alist / Asherah (etc.) or Canaanite or Babylonian non-Adamite system, which could be described as the "whoremonger" system, and the Israel YHWH "marriage" system, where marriage infers effective ownership of another's body.

There was said to be no agreement between the two systems. None. It's pointless holding any kind of debate, because there can be no agreement and no compromise. Each to their own, and each to their own consequences.

I agree there can be no agreement because we are starting from a different place.

 

[Trackdayguy]

If you look into the bible, there are two systems of sexual morals, one being the Ba'alist / Asherah (etc.) or Canaanite or Babylonian non-Adamite system, which could be described as the "whoremonger" system, and the Israel YHWH "marriage" system, where marriage infers effective ownership of another's body.

There was said to be no agreement between the two systems. None. It's pointless holding any kind of debate, because there can be no agreement and no compromise. Each to their own, and each to their own consequences.

Interesting that you mention ownership because in my opinion that's what monogamy is rooted in. Exclusiveness, ownership & control. Even today the bride is given away by the father, dont people stop to think where that tradition came from??? How can the father give his daughter away is he doesn't own her. And this is some harmless tradition that means nothing. The old roots are still in tact.

Words like: MY wife, MY husband , HE'S mine, SHE"S mine all assume ownership.

I find it ironic that even the Biblical literalist have almost the same divorce statistics as those outside the walls of the 40,000 + denominations.

 

[Milton Platt]

Some versions of the bible use the word fornication, while others use sexual immorality. Also, there's that list in Leviticus 18 of commandments on who you shouldn't sleep with, being relatives, animals, the same sex, and it doesn't say anything about premarital sex. Paul is clear about having sex before marriage, but I'm,not sure if Jesus ever really said anything about sex before marriage. I am wondering if sexual immorality includes fornication. Or could it mean just things like whoredom and promiscuity. It feels to me like there is morality in a committed unmarried relationship with the possibility of marriage as opposed to one night stands. Does God want me to save myself for marriage? I want to obey Him but I'm not sure if this is actually his commandment.

I guess he should have been a better communicator