Is Adultery & Prostitution sexually immoral?

[melk]

No problem brother,I am no scholar.
I see what you mean about how one may see it as pointing out how Jesus was with people, but we have to keep in mind that it is not in the inspired word of God.That's the whole point.I like the story myself and think it is well written but if it is not part of the original text,then it is not inspired by God.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

So words that have been placed in the holy scriptures that God did not inspire will not be alive for they have no power by the holy spirit.

Just realizing that my divergence was based on a wrong assumption: that you didn't apreciate the containts of the text and went to diminish its importance. Sorry. Always learning with you...But I still valorize the text as being devinely inspired.

 

[Nada]

Just realizing that my divergence was based on a wrong assumption: that you didn't apreciate the containts of the text and went to diminish its importance. Sorry. Always learning with you...But I still valorize the text as being devinely inspired.

I appreciate your response.You're OK in my book, always.

Ps.I hope nobody thinks I'm throwing up an Illuminati symbol . It's just the OKsign.Lol..

 

[ChristineES]

I know that the story in John was not included in the earliest manuscripts, which makes it questionable. The fact is that it is there. We don't know if the earliest manuscripts omitted it or if the later manuscripts added it.

 

[Nada]

I know that the story in John was not included in the earliest manuscripts, which makes it questionable. The fact is that it is there. We don't know if the earliest manuscripts omitted it or if the later manuscripts added it.

It was both omitted intentionally, and added later.It does not belong there.

 

[columbus]

Isn't a big part of the problem here that not only have the words changed in meaning through the centuries, but the cultures have changed?
Back when the Bible was being written, adultery was a property crime against a man. Women were chattel. Adultery was ruining the value of a man's property, not a sexual sin. Men were assumed to have sex whenever they could, that was a given.

Today we have much more sophisticated ethics and morals. What Moses meant by adultery is not what modern people think it meant. I think adultery and prostitution are sex that degrades the human situation, which is quite common. Fornication is word that is no longer needed.
But we have other morals that weren't even thought of in Biblical times. Such as "personal freedom". While I don't think people should sell their sex, I don't think the government should legally prohibit doing so. That is because my morals concerning freedom are more important to me than restricting people's sexual behavior, even when I think that behavior is immoral. And I don't want any religious group determining what the laws I must obey are. So I intensely dislike prostitution, but I am not willing to support the law because I think there are more important considerations.
As much as I dislike selling sex, I would agree that doing so in a 3rd world place is better than letting your children starve, if that is the best option. My morality is based on what is best for everybody, not what some ancient tome says.

I have similar attitudes toward adultery and abortion and a host of other issues. Also capitalism, Constitutional Democratic Republics, and many other things that are not scriptural.

Tom

 

[Nada]

Isn't a big part of the problem here that not only have the words changed in meaning through the centuries, but the cultures have changed?
Back when the Bible was being written, adultery was a property crime against a man. Women were chattel. Adultery was ruining the value of a man's property, not a sexual sin. Men were assumed to have sex whenever they could, that was a given.

Today we have much more sophisticated ethics and morals. What Moses meant by adultery is not what modern people think it meant. I think adultery and prostitution are sex that degrades the human situation, which is quite common. Fornication is word that is no longer needed.
But we have other morals that weren't even thought of in Biblical times. Such as "personal freedom". While I don't think people should sell their sex, I don't think the government should legally prohibit doing so. That is because my morals concerning freedom are more important to me than restricting people's sexual behavior, even when I think that behavior is immoral. And I don't want any religious group determining what the laws I must obey are. So I intensely dislike prostitution, but I am not willing to support the law because I think there are more important considerations.
As much as I dislike selling sex, I would agree that doing so in a 3rd world place is better than letting your children starve, if that is the best option. My morality is based on what is best for everybody, not what some ancient tome says.

I have similar attitudes toward adultery and abortion and a host of other issues. Also capitalism, Constitutional Democratic Republics, and many other things that are not scriptural.

Tom

What you think and what God commands are two entirely different things my good man.

 

[columbus]

What you think and what God commands are two entirely different things my good man.

What you think, what I think, what the Bible says, and what God commands are four different things.

Tom

 

[Nada]

What you think, what I think, what the Bible says, and what God commands are four different things.

Tom

Cool.

 

[Ingledsva]

Some definitions might be helpful to this discussion:

Prostitution: is when a man or woman offers themselves indiscriminately for sexual intercourse for hire; a harlot. The Hebrew word for prostitute is zoh·nah′, while its Greek equivalent is por′ne
Mosaic law says; “Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, in order that the land may not commit prostitution and the land actually be filled with loose morals.” (Le 19:29

Fornication: Illicit sex relations outside of Scriptural marriage. The Hebrew verb za·nah′ and its related forms convey the idea of harlotry, immoral intercourse, fornication, or prostitution.

Adultery: As used in the Bible generally refers to voluntary sexual intercourse by a married person with one of the opposite sex other than one’s mate.

Morality: the principles or rules of right and wrong conduct
Immorality: the violation of moral principles or patterns of conduct usually accepted as right behavior.

Leviticus 19:29 is not about a daughter becoming a prostitute.

It is about incest - Do not PROFANE/DEFILE your daughter, - CAUSING her to commit adultery/fornication...

Patriarchy is interesting "causing HER to commit adultery," when HE is the one committing adultery, and incest.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

[QUOTE="Ingledsva, post: 4033520, member: 33094"
Other then that, I don't think it says anything else about regular old prostitutes. They seem to be accepted. Tamar became one temporarily to get Judah. Different people in the Bible are sleeping with them (Samson for instance.) Rahab the Prostitute helped Joshuah.

how is sexual immorality being defined?[/QUOTE]

Reread the OP first. His discussion with someone else.

These two actually appear to be basically property damage laws - rather then moral laws.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

No.Nothing at all disturbs me.If you read the OP,I stated that I was having a discussion with a person who stated that Adultery and Prostitution were not considered sexually immoral.I of course know that it is according to God's word.I started this forum to get some feedback from other christians to see what they thought about the matter.The story that occurs in John 8:1-11 is another matter.I was just pointing out to the sister who was telling me about the adulterous in it this story that it is omitted from the holy scriptures because it does not appear in the earlier manuscripts of the new testament.

Most people today consider them immoral, and most people at that time probably did too, but the way the texts under discussion are written, - they actually appear to be Property Damage Rights, rather than in a moral clause.

 

[Ingledsva]

The people who voted no will Vote yes when they get cheated on =)
We will see how immoral they feel it is then.

*
True enough.

However, that wasn't the question in the OP. He asked about the text connotation.

"...There is a difference. Your belief may believe that adultery and prostitution are sexual immoral but the Bible does not define, does not place adultery as sexually immoral. The Greek does not define adultery as sexually immoral.

*

 

[Pegg]

Leviticus 19:29 is not about a daughter becoming a prostitute.

It is about incest - Do not PROFANE/DEFILE your daughter, - CAUSING her to commit adultery/fornication...

Patriarchy is interesting "causing HER to commit adultery," when HE is the one committing adultery, and incest.

*

I dont think your interpretation here is quite accurate.

Some parents are still turning their kids into prostitutes today. Thats what this verse is about. Turning your child into a prostitute. There are other verses about incest...this is not one of them.

 

[pearl]

But there is no more original canon.There are only copies.The earliest manuscripts do not have them in there.It is evident that it was later added into the holy scriptures.This passage is not God inspired.Please read post #25 and post #28.

And the story more than likely was inserted by a copyist and did not find its way into manuscripts of the Gospel until the 3rd cent.
Called a biographical apophthegm in which Jesus' opponents set a trap that he must escape through some wise saying or action.
Possibly a piece of Lucan material circulating in the tradition, the preaching.. Whatever the reason for the inclusion in the Canon, it is within the theology of the author of John.

 

[pearl]

Isn't a big part of the problem here that not only have the words changed in meaning through the centuries, but the cultures have changed?

This is critical to understanding the Bible today, the particular author's intent for his particular audience. In order to be considered
living Scripture, it must speak to each new generation's place in time, their present culture. We must recognize the human limitations when putting the pen to received inspiration.

 

[pearl]

Back when the Bible was being written, adultery was a property crime against a man.

As it appears in Exodus. But I think there is a noticeable progression of thought towards the immorality of the act of adultery.
In the Decalogue of Deut. "I shall not covet thy neighbor's wife" is separated from the property of the preceding law. Today
the morality question is more concerned with the effects on marriage and family. The military certainly takes it seriously, as
it is grounds for dismissal. In judging the morality of sexual behavior one ought to consider the consequences of the behavior.

 

[Nada]

And the story more than likely was inserted by a copyist and did not find its way into manuscripts of the Gospel until the 3rd cent.
Called a biographical apophthegm in which Jesus' opponents set a trap that he must escape through some wise saying or action.
Possibly a piece of Lucan material circulating in the tradition, the preaching.. Whatever the reason for the inclusion in the Canon, it is within the theology of the author of John.

No matter how good it is written or how nice the story sounds,the fact of the matter is that it was not God inspired.

 

[pearl]

No matter how good it is written or how nice the story sounds,the fact of the matter is that it was not God inspired.

Nice or well written or nice has nothing to do with it being inspired or not. You are assuming that the entire body of oral tradition remained in tack and found its way to the pen in one time. Scripture says differently;
"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."

 

[Blackmarch]

I have been having a discussion with this person who keeps telling me that Adultery and Prostitution is not sexually immoral.I would like to see what other christians think about this.

Here is what this person told me in a message.

"I presented what the Bible says not what some Christian church says. There is a difference. Your belief may believe that adultery and prostitution are sexual immoral but the Bible does not define, does not place adultery as sexually immoral. The Greek does not define adultery as sexually immoral. You have failed to show that the Bible does define adultery as sexually immoral. Sexually immoral has its own meaning and it is not yours.

I welcome anyone to show me differently what I see the Bible saying. Please show me that the Greek that proves sexually immorality is all the above.

I've found Christian truth goes against Biblical truth."

which part of the bible is he referring to?, whores are never good symbols in it, and in the bible continually over and over and over the prophets are always condemning Israel for some sort of whoring or another whether it's the actual thing (sometimes) or if its symbolic of how they seek other gods (usually, which also usually involves actual prostitution).

 

[Nada]

Nice or well written or nice has nothing to do with it being inspired or not. You are assuming that the entire body of oral tradition remained in tack and found its way to the pen in one time. Scripture says differently;
"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."

What we have available to us today, the known word of God in the holy scriptures,was made available to us by way of God's holy spirit.Books that are out there like the Gospel of Thomas for example are fraud books that do not contain the truth.That book in particular speaks of Jesus as a brat child that killed people.We have to be careful not to assume that everything out there, supposedly written by apostles, is true or God's inspired word.

Also,nice stories that sound great, like the one in John 8:1-12,sound awesome.It sounds like something Jesus would have said and done.The fact of the matter is that it was not included in the first copies of the holy writings found by archeologist, that we, use today for research.It was included much later.It could have happened,or maybe it did not.It was not John who wrote it.The books of John were the last of the holy scriptures to be written,c. 98 C.E.

By the time the bible was being put together in the 4th century,many other writings began to pop up.It was 200 years after the last of Jesus true disciples died.John died in Ephesus in about 100 C.E. His writings were complete when he died.That story in John 8 was not part of it.Someone included it much later.