Sex Before Marriage

[linwood]

People who condone pre-marital sex always say the same exact thing: It's is ok if you're in LOVE.

No we don`t.

 

[mr.guy]

I meant on how keeping slaves shouldn't be practiced. The fact that man should not be over man in that way.

Wouldn't that make Deut 15:12 redundant?

 

[Passerbye]

Wouldn't that make Deut 15:12 redundant?

No, because if a person had no other choice but to become one then he would have to. This, however, makes them more like temporary servants then slaves.

 

[Passerbye]

Paul makes allowances for such situations too. Masters are not to be harsh to their servants, and servants are to respect their masters. Rules to keep slavery in order until the abolishment of it.

 

[linwood]

Paul makes allowances for such situations too. Masters are not to be harsh to their servants, and servants are to respect their masters. Rules to keep slavery in order until the abolishment of it.

Hey guys.

Take it here so this thread stays on topic


Biblical Slavery

 

[dan]

No we don`t.

Well you're an atheist, your discipline's moral philosophies are as fickle as the weather.

 

[linwood]

Well you're an atheist, your discipline's moral philosophies are as fickle as the weather.

You`re 0 for 2..careful of that last strike Dan.

 

[nutshell]

As a side note, I was in a class about the Victorian-era of England today and we discussed the suppression (did I spell that right?) of birth control as the country moved away from midwives (who knew what they were doing) to doctors (who did not).

All forms of birth control were banned (even the rhythm method!) and infanticide rose dramatically as did the number of women dying during giving birth. Pretty tragic stuff.

 

[Pah]

Well you're an atheist, your discipline's moral philosophies are as fickle as the weather.

Geez - fickle eh? Most of us are accused of being closed minded, i.e., not being fickle. I've always thought sex before, during and after marriage was huncky dory!

 

[Pah]

No, because if a person had no other choice but to become one then he would have to. This, however, makes them more like temporary servants then slaves.

Having "no choice" would make them slaves. Severvancy implies a choice.

 

[dan]

Geez - fickle eh? Most of us are accused of being closed minded, i.e., not being fickle. I've always thought sex before, during and after marriage was huncky dory!

I said your criteria for determining morals is fickle.

 

[mr.guy]

I said your criteria for determining morals is fickle.

I see...so we can now be fickle and close-minded?

 

[Passerbye]

Having "no choice" would make them slaves. Severvancy implies a choice.

Again, a clarification. I meant as in a financial situation requiring compensation. Such as, the person becoming a slave because he has no money, or anything else, to pay a dept. This includes a choice of becoming a slave, or not paying the person. Not paying would not be right, because it would be like steeling whatever you owe the person. Since slavery was so common this would probably have been an option for anyone living in any other country as well. Rather than making the Israelites go sell themselves to other nations that could have slaves (if God abolished slavery among them) the laws put in place made it so that people could become slaves in their own country if they needed to, and made it so that they were more like servants that worked for a really long time and were only paid once for their work.

Anyway, this is not the place for this kind of discussion.

 

[Passerbye]

I see...so we can now be fickle and close-minded?

Yes, you can. Close-minded sometimes, and fickle sometimes. You can even be both at the same time. Closed-minded to advice, when you don't know what to choose yourself.

 

[dan]

Ah, the litany begins. Close-mindedness has become such a sin. Do you know the difference between close minded and having conviction? Apparently, even if you know something beyond a shadow of a doubt you have to allow the possibility that other conclusions may be more valid or else an idiot will call you close minded. "The sky is blue!" "It could be another color! Why don't you allow people who like other colors to have a say! You're so close-minded! Why can't you be more like me and claim to be open minded but not accept anyone else's ideas anyway!!"

Open minded means you can't make a decision.

 

[Mister_T]

Mister_T, I have looked at the site you provided and all it says is that the word has many meanings. It talks mostly about how sexually bad things were back then, and tries to make it look like the word got that meaning over time and didn't have it already. I agree that there were sick sexual things going on back then, but all you give are opinions of people who think that this could have happened. There is no proof that it did. I have not seen one speck of it.

You are correct that the word Porneia has many meanings (I listed them); however, when there is nothing guiding the meaning toward any one thing then it encompasses all of what it means in the context of what the person is saying. Thus, if the word Porneia meant all that it does today back then, and I see no reason why it shouldn't (even with the long arguments you have given) then we have to accept it as what it is, because there seems to be nothing but speculation as to what it isn't, and no factual basis for such speculation. If I have missed some proof please bring it to my attention.

Although the Old Testament seems to say nothing on this subject, as it also seems to say nothing on slavery directly. Life, however, does make slavery seem like a bad thing. The practice of slavery was so common and ingrained into people that God just made it seem like a bad idea and let it gradually fade out. It was even allowed in the New Testament, however it showed it as more of a bad idea and gradually let it fade out. Would anyone here be able to say that the Bible makes slavery look like a good idea? Would anyone here say that slavery is a good idea? Slavery is wrong, but it had to be fazed out instead of abolished. The more horrible things had to be gotten rid of first. The New Testament makes it clear that sex outside of marriage is wrong, by using the word it did. The Old Testament is not so clear on the subject. The New Testament didn’t even make polygamy illegal. It did, however, make it look like a bad idea.

As it is written, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.” James 4:17. The laws in the Old Testament were made for man, not for God. They were made so man would know what is good, what is true, and what is good for the body too. It made illegal things that were extremely unhealthy in the conditions they lived in (such as pork and shellfish). These things have a deeper meaning (midrash), but they also mean what they say at face value (what separates midrash from Gnosticism). They kept the Jews in better health than any other people of their time; and yet not scare them with the idea of tiny things that they can’t see constantly on them at all times eating away at them and in what they eat (germs). The rules were for them to do well in their existence, not for God. It’s not just something to make God feel better (although He does feel better when we listen to Him). We have guidelines for living for our own good, just as they did. Although, there are things that are explicitly sins, according to God, in all situations containing them. If we don’t do what is right then we sin. If we do it as a habit then we are rejecting God, once again. We are not taking His advice. His advise is what is good. If you want to have sex outside of marriage then go ahead. I don’t recommend it at all, and neither does God, from what I have seen. If you don’t accept the recommendation of God and you do what is wrong, then you sin. Sin has consequences. Sin doesn’t need God to punish people. Sin can do that itself.

Laws are there for a reason. They are there as protection a lot of the time. Why is homosexual sex not good? Well, it’s not what we were made for. It’s unnatural. Outside of that it tends to be very unhealthy for the body, and for the mind too. Because it is unnatural and that makes it such a bad sin we know that it is bad for the spirit too. Unhealthy for body, soul, and spirit. What a bad thing. It’s the same with masturbation. God says nothing on this; however, we know it to be not good for a persons mind or body. Is it permissible in situations? I think it could be in some, though I won’t give examples. Does that make it good in all situations? No. However, if it’s an addiction then the person is mastered by it and Paul warned against that. That is wrong. I use to be mastered by soda… then only Pepsi and Sunkist tasted good… then only Sunkist tasted good… and then none of it tasted good, but I drank Sunkist anyway. I was mastered by soda. That made it a sin. That makes masturbation a sin. That makes smoking a sin (as well as other factors.) That can make anything a sin.

I think I did it again. I said too much, and on too many subjects, all at once. I tend to do that, especially when it comes to trying to tell what is sin and what is not. I hope I explained what I was trying to. If something’s unclear please point it out.

I would also like to add something to what I have previously said. I said that in a marriage a person's body belongs equally to himself as to his wife, and a wife's to her husband. I was wrong on this. It is complete summation on this subject. Your body is hers and not your own, and hers is yours and not her own. This makes much more sense; a complete giving of your body over to your partner. This would prevent the bad that tends to erupt from the "not now Honey, I'm too tired" excuse, when the husband needs her; or the "I'm too busy right now darling, can you get me an sandwich?" problem that gets the woman too worked up and sends her over to the husbands best friend; as well as the problem with your partner not wanting to do something for you because it seems "icky", or "smelly", or "doesn't taste good" (happens with guys and girls). A proper relationship would keep the partner from behaving wrongly toward their spouse. That would keep the power struggle from getting unequal, and keep them together, at home, instead of away with other people from lack of sexual satisfaction. Doesn’t it make much more sense? Ain't God great? Praise the LORD! Genius! God’s understandings of things are great, even if we don't see anywhere near all of it!

Hey man I give you credit. A lot of people wouldn't have read that whole thing.:clap As far as the proof that you're looking for, I really don't know what else to give you. The authors cited there work. These people know the ins and outs of the language, culture, and lifestyle of the people living back then. And while these people may very well be giving their opions, they have a lot of historical facts to back them up. They've written books on the subject. If you're interested in reading them I can give you the titles and the authors. I don't know how much more proof you need. Like I've stated before I've provided outside resources to defend my position. You have yet to provide me with anything but your opinion and your interpretation. And I'm sorry but just because a person (or a large group of people) "think" that something is implied does not make that a fact. And the fact is, no where in the Bible is the word adulterer or sexually immoral labeled as 2 people in love engaging in sex without the marriage ritual. No where does God give a command that say "You shall not have sex without the ritual of marriage" Now I'm just repeating myself. Read my old posts. If 2 people are in love with each other, that is marriage. You don't need a ritual to love. Love comes naturally and does not require any prerequisites.

The practice of slavery was so common and ingrained into people that God just made it seem like a bad idea and let it gradually fade out. It was even allowed in the New Testament, however it showed it as more of a bad idea and gradually let it fade

I find this quote interesting. Back in those days, marriages were arranged (I don't know about all, but certainly a majority were). I didn't matter even if you loved the person or not. You didn't have a choice (I don't know about you, but being forced to marry somebody I didn't love would definitly suck). If one person in this "union" had a "real" connection with somebody else, that was tough rocks for them. Acting upon those feelings would be cause for extreme punishment. Let's say that these 2 people in this arranged marriage actually did love each other. If the husband died, that women would have had to marry his brother (providing he had one). It was Jewish law. I think most people would agree that this practice (like slavery) was definitly bad. Marriage back then was quite different. And over the centuries, the idea of waiting until after a ritual to share the most powerful and intimate expression of love has been fading out. Why? well because believe it or not, waiting for a lot of people, is BAD. If you want me to give reasons I will (all you gotta do is ask).

I'll say it again "If 2 people are in love with each other, that is marriage. You don't need a ritual to love. Love comes naturally and does not require any prerequisites". If an engaged couple have sex, it's no different than a "married "couple having sex (except for the $10,000 you spent on a wedding). 2 people can commit themselves to each other without a ritual. The ritual has become empty and useless and the divorce rate among Christians and non-Christians is proof in the pudding.

 

[Mister_T]

If you want to talk about some of those other subjects you mentioned, we can do it in private so we don't get off topic.

 

[Squirt]

Can anyone give me a logical reason not to have sex with someone you love?

Can you give me a logical reason not to marry someone you love?

I rest my case. Sex is beautiful. I don't know why the church makes it so ugly.

Who has made sex ugly? I totally agree with you that it's beautiful. In fact, It's so beautiful that it's something you should want to share only with the person you want to spend your life with.

 

[nutshell]

Can you give me a logical reason not to marry someone you love?

They aren't parent material.

They can't hold a job.

They are abusive.

They are childish.

They don't practice a healthy sexual relationship.

I could go on and on.

Marrying only for love is usually disasterous and the skyrocketing divorce rate can be traced directly to it.

 

[linwood]

Can you give me a logical reason not to marry someone you love?

Because love doesn`t make a marriage work.

Edit;
For the exact reasons Nutshell cites above. (and probably more)