Is there a Christian position that s*x outside of marriage is NOT a sin?

[Tami]

Nah. :tongue_smilie:

 

But I do admit that when people say, "The Bible says this!" then my first reaction is to say, "Yes, but according to whom?"

 

And do you apply this same discernment when someone says "My pagan beliefs are so and so and such and such?" Or is it just Christians and the Bible?

[Tami]

I think this is another area in which a "paper" marriage is over emphasized.

 

Joanne,

 

I've noticed that you seem to speak rather negatively about Christians, and traditional Christianity while self-identifying as a Christian. How do you reconcile this, or is my impression off-base? Do you believe the Bible is the standard for faith and morals for a Christian, or do you go by personal revelations or some other standard? I promise I'm not asking this to attack or entrap, but just wondering. If you don't feel comfortable answering, no problemo! It is a one of those burning questions a TWTMer just has to ask.

 

:lurk5:

[Peek a Boo]

Nah. :tongue_smilie:

 

But I do admit that when people say, "The Bible says this!" then my first reaction is to say, "Yes, but according to whom?"

 

If you get ten people reading the Bible you'll get ten different opinions about what it says. (Unless one of the ten is me, and then you'll get eleven. ;) )

 

except that even from a basic literary analysis of the Bible you still continue to screw up its plot. As already noted, Your postings are pretty typical of the "Bible is bunk so let's gripe about OT laws" when in fact Christ already says that He has fulfilled those: We no longer offer bulls and birds for sacrifice because Christ WAS the final sacrifice. we no longer stone our disobedient children because Christ has already offered Himself as sacrifice for them. We no longer put alleged witches [or anyone else] to death because Christ already descended to hell and proclaimed victory OVER death. If you aren't familiar w/ how Christ became our High Priest and the relevance of that, then you simply can't fathom how the storyline changed under the New Covenant.

 

If you have no understanding of how the NT fits in with the OT, you really have little business throwing OT verses around. Everytime you do so, it only paints yourself with a broad brush of ignorance. Now if you want to throw OT verses around about Jewish beliefs, then you can take it up w/ discussions about Jewish beliefs. But in a thread about Christianity, you would offer a bit more credibility if you actually posted something that showed you knew what you were talking about. Even just a BASIC understanding might help your case. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

It's not the ceremony that makes people married, it's the act. For this reason, sex is a very powerful thing, and not to be engaged in lightly.

 

i disagree with this only because of what tami cited and explained below:

 

I believe that marriage is a covenant, ''' This pattern of covenant begins in the book of Genesis and is carried through to the New Testament.

 

See Malachi 2 and notice that the wording is your wife by covenant. The word "covenant" is used 298 times in the Bible, and it typically means a compact, a testament. Covenant is an extremely serious and binding agreement, not entered into lightly.

 

Mal 2

Yet she is your companion

And your wife by covenant.

 

 

Thank you-- this is what i was thinking about last night when i couldn't think completely. ;)

 

I do disagree that a marriage covenant needs to include all the temporal things you listed -- Gen 2 takes us back to "God said" and that was covenant enough.

 

 

I agree that is God's intent. However, that definition is not possible on a human plane. It must also take place within a moral context. There are so many situations that a person may find themselves in, not of their own choosing, where that definition would demean the institution of marriage.

 

Ayup. I think it is important to note that there is a difference between studying what God SAYS and what we are prone to DO. But we cannot twist what God says to justify what we want to do.

[Tami]

I think this is another area in which a "paper" marriage is over emphasized.

The presence or absence of paper has little relationship to the quality of intimate relationship.

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying that marriage is a piece of paper. Marriage is a covenant agreement between two parties, and the piece of paper merely records what the agreement is. If one partner breaks faith and breaks their covenant, that is very sad, indeed. It is like stealing! Being a faithless spouse is like robbing the life, dreams, and joy from another person when we should be laying our lives down and loving, encouraging, and strengthening our partner. However, how did you become convinced that a poor quality relationship releases us, as Christians, from our covenant vows? Relationships can go through ages and stages, after all.

[KingM]

And do you apply this same discernment when someone says "My pagan beliefs are so and so and such and such?" Or is it just Christians and the Bible?

 

Yes, I'm an equal-opportunity skeptic. :)

[Peek a Boo]

I agree with you on most of your points, and was wondering what Scripture you could point me to that instructs us that marriage equals sex. TIA!

 

there are at least two NT verses in my earlier post that discuss the importance of the binding of sex into "one flesh" --I'm not aware of another scriptural explanation of "one flesh" that eliminates marriage, but I'm open to hearing about it. :)

[Peek a Boo]

I will maintain that sometimes sex within marriage can also be wrong.

I think that any sex that objectifies the other is the problem and I think when Jesus spoke on the sermon on the mount about this, lusting after ANY woman is what he spoke. To further this viewpoint, I would like to add that if the sex act is completely void of objectification (completely) and is done how God created us(look at the physiology of our bodies) then I believe that it is okay, even if not under the tradional marriage heading because more than likely that type of union is stronger and more holy than a "marriage" as our culture defines it.

Does that make sense?

e

 

makes sense to me. :)

[Joanne]

Joanne,

 

I've noticed that you seem to speak rather negatively about Christians, and traditional Christianity while self-identifying as a Christian. How do you reconcile this, or is my impression off-base? Do you believe the Bible is the standard for faith and morals for a Christian, or do you go by personal revelations or some other standard? I promise I'm not asking this to attack or entrap, but just wondering. If you don't feel comfortable answering, no problemo! It is a one of those burning questions a TWTMer just has to ask.

 

I am very critical of conservative Christian *culture*, rhetoric, and dogma. I find it extra Biblical, oppressive, graceless and judgemental.

 

The Bible is my standard of faith; but I do not take it literally - I take it seriously and believe it to be Truth. I believe much modern day, Western, conservative interpretation of it to be culturally driven.

 

Jesus is my Lord and Savior.

[Peek a Boo]

Given the modern liberation of women and the ability to control birth outside of marriage, I see no reason to limit sex to married couples only.

 

Thanks, God ;)

[KarenNC]

And do you apply this same discernment when someone says "My pagan beliefs are so and so and such and such?" Or is it just Christians and the Bible?

 

"On what do you base your belief" is always, to my mind, a valid question. It's certainly one that I would ask anyone of any religion. There is no monolithic interpretation of much of anything in any religion.

 

In the case of the Bible, at minimum it is a very valid question about the Hebrew Scriptures especially. The interpretations of the same text by Jews (to whom it was given originally) and by Christians (who adopted it) can be very, very different. That doesn't even begin to touch the differences in interpretation of those same texts by varying denominations of Christianity.

[KingM]

except that even from a basic literary analysis of the Bible you still continue to screw up its plot.

 

Could you post an example of how I have "screwed up the plot?" I'm quite familiar with the Bible and have more than a passing knowledge of the various interpretations of its overall story arc.

 

Which, I'll point out, there is little agreement about. Christians disagree about such basic points as to whether the atonement took place in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the Cross. They disagree as to whether Peter founded a church that continued through the Catholic church. There are some Christians who believe that the church went into apostasy and needed a latter day restoration.

 

As already noted, Your postings are pretty typical of the "Bible is bunk so let's gripe about OT laws" when in fact Christ already says that He has fulfilled those:

Except this whole thread is about obeying Old Testament laws about sexual purity!

 

Matthew 22:36-38 seems to imply that all of this worry about sexual purity is superfluous to the two main commandments.

 

But in a thread about Christianity, you would offer a bit more credibility if you actually posted something that showed you knew what you were talking about. Even just a BASIC understanding might help your case. ;)

This is a thread about sexual purity, and most of the strictures about sexual purity are OT verses. The ones that aren't are largely Pauline in nature. Jesus has very little to say about sexual purity except to forgive those who have transgressed and condemn those who punish the transgressors.

 

You've emphasized Jesus's dismissal of OT ritual, but I would argue that he also dismissed the orthopraxy of the OT as well. What was important for Jesus was orthodoxy, or correct belief. Not behavior.

[Peek a Boo]

I am very critical of conservative Christian *culture*, rhetoric, and dogma. I find it extra Biblical, oppressive, graceless and judgemental.

The Bible is my standard of faith; but I do not take it literally - I take it seriously and believe it to be Truth. I believe much modern day, Western, conservative interpretation of it to be culturally driven.

 

Jesus is my Lord and Savior.

 

Since the question was about a Christian position regarding premarital sex --and you and i tend to agree on cultural definitions of marriage vs God's design-- do you think that God oks premarital sex, or do you hold that He directs that sex should be reserved for the bounds of marriage [a lifelong commitment to another]?

 

Note: i'm not talking about what "some" might think about your divorce, but what you think God says about a single person having sex before committing to another person.

[Jami]

 

This is a thread about sexual purity, and most of the strictures about sexual purity are OT verses. The ones that aren't are largely Pauline in nature. Jesus has very little to say about sexual purity except to forgive those who have transgressed and condemn those who punish the transgressors.

 

You've emphasized Jesus's dismissal of OT ritual, but I would argue that he also dismissed the orthopraxy of the OT as well. What was important for Jesus was orthodoxy, or correct belief. Not behavior.

 

Matthew 19. Jesus validates the marriage (joining of Adam and Eve by God) in the Garden. He then goes on to define marriage (man leaves his father and mother and joins himself to a woman, they become ONE flesh, only God can separate).

 

Jesus did not dismiss OT ritual, he fulfills it. The ritual was never about the ritual, it was to point to Christ, to the character of God, it clarifies man's need of a Savior. Read the book of Hebrews.

[Peek a Boo]

Could you post an example of how I have "screwed up the plot?"

 

sure: it's right below, in your own words:

Except this whole thread is about obeying Old Testament laws about sexual purity!

 

No-- read the TITLE of the thread: it's about a CHRISTIAN position on sex outside or before marriage.

Matthew 22:36-38 seems to imply that all of this worry about sexual purity is superfluous to the two main commandments.

 

no, sexual purity is bundled up WITHIN the two main commandments: He said that ALL the commands hinge on those two principles, not that they were "the only" two.

 

This is a thread about sexual purity, and most of the strictures about sexual purity are OT verses. The ones that aren't are largely Pauline in nature. Jesus has very little to say about sexual purity except to forgive those who have transgressed and condemn those who punish the transgressors.

 

You've emphasized Jesus's dismissal of OT ritual, but I would argue that he also dismissed the orthopraxy of the OT as well. What was important for Jesus was orthodoxy, or correct belief. Not behavior.

 

untrue --when He saved the adultress from stoning He told her to repent, and do no more. In every statement Jesus made He emphasized behavior to show those principles: TURN the other cheek, GO into all the world, DO no more.

 

I did not say Jesus *dismissed* OT ritual -- I said He fulfilled it. Your posts lack an understanding of what *fulfill* means, as evidenced when you pick and choose a few OT verses to "make a point."

[KingM]

Since the question was about a Christian position regarding premarital sex --and you and i tend to agree on cultural definitions of marriage vs God's design-- do you think that God oks premarital sex, or do you hold that He directs that sex should be reserved for the bounds of marriage [a lifelong commitment to another]?

 

 

I won't answer for Joanne, but I would say that it's just not that important. At the very least, it's no more important than obeying any other commandment. Since you believe that the NT trumps the OT (and I agree that the various apostles who wrote the NT would feel the same, as would Jesus) then I can't see why a Christian would put any more emphasis on premarital sex than any of the other proscribed behavior. At least from a religious standpoint.

 

There are two great commandments, according to the NT. Everything else is secondary and of no greater or lesser importance. Sure, you could get worked up about pre-marital sex, but to be consistent, you should get equally worked up over a zillion other things.

[KingM]

No-- read the TITLE of the thread: it's about a CHRISTIAN position on sex outside or before marriage.

 

And I'm saying that proscribing premarital sex is not Christian. It's from the Old Testament. Can I state that one more time? The teachings of the Old Testament place great emphasis on maintaining a woman's virtue. The NT is less concerned about that.

 

untrue --when He saved the adultress from stoning He told her to repent, and do no more.

I think that's a very minor point to the story.

 

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

The first lesson I take is that Jesus rebukes those who would punish or ostracize sinners. The second is that Jesus refuses to condemn a woman who was caught in what her culture saw as a sin so grievous that it deserved the death penalty. The third is that he gave her advice to go and correct her behavior. But this last point was not even secondary to the lesson of this story. He didn't take the woman's name, he didn't threaten her, or warn her not to backslide. In short, her behavior did not seem as important to her as emphasizing the message that Jesus returns to again and again throughout the Gospels.

 

(And besides which, this was a woman who was caught in adultery, not fornication, which is a very different thing entirely.)

 

I did not say Jesus *dismissed* OT ritual -- I said He fulfilled it. Your posts lack an understanding of what *fulfill* means, as evidenced when you pick and choose a few OT verses to "make a point."

 

LOL. This is the essence of this kind of discussion. I can't exactly cut and paste the entirety of the Bible into my post in order to make my point, can I? I can only emphasize those scriptures that I believe support my thesis.

Edited July 7, 2009 by KingM

[OnTheBrink]

I'm guessing that what she's saying is that the marriage would appear to meet the most stringent requirements of a "Christian marriage," including a pastor of the correct gender (again, the strictest requirement) and yet it was still missing something.

 

So, is a marriage performed by a female pastor then somehow not a "Christian" marriage?

 

I find Joanne's posts in this thread confusing, to be honest.

[KingM]

So, is a marriage performed by a female pastor then somehow not a "Christian" marriage?

 

 

I don't think she's saying that. I think she was trying to head off objections that her marriage wasn't real by anticipating the objection that it was performed by a female pastor, which it wasn't, so that line of argument would be irrelevant.

 

Is this correct, Joanne?

[Joanne]

Since the question was about a Christian position regarding premarital sex --and you and i tend to agree on cultural definitions of marriage vs God's design-- do you think that God oks premarital sex, or do you hold that He directs that sex should be reserved for the bounds of marriage [a lifelong commitment to another]?

 

I believe God's design for intimacy is between 2 committed people. I think 2 committed (for life) people who treat each other and their relationship according to Biblical standards *are* married. Therefore, it would not be premarital.

 

I have to admit, though, I have a double and seemingly hypocritical standard on sex outside of marriage. I tend to feel ok or at least better about it for older persons and more concerned/anxious about it for younger persons.

 

I do believe that in our complicated culture, a state marriage is probably a prudent idea. ;) Or other legal papers delineating necessitities.

[Hedgehogs4]

only by people who want to assuage their consciences...

 

so no. s*x outside of marriage is a sin.

[lionfamily1999]

There are two great commandments, according to the NT. Everything else is secondary and of no greater or lesser importance. Sure, you could get worked up about pre-marital sex, but to be consistent, you should get equally worked up over a zillion other things.

I think I understand what you mean. I was going to post something similar here earlier. Premarital sex is no worse than a fib, it's no worse than envying someone else's stuff. How much emphasis is put on it does seem extreme, but it's also personal. Don't we all have our 'pet sins?' This is horrible, terrible and very bad and you will burn in hell for eternity if you do it! I know people that put the emphasis on drug use, our bodies are holy temples, etc. Then, there's the ones that focus on what kind of sex you have. The truth is, none of these are 'better' or 'worse' than murder. The emphasis could be misleading.

[LMA]

Hasn't anyone here heard of the seven deadly sins? Premarital sex falls under lust. Yes, premarital sex is a mortal sin, along with adultery. Same with envy. Has anyone read Galatians?

[KingM]

The Seven Deadly Sins were defined by Evagrius the Solitary in the 4th Century, not in Paul's letter to the Galatians.

 

And even if it is a deadly sin, I don't hear people condemning overeating or laziness with the same vigor they do fornication.

[Hedgehogs4]

for you to say that adultery or fornication or joining together of two human individuals in a sexual relationship is no worse than telling a lie or killing someone is very misleading (not to say they are different in "badness" but that they have different implications). if it says the two become one flesh, then you are joining yourself together with another person FOR LIFE and the implications for that and for family and for all of society are huge. There were many laws governing sexual practice because it was the beginning of family. Family was the place where the commandments and worship were centered and the passing of that from generation to generation was what preserved the Godly heritage that He intended for his people. Someone else in a previous post was talking about birth control. why would the invention of birth control change that intention? God didn't invent birth control, we did. Just because we invented something cool and "liberating" doesn't mean we abandon a spiritual principle because it seems superfluous. the joining together of our bodies with another human being brings about inordinate affections, idolatry, lustful tendencies, etc. it is a denial of self-control, which is a fruit of the spirit. we can sit here and nit-pick details, or we can admit to what all of us know--no one likes to be holy and righteous, self-controlled and patient. so we figure out loopholes. then when we screw up we try to figure out ways that we "feel" we were right about what we did. we can't just repent, turn from our sin and do what is right.

 

there is no exception in which the sin of fornication, adultery or anything associated with it is okay. (i know--i've been there--i screwed up too, so don't say i don't know what i'm talking about). God ordained a plan to preserve the integrity of his people and one of those ordinances was sexual purity, but it was intended to flow out of love and obedience to HIM not to love and obedience to another person. Herein lies the distinction.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Hedgehogs4
edited to clarify

[LMA]

The Seven Deadly Sins were defined by Evagrius the Solitary in the 4th Century, not in Paul's letter to the Galatians.

 

And even if it is a deadly sin, I don't hear people condemning overeating or laziness with the same vigor they do fornication.

 

KingM,

 

Yes, I know the Seven Deadly Sins were defined by someone and not officially out of the Bible. My theology is not just of the Bible but also Tradition.

 

Galatians addresses these sins even if it is not called the seven deadly sins. Nevertheless, they are mortal sins. It doesn't matter to if people condemn sins a lot or not at all. That is opinion. I do not base what is wrong or right from people's opinions. My only concern is God. It is on the day of our death that we receive our Judgment from God. (as a side, Wikipedia is not an authority on theology or on anything else.)

 

And only the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant in the New Testament. The Old Testament is not replaced by the New Testament.

 

KingM, I would love to continue this discussion, but my work is calling me. I have a deadline on Thursday. :) I do like your participation. It keeps me on my toes.

Edited July 7, 2009 by LMA

[KarenNC]

And only the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant in the New Testament. The Old Testament is not replaced by the New Testament.

 

"Testament" *means* "Covenant". I would be curious as to how you differentiate between the two...........

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testament

[lionfamily1999]

for you to say that adultery or fornication or joining together of two human individuals in a sexual relationship is no worse than telling a lie or killing someone is very misleading (not to say they are different in "badness" but that they have different implications). if it says the two become one flesh, then you are joining yourself together with another person FOR LIFE and the implications for that and for family and for all of society are huge. There were many laws governing sexual practice because it was the beginning of family. Family was the place where the commandments and worship were centered and the passing of that from generation to generation was what preserved the Godly heritage that He intended for his people. Someone else in a previous post was talking about birth control. why would the invention of birth control change that intention? God didn't invent birth control, we did. Just because we invented something cool and "liberating" doesn't mean we abandon a spiritual principle because it seems superfluous. the joining together of our bodies with another human being brings about inordinate affections, idolatry, lustful tendencies, etc. it is a denial of self-control, which is a fruit of the spirit. we can sit here and nit-pick details, or we can admit to what all of us know--no one likes to be holy and righteous, self-controlled and patient. so we figure out loopholes. then when we screw up we try to figure out ways that we "feel" we were right about what we did. we can't just repent, turn from our sin and do what is right.

 

there is no exception in which the sin of fornication, adultery or anything associated with it is okay. (i know--i've been there--i screwed up too, so don't say i don't know what i'm talking about). God ordained a plan to preserve the integrity of his people and one of those ordinances was sexual purity, but it was intended to flow out of love and obedience to HIM not to love and obedience to another person. Herein lies the distinction.

The wages of sin is death. Sin is sin. I'm not sure I was clear before, what I meant was that all sin is sin, all sin is equal. To argue whether or not one sin in particular is particularly bad is misleading, they're all bad. The emphasis is personal. God hates sin. Premarital sex is sin, lies are sins, murder is a sin, stealing is a sin, coveting is a sin, etc. They're all sins, all bad, all get you the same "rewards."

[Jugglin'5]

"Testament" *means* "Covenant". I would be curious as to how you differentiate between the two...........

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testament

 

 

The new Covenant is spoken of in the Old Testament...see The Book of Jeremiah for one. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old. It builds on it - it does not tear it down. Some scaffolding is pulled down (ceremonial law for instance), but the foundation is still there.

[KingM]

for you to say that adultery or fornication or joining together of two human individuals in a sexual relationship is no worse than telling a lie or killing someone is very misleading (not to say they are different in "badness" but that they have different implications).

 

Well, I do think there are varying degrees of sin. Murder, for example, is far worse than shoplifting. But I think you could argue that from a Christian perspective, there is no difference. Jesus doesn't focus on behavior--he breaks bread with publicans and harlots, after all--except to note that how you treat other people is the most important consideration. But even there, Jesus emphasizes faith, not behavior.

 

What sins do or don't matter to society, however, is an entirely different matter. I don't care so much if my neighbor eats too much Thanksgiving dinner, but if he robs my house, I hope the law will punish him and restore my property.

 

So in the question of fornication, once I've decided that the religious implications are minor, I ask myself what is the harm to me or to society if people have sex outside of marriage. In the case of sex for an engaged couple, already loving and committed, I'm hard pressed to find fault with their behavior.

 

And for what it's worth, my wife and I waited until we were married and have not had relations with other partners either before or since, so I'm not arguing this point out of a desire to justify my behavior, as some have hinted.

[Laurie4b]

The Greek word porneo is broadly inclusive word. It would certainly encompass "pre-marital sex" --as per dh, who taught Greek in a seminary.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Laurie4b

[Marylou]

http://www.learnthebible.org/sin-against-the-body-1-corinthians-618.html

[cathmom]

Eliana, what are the Jewish teachings on premarital sex?

[KarenNC]

The new Covenant is spoken of in the Old Testament...see The Book of Jeremiah for one. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old. It builds on it - it does not tear it down. Some scaffolding is pulled down (ceremonial law for instance)' date=' but the foundation is still there.[/quote']

 

I was asking how the poster differentiated between the New Covenant and the New Testament, not how the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Scriptures differed. She said that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant, but the New Testament didn't replace the Old Testament.

[LMA]

I was asking how the poster differentiated between the New Covenant and the New Testament, not how the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Scriptures differed. She said that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant, but the New Testament didn't replace the Old Testament.

 

My mistake. My husband corrected me. Sorry. I meant that the New Testament supersedes the law in the Old Testament. (and I really can't be here anymore - work needs to be done. PM me if you wish.) :)

[Marylou]

 

What was important for Jesus was orthodoxy, or correct belief. Not behavior.

 

Absolutely false.

 

Right doctrine leads to right living.

 

Jesus did indeed rebuke the people who brought the adultress to him, but not because they had incorrect beliefs! He rebuked them because they were hypocrites and were desperately trying to trap him and prove him to be a liar. (BTW many still try to do that today with his followers). The woman was probably "set up" (with whom?, hmm, you can't do it alone, and she would have had to have been caught in the act).

 

Right doctrine leads to right living.

[Peek a Boo]

And I'm saying that proscribing premarital sex is not Christian. It's from the Old Testament. Can I state that one more time? The teachings of the Old Testament place great emphasis on maintaining a woman's virtue. The NT is less concerned about that.

 

You are factually wrong on that point: The point about "one flesh" is a very important point that is made in the NT and affirmed by Christ Himself.

 

Are you saying that Christ and the gospels are Old Testament??

And to clarify, did you want to dismiss any references from commonly accepted by Christians Pauline Epistles and focus only on gospel accounts?

Or are you saying that "one flesh" has nothing to do w/ marriage?

 

I think that's a very minor point to the story.

And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.[/i]

 

What weight you choose to give to God's Word does not negate or lessen the fact --FACT-- that He considered it important enough to address.

I agree this was about adultery, not premarital sex --it was given directly to refute your false allegation that Christ did NOT hold behavior as important.

 

LOL. This is the essence of this kind of discussion. I can't exactly cut and paste the entirety of the Bible into my post in order to make my point, can I? I can only emphasize those scriptures that I believe support my thesis.

I understand. And here I will cede the discussion to the majority of theologians who have already studied this and over centuries come to the same conclusion about fulfilled vs dismissed as i have put forth. I simply find your position inexperienced and not credible.

 

 

Well, I do think there are varying degrees of sin. Murder, for example, is far worse than shoplifting. But I think you could argue that from a Christian perspective, there is no difference.

 

I agree 100%. how we view sin vs how God views it are completely different.

and like every other sin, premarital sex, abortion, murder, homosexuality, and adultery are all covered under Christ's sacrifice for repentent Christians. There is much debate on how much the Christian community needs to establish boundaries and guidelines to continue relationships with various unrepentant sins, but that's fodder for another thread.

 

Jesus doesn't focus on behavior--he breaks bread with publicans and harlots, after all--except to note that how you treat other people is the most important consideration. But even there, Jesus emphasizes faith, not behavior.

 

factually wrong, but we already covered that above ;)

 

 

So in the question of fornication, once I've decided that the religious implications are minor, I ask myself what is the harm to me or to society if people have sex outside of marriage. In the case of sex for an engaged couple, already loving and committed, I'm hard pressed to find fault with their behavior.

 

except that has NOT been established from a Christian point of view. Unfortunately, the thread is not asking if O Thou KingM says premarital sex is ok, but whether there is a Christian POV that sees premarital sex as ok.

 

i do agree that for an engaged couple, the moment they have sex they just bumped up the marriage date. ;) I'm not ready to decide just where the sin begins and ends, but thankfully that's not MY job.:D

[KingM]

Unfortunately, the thread is not asking if O Thou KingM says premarital sex is ok, but whether there is a Christian POV that sees premarital sex as ok.

 

It's really not necessary to continue insulting me. I haven't claimed to be God or a holy man or a prophet. I am expressing my opinions and so are you. Therefore, using phrases like the bolded part above (bolded by you, for emphasis, not me), and continuing to insist how ignorant I am, is really not helpful.

 

It makes me angry and defensive, in fact, not receptive to your arguments.

 

I am just one person, with one opinion. I am not, however, ignorant, having attended years of religious school, read the Bible, commentaries on the Gospels and the epistles, scholarly work discussing the J, E, and P authors of Genesis, etc. I don't speak Greek or Hebrew and haven't studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I have a reasonably well informed lay understanding.

 

It seems that you've also read and studied the matter a good deal, and you have come to some different conclusions. That's great and I welcome hearing and discussing them, but only if you'll stop insulting me. I don't think it's called for.

[Tami]

Thanks for answering, Joanne. You seem like such a paradox and I just had to ask!

[Tami]

Yes, I'm an equal-opportunity skeptic. :)

 

Really? I don't recall any skeptical posts implying that pagan worship, for example, is antiquated or illogical. I freely admit that I haven't read every thread, but is it possible that you are a little biased against Christian thought?

 

I'm a skeptic myself, and I've wrestled all the same objections, obviously coming to a different conclusion. ;)

[Tami]

. Not trying to start a (different) theological debate - but the way your post was phrased made me want to articulate my faith's very different perspective... since yours was stated so definitively. (not a criticism :))

 

Thanks for sharing that, Eliana. Would you take the position that the Abrahamic covenant and the dietary laws are applicable for Gentiles as well as Jews? Just curious, and I don't ask this to argue in any way. :)

[OnTheBrink]

Thanks for sharing that, Eliana. Would you take the position that the Abrahamic covenant and the dietary laws are applicable for Gentiles as well as Jews? Just curious, and I don't ask this to argue in any way. :)

 

Not Eliana, nor do I play her on TV, but I recently heard that the dietary laws were for the Jews, to separate them from the Gentiles, who'd eat anything (or things that were considered unclean). If the Jews couldn't eat with the Gentiles, the chances of the Jews meshing with them were slim.

 

Anyway, that's what I'd heard. I thought that was interesting, and it made sense to me in light of the NT scriptures that say all food is ok to eat along with how the gospel is for the Jew and the Greek (who were Gentiles).

[elw_miller]

except that even from a basic literary analysis of the Bible you still continue to screw up its plot. As already noted, Your postings are pretty typical of the "Bible is bunk so let's gripe about OT laws" when in fact Christ already says that He has fulfilled those

 

I'll admit upfront that I have not read all 10 pages yet, so I may have missed a reply similar to what I'm about to post, so bear with me. :)

 

I wonder if he means that a non-Biblical reason would be more convincing for those who are not Christian?

 

My brother discussed the issue of cohabitation prior to marriage with me. He had a long-term girlfriend (now wife :) ) who he was considering asking to move in with him. He is an atheist. When I told him the following concerns, he replied with, "Sis, I'm not religious."

 

Personally, I am not in favor of living together with someone prior to marriage (in most cases). This belief is not based on anything I learned from the Bible (I'm not particularly religious, though I've read the Bible). I think living with someone prior to marriage can fundamentally change the perception of the relationship, can possible damage it. Marriage is not something you "try out", so you can't practice it. If you're not sure you love someone enough and know someone enough to marry them, then "trying it out" isn't going to work. Doing so could alter how you view the stability and dedication of the relationship and any marriage that happens following cohabitation.

 

This answer, one stemming more from human psychology, I think, convinced my brother not to cohabitate versus an answer that contained Bible verses.

 

Granted, this is slightly off-topic since the OP asked about what the Bible had to say. However, this nuance might come in handy for the OP anyway. Is her sister likely to be swayed by a religious argument or not?

 

[Disclaimer: I do not think this is the outcome for all relationships, just most relationships that are not between two mature and wise people.]

[cathmom]

I'll admit upfront that I have not read all 10 pages yet, so I may have missed a reply similar to what I'm about to post, so bear with me. :)

 

I wonder if he means that a non-Biblical reason would be more convincing for those who are not Christian?

 

My brother discussed the issue of cohabitation prior to marriage with me. He had a long-term girlfriend (now wife :) ) who he was considering asking to move in with him. He is an atheist. When I told him the following concerns, he replied with, "Sis, I'm not religious."

 

Personally, I am not in favor of living together with someone prior to marriage (in most cases). This belief is not based on anything I learned from the Bible (I'm not particularly religious, though I've read the Bible). I think living with someone prior to marriage can fundamentally change the perception of the relationship, can possible damage it. Marriage is not something you "try out", so you can't practice it. If you're not sure you love someone enough and know someone enough to marry them, then "trying it out" isn't going to work. Doing so could alter how you view the stability and dedication of the relationship and any marriage that happens following cohabitation.

 

This answer, one stemming more from human psychology, I think, convinced my brother not to cohabitate versus an answer that contained Bible verses.

 

Granted, this is slightly off-topic since the OP asked about what the Bible had to say. However, this nuance might come in handy for the OP anyway. Is her sister likely to be swayed by a religious argument or not?

 

[Disclaimer: I do not think this is the outcome for all relationships, just most relationships that are not between two mature and wise people.]

 

I agree that there are many non-religious arguments for not living together. And I agree that people who are not Christian really have no reason to care what Christianity thinks. However, in the case of my sister, she is (or claims to be, however you want to look at it) Christian, and actually is the director of something with Christian in the title (intentional vagueness there :)). I was a bit surprised to hear her say that she didn't necessarily think premarital sex was a sin. I asked on here because I figured if there was an actual POV, somebody on here would hold it and argue it intelligently!

[Peek a Boo]

It's really not necessary to continue insulting me. I haven't claimed to be God or a holy man or a prophet. I am expressing my opinions and so are you. Therefore, using phrases like the bolded part above (bolded by you, for emphasis, not me), and continuing to insist how ignorant I am, is really not helpful.

 

It makes me angry and defensive, in fact, not receptive to your arguments.

 

 

The reason i bolded that part is simply because you continue to offer non-religious personal reasons on the topic and have offered No Christian Position as originally asked. That is a direct reflection of your motives as shown by your own words.

 

I have expressed opinions in this thread only in the light of what scripture clearly says. You haven't. You may feel well-studied in scripture, but your posts have not reflected that when it comes to Basic Christian Doctrine. If you don't want to be insulted or have your intellect questioned, then you might want to reconsider what you post. I'd be pretty angry and defensive if i had posted an amazing amount of misrepresented and incorrect information about the Torah in a Jewish thread, so i can understand that feeling.

 

If you would like to address the basic questions about Christianity and scripture so we can continue the discussion from a solid framework, that would be great. But as long as you continue to ignore what Christ has said and done, your posts have little relevance or credibility in this particular thread.

[Peek a Boo]

I wonder if he means that a non-Biblical reason would be more convincing for those who are not Christian?

 

 

His posts would be absolutely relevant if the topic of the thread had been about ANY stance on Premarital sex. The topic was specifically about *Christian* positions about sex outside of marriage. :)

[elw_miller]

However, in the case of my sister, she is (or claims to be, however you want to look at it) Christian, and actually is the director of something with Christian in the title (intentional vagueness there :)). I was a bit surprised to hear her say that she didn't necessarily think premarital sex was a sin. I asked on here because I figured if there was an actual POV, somebody on here would hold it and argue it intelligently!

 

Well, this has been a fascinating discussion. If your sister isn't swayed by all the good Biblical arguments, I hope something will. Someone in authority having that perspective, I fear, could give young kids license to have premarital s*x. Their hearts and minds are not ready, I don't think, for such a deeply emotional act.

 

Did she say why she didn't necessarily think it was a sin?

[Peek a Boo]

If your sister isn't swayed by all the good Biblical arguments, I hope something will. Someone in authority having that perspective, I fear, could give young kids license to have premarital s*x.

 

gotta agree. I'd probably bring that up to a supervisor. It's easy enough for it to be examined w/o it ever becoming a you vs her thing, i mean, sheesh, discussions about premarital sex in the Christian community are a dime a dozen! ;)

[Jill- OK]

I know I must (still!) be missing something here, because it seems (from my position as a really ignorant outsider) as if you're trying to have it both ways... or perhaps I am (once again) getting confused because there are such different approaches within Protestant Xtianity and I'm mixing and matching stuff that doesn't go together.... :confused:

 

...may be picking and choosing from "Old Testament" laws, about what to observe and what to disregard, but others are following the older admonitions that are repeated in the New Testament, if that makes sense.

[Jill- OK]

And I'm saying that proscribing premarital sex is not Christian. It's from the Old Testament. Can I state that one more time? The teachings of the Old Testament place great emphasis on maintaining a woman's virtue. The NT is less concerned about that.

 

...are you saying that the NT doesn't say, "Abstain from fornication"?

 

Just wanted to clarify.