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

[Lovedtodeath]

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.

I completely disagree and, here is evidence that abstaining from premarital sex is indeed important in the NT:

 

Acts 15:28, 29 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”

 

1 Corinthians 6:9 9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God

Edited July 8, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Peek a Boo]

Okay, I know we've done this before, but I remain confused.

 

 

it's probably a similar confusion when Christians can plainly see Jesus in the OT and Jews *don't.* ;)

 

The Ten commandments tend to have a "special place" i think mostly cuz they are a nice, neat list that is almost fun to memorize. Charlton Heston helped, i think. But most Christians that delve into studying realize pretty quickly that they aren't any more special than the other laws. Like KingM mentioned, i tend to go for The Two that Jesus summed up and be content that everything is lumped under them.

 

but before i get into hijacking this thread too much, I'll see if i can't hunt down a site [other than the whole book of Hebrews] that has already explained the concept better than i could anyway. It'll at least save me a lot of typing. ;)

 

[and if anyone else wants to share a site or explanation, feel free!].

[Peek a Boo]

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

 

Just wanted to clarify.

 

the original question was whether the greek porneia included premarital sex, or focussed on the buying and selling of sex [porn]. So "fornication" would be possibly translated as "no buying/selling, but casual sex ok."

 

so we needed to either discuss porneia/fornication more deeply or look at other verses about sex. ;)

[bairnmama]

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.

 

I haven't finished reading the rest of the posts, but I just had to jump in when I read this. I agree that a sin is a sin is a sin.... There are not any that are more sinful than others, God hates them all. The question wasn't, "Is sex outside marriage more sinful than anything else?" It was, "Are there any Christian views where sex outside marriage would NOT be a sin?" I do believe we should get worked up about all those other things... lying and stealing on tax returns, bearing false witness when we gossip and slander, even going above the speed limit is a sin because the speed limit is a law that does not contradict the will of God and we are instructed to obey the laws of whatever land we reside in as long as they do not go against God's law. We as Christians are called to strive to become more like Christ everyday, not just stay away from the sins that we think are the worst.

 

But... saying that sex outside marriage is no more sinful than speeding or lying does not mean that the consequences of sex outside marriage are no more damaging than the consequences speeding. It's the far-reaching consequences that pre- or extra-marital sex have that get people so riled up and not the sinfulness part!

[Lovedtodeath]

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:

 

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.

 

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.

Joanne was free to divorce and remarry according to Jesus' words, Mathew 19:19 but still had to endure typical judgement and ostracism from Christians. I feel that women are often pressured to stay in abusive relationships, sometimes with disasterous consequences.

 

This is probably saying too much, but: Jesus reads hearts and is a compassionate judge. He fulfilled the law and Christians do not have a set of black and white laws to follow. They have principles and trained consciences. I cannot imagine the examiner of hearts judging a woman harshly for leaving an abusive relationship and expecting to be able to find happiness afterwards.

[Lovedtodeath]

KingM and Eliana: The Hebrew scriptures are: For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, --Romans 15:4 and All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,--2 Timothy 3:16

 

Referring to Hebrew scriptures helps us to train our conscience, glean aspects of God's personality, strengthen our faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah, and apply the principles behind the laws in our lives.

 

Dont fully harvest your fields = make provisions for the needy

 

and so on

Edited July 8, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

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

 

 

Matthew 22:36-38 If you love God you will stick to his original purpose for sex adn marriage. If you love your neighbor you will commit to them fully before asking them to give their body to you.

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 7:21 Not everyone saying to me Lord, Lord wiill enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my father who is in the heavens will. James 2:26 Faith without works is dead.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

 

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).

In addition, God told them to "be fruitfull and become many". IMO, He performed the wedding ceremony with those words. Also at Genesis 2:24 it relates Adam and Eves relationship to a man "sticking to" his wife.

[Lovedtodeath]

Porneia: Saint Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians by Wescott states: "This is a general term for all unlawful intercourse, Adultery, unlawful marriage, fornication the common sense as in Ephesians 5:3."

 

Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines porneia as "every kind of unlawful intercourse."

 

As it was unlawful to have sex before marriage in the Old Testament, I see no reason why we need to nitpick the meaning of the Greek term.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

I completely disagree and, here is evidence that abstaining from premarital sex is indeed important in the NT:

 

Acts 15:28, 29 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!â€

 

1 Corinthians 6:9 9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God

 

 

This takes me back to my original thought: What, exactly, is the meaning of the original Greek word that has been translated "fornication"? It is translated "sexual immorality" in the NIV, and other things in other versions. Is it possible that this word means something besides "pre-marital sex"? Something more base, more lewd than what happens in a monogamous, committed relationship?

[Suzanne in ABQ]

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

 

 

At first, this bolded phrase had me thinking you were saying there was only one God-created position that was okay. :001_huh:

 

But, after re-reading a few times, I think you're saying that we humans were created to have sex, as is evident in how our bodies are designed. If that's what you mean, then I can say that this makes sense to me. :001_smile:

[ThatCyndiGirl]

gotta agree. I'd probably bring that up to a supervisor.

(In reference to the OP's sister working for a ministry)

 

 

I can't imagine 'bringing up to a supervisor' what someone is doing in bed.

 

If it doesn't involve children,etc then OMG!!! NO!!

 

To me, this would fall into the category of NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

[Lovedtodeath]

Eliana, I have been reading up, you are correct. In the Hebrew scriptures, the man was required to marry the unengaged girl that he had relations with, or if her father refused to allow the marriage then the man was to pay her father the bride price anyway.

 

If I am understanding correctly, in the case of engaged couple, the act of taking her into his home and having sexual relations established a legal marriage.

 

So... the principle behind the laws here seems to be to not have s*x unless you are comitted relationship.

[KingM]

If you don't want to be insulted or have your intellect questioned, then you might want to reconsider what you post.

 

Let me get this straight. You are arguing that because you disagree with me, you have the right to add insults to your responses. How very Christian.

 

I don't think I've ever used the block feature on any forum before now. Goodbye.

[Erica in PA]

Wait a second--I went back and read this thread over, and can find nothing written by KingM that was rude, snarky, or insulting. He politely asked if you could "play nice" and gave reasons why he felt that way. Yet you have the gall to say he needs to reconsider what he posts or just accept to be insulted?? I don't think that's one of the board rules. Maybe I'm missing something, could you point out his impoliteness here, please?

 

I believe that some of his posts may have been deleted, or are buried somewhere. There were posts before where he most definitely did what Peek suggested.

 

CORRECTION: I was mistaken. Somehow I overlooked the posts in question when I looked for them. They were under Tami's posts in the thread. I would think that most people would be able to see how those posts would be considered insulting to Christians, and not appropriate for the OP's question.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Erica in PA

[angela in ohio]

(In reference to the OP's sister working for a ministry)

 

 

I can't imagine 'bringing up to a supervisor' what someone is doing in bed.

 

If it doesn't involve children,etc then OMG!!! NO!!

 

To me, this would fall into the category of NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

 

She wasn't suggesting discussing what she does in bed, but what she believes.

[Elizabeth Conley]

There were posts before where he most definitely did what Peek suggested.

 

Peek a Boo made a sensible point. KingM did insult his own intelligence and everyone else's with his careless "proof texting". I don't care who's doing it; anyone playing this game needs to be called on their deception or confusion, whichever it may be. At that point I was still giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

KingM's tantrum is interesting, because it contains an attempt to manipulate Peek a Boo into feeling ashamed for not being a "nice" Christian. He also pretends not to understand Peek a Boo's objection to his proof-texting, and his remark is designed to cloud the real issue in other minds as well. He lost the last of his credibility at that point.

 

KingM has brought a "win at all costs" attitude to this discussion. I have no sympathy for him, because I think he is attempting to manipulate and deceive for little more than idle sport. It's petty of him. If being called on it causes him to sulk, there's always hope that he'll sulk silently.

[KingM]

KingM has brought a "win at all costs" attitude to this discussion. I have no sympathy for him, because I think he is attempting to manipulate and deceive for little more than idle sport. It's petty of him. If being called on it causes him to sulk, there's always hope that he'll sulk silently.

 

I don't have a win at any costs attitude. I'm not even going for a victory, and I'll even concede without coercion that there is more than one way to look at the verses in question. The OP asked if there was any way you could justify pre-marital sex from a Christian perspective and I offered some thoughts on the Bible, as well as some historical examples of other Christians who interpreted "fornication" in a different way.

 

And to the other poster who said that my insulting posts might have been deleted, there weren't any. If there had been any, wouldn't there be a blank post of mine, with a "deleted by moderator" note?

 

I fully respect anyone's right to disagree with my posts, to argue with evidence, or even to say, "I feel" thus and such. But should I have to submit to personal attacks? That's not what you're arguing, is it?

[Elizabeth Conley]

"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'm telling you that when you set out to proof-text, you're going to get called on it. If you feel insulted when you're called on it, then go ahead and feel insulted. The pity-play will get you nowhere with me, but by all means pretend to be wounded.

 

I find your remarks subtly deceptive, and that offends me. It's been my observation that the subtly deceptive is more harmful than the boldly deceptive. For this reason, I see no reason to humor you further.

 

Play your manipulative games with someone else.

[Elizabeth Conley]

Peek a Boo,

 

I was edified yesterday by your reference to Malachi 2 yesterday. I read and studied the material you suggested. In doing so, I developed a greater appreciation for the marital relationship. I am a huge fan of Matthew Henry's, even as I recognize his Biblical scholarship is considered unsophisticated by many. His words with regard to this passage were heart warming, and gave me renewed appreciation for God's plan.

 

Thank you very much for directing me on such a profitable course of study.

 

Blessings,

 

Elizabeth

[Elizabeth Conley]

Dot,

 

If your sympathies are engaged, then by all means offer him whatever support you feel is justified. We must agree to disagree on this matter.

 

He text-proofed with a classic, Jesus' defense of the adulteress threatened with stoning. Yawn! We've all been there, done that and declined the T-shirt. Must we do it again? Today? Why?

 

I'm not going to play along. Someone with a better sense of humor and a lot more patience will have to be found.

[KingM]

Elizabeth,

 

Let me clarify my thoughts a little about the OP's original question. The way I read it, Jesus really doesn't have anything to say about fornication. The nearest seems to be the aforementioned verse on adultery, which is really not the same thing.

 

I'm not arguing that pre-marital sex is to be celebrated. In fact, as I pointed out, my wife and I were virgins when we got married, so I'm hardly against saving sexual relations for marriage.

 

What I am saying is that you can make a strong argument against elevating fornication above other sins. In fact, Jesus's main focus is on issues of social justice: feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, making sure the poor are not oppressed. It is the meek who will inherit the earth, not the sexually pure, the poor who will receive the kingdom of heaven, the peacemakers who will be called the sons of God.

 

Jesus also blesses those who hunger and seek after righteousness, but it is the hungering and seeking that is important, as everyone will fall short. For some people it is sexually, others may gossip, or have problems with dishonesty or any of a thousand other human shortcomings.

 

Jesus emulated the spirit of the beatitudes with his gentle response to the adulteress and to me, his focus is on the woman's accusers, not a condemnation of woman's sins.

 

And speaking of which, I'm aware of the irony of talking about Jesus shortly after losing my temper. Let me apologize for having done so.

[Peek a Boo]

Let me get this straight. You are arguing that because you disagree with me, you have the right to add insults to your responses. How very Christian.

oh yay --now we're at the snide "how very Christian" remarks. Again.

*yawn.*

part of being Christian is to put forth truth.

your comments place yourself above God's decrees.

your use of scripture is childishly inaccurate.

your previous posts about religion offer no reason to consider your opinion here credible.

 

I am arguing that your posts establishing that "I see no reason" seem to elevate you to above what GOD deems appropriate. You continued to put forth false information about what Christ has said and did, offer OT verses out of context, and even continued to ignore that there ARE NT provisions about sex and marriage. If pointing out that you are doing something arrogant, factually wrong, and appearing to be steeped in ignorance is insulting, then that's something that is on YOUR shoulders.

 

i don't need to ADD insults --you've done the job quite well on your own.

[Elizabeth Conley]

KingM,

 

No Worries.

 

You have outlined a great deal of common ground in this post. There is more to agree on than not, because we all celebrate Jesus and give greatest weight to His words and actions than any others.

 

Like you, I have come to the conclusion that God weighs sin far differently than we do. Good arguments can be made to support the idea there are no greater and lesser sins. Further, God is much like our parents, in that He would prefer we examine our own behavior more closely than that of others.

 

I have dust bunnies to chase and remedial language arts studies to supervise. It's time I logged off for the day.

 

Blessings,

 

Elizabeth

[Peek a Boo]

OK. Can you give an example of his "proof texting" ? I'm not seeing the deception, yet I certainly see insult in a reply to him that says something like "thanks, God". And again, I don't see how a difference of opinion can get a phrase like Peek's- "if you don't want to be insulted..." That's the point i was making.

 

he offered OT verses out of context. Offering verses out of context w/o consideration for the whole counsel of scripture is proof texting.

saying the NT speaks NOWHERE about premarital sex when it covers sex and marriage pretty clearly is proof texting [going for the specific omission of "casual sex not for sale" instead of considering the entire point.]

 

he's doing far worse than offering a "difference of opinion" -- he is deliberately putting forth incorrect FACTS about scripture. I don't think White Washed Hypocrites applies, but a few other key phrases certainly do.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[KarenNC]

I'm telling you that when you set out to proof-text, you're going to get called on it.

 

Could you clarify the difference between "proof-texting" (of which only KingM is accused) and "quoting" or "citing" individual verses, which has been done by many folks on this thread and which you applaud Peekaboo for doing? How much context is required before the citation is acceptable?

[Peek a Boo]

The OP asked if there was any way you could justify pre-marital sex from a Christian perspective and I offered some thoughts on the Bible,

 

yes, proof texts, from the OT, attempting to dismiss anything that is OT.

your thoughts also included incorrect statements that I have already pointed out about Christ, sex, and marriage.

 

as well as some historical examples of other Christians who interpreted "fornication" in a different way.

 

??? where??

And to the other poster who said that my insulting posts might have been deleted, there weren't any. If there had been any, wouldn't there be a blank post of mine, with a "deleted by moderator" note?

 

I haven't double checked your posts, but no --posters can edit their posts.

for that reason, many people will take screenshots of questionable posts or save "print this thread" copies.

[Peek a Boo]

Could you clarify the difference between "proof-texting" (of which only KingM is accused) and "quoting" or "citing" individual verses, which has been done by many folks on this thread and which you applaud Peekaboo for doing? How much context is required before the citation is acceptable?

 

Post 27 points out exactly what proof texting is: picking and choosing a few key things and not considering what the rest of scripture says. Most posters have already pointed out that from Genesis to Revelation there is a loooong history of seeing how God views sex and marriage. What i did was try to keep that in context, not find a few verses i think are completely wacko to discredit the Bible and justify picking and choosing what i like.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Melinda in VT]

I haven't double checked your posts, but no --posters can edit their posts.

for that reason, many people will take screenshots of questionable posts or save "print this thread" copies.

 

If you edit a post, it says so. Down in the bottom. Along with the date and time the post was edited.

 

So it's pretty easy to verify whether or not a post was edited.

[Peek a Boo]

Let me clarify my thoughts a little about the OP's original question. The way I read it, Jesus really doesn't have anything to say about fornication. The nearest seems to be the aforementioned verse on adultery, which is really not the same thing.

 

false. Jesus specifically mentions and affirms the "one flesh" idea tying marriage to sex.

 

In fact, Jesus's main focus is on issues of social justice: ......

 

FALSE. again, check the storyline: Jesus main focus is on calling people TO GOD. Even atheists can be great champions of social justice.

Jesus emulated the spirit of the beatitudes with his gentle response to the adulteress and to me, his focus is on the woman's accusers, not a condemnation of woman's sins.

 

FALSE. His focus is on both: He cares for the adultress so much that He tells her to Do No More. Christ ultimately does not focus only on one person or one group.

And speaking of which, I'm aware of the irony of talking about Jesus shortly after losing my temper. Let me apologize for having done so.

 

Even Christ became righteously angry. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

If you edit a post, it says so. Down in the bottom. Along with the date and time the post was edited.

 

So it's pretty easy to verify whether or not a post was edited.

 

yes, but it's not so easy to tell whether the post was edited for a spelling/grammatical error or to eliminate key information. That's on the honor system ;)

[Peek a Boo]

Peek a Boo,

 

I was edified yesterday by your reference to Malachi 2 yesterday.

 

Thank you very much for directing me on such a profitable course of study.

 

 

Thanks, but I have to give the credit to Tami for pointing it out--

 

and God. :D

 

I'm glad it was helpful to you!

[OnTheBrink]

In fact, Jesus's main focus is on issues of social justice: feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, making sure the poor are not oppressed.

 

No, no no. This is the Gospel According to Susan Sarandon. ;)

 

Jesus main concern and focus was people's souls. There are various scriptures on not worrying about what to eat or wear; God provides, focus on the condition of your soul. (massive summation and paraphrase, granted)

[Elizabeth Conley]

OK Karen, but then I really need to go.

 

Very few verses in the Bible stand alone. The majority of them must be taken against the vast tapestry of the entire work in order for their meaning to be clear. Peekaboo has a very good understanding of the Bible in its entirety, and so her understanding of verses is very accurate.

 

Now try not to be offended here. This is painful truth, but truth nonetheless. Proof texters, whether they're under-educated narcissistic church leaders or mis-educated victims of equally narcissistic academicians, simply don't understand the context of the Bible verses they quote. They tend to get upset when they're laughed at, so Christians try to be gentle. That being said, how patient with their intellectual laziness must we be? If their pride is pricked, will they go back and perform a more earnest study? We hope so.

 

To be fair, there are many subtle shades of meaning and layers of understanding offered in the Bible. It is for this reason that Christians can make it a lifelong study, and learn something each time they reflect on scripture. I can be grateful to Peek a Boo. Her suggested scripture reading was spot-on.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Elizabeth Conley

[emeraldjoy]

At first, this bolded phrase had me thinking you were saying there was only one God-created position that was okay. :001_huh:

 

But, after re-reading a few times, I think you're saying that we humans were created to have sex, as is evident in how our bodies are designed. If that's what you mean, then I can say that this makes sense to me. :001_smile:

 

Yes, you are exactly right. It is what I meant; after rereading I can see the confusion. I was specifically thinking of same sex relationships when I wrote that.

E

[Peek a Boo]

She wasn't suggesting discussing what she does in bed, but what she believes.

 

I thought that would seem pretty obvious, but thanks for clarifying it.

 

To clarify further: if someone claiming to be a Christin is placed in a position of authority then exhibits ideas that go directly against scripture, it is necessary for that person to be corrected lest they lead others astray. That is part of Christian accountability. A Christian that is corrected with scripture will respond in faith. Someone who continues to assert the incorrect information and reject scripture needs to be removed from that position of authority.

 

With the OPs situation, it would be easy enough to give the supervisor a heads up about the person's beliefs, and the supervisor could easily --EASILY!- direct any future conversations to explore the issue w/o ever letting on that he was told X. If she told the supervisor that she did NOT believe scripture allowed for premarital sex, then the supervisor would basically have to dismiss the OPs information until it was corroborated by someone else [unless it was in the form of a forwarded email, note, or recorded conversation].

[Peek a Boo]

Very few verses in the Bible stand alone. The majority of them must be taken against the vast tapestry of the entire work in order for their meaning to be clear. Peekaboo has a very good understanding of the Bible in its entirety, and so her understanding of verses is very accurate.

 

 

and even I can --and have been-- wrong.

[Elizabeth Conley]

and even I can --and have been-- wrong.

 

As have I.

[Cheryl in NM]

Joanne was free to divorce and remarry according to Jesus' words, Mathew 19:19 but still had to endure typical judgement and ostracism from Christians. I feel that women are often pressured to stay in abusive relationships, sometimes with disasterous consequences.

 

This is probably saying too much, but: Jesus reads hearts and is a compassionate judge. He fulfilled the law and Christians do not have a set of black and white laws to follow. They have principles and trained consciences. I cannot imagine the examiner of hearts judging a woman harshly for leaving an abusive relationship and expecting to be able to find happiness afterwards.

 

Mathew 19:19 Honour thy father and they mother; and Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself

 

I don't see permission to divorce in this passage. :001_huh: Can you please explain to me what you were thinking?:confused:

 

As to the OP's question:

If, as someone else posted earlier, "sexual immorality" is defined as fornication as well as adultery then 1 Corinthian 6:13-20 applies to this thread.

12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[b] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

 

Also, 1 Cor 7:1-3

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

 

and 1 Cor 7:8-9

8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

Talk about getting married to avoid temptation and sexual immorality, ie. sex outside of marriage.

[sagira]

Elizabeth,

 

What I am saying is that you can make a strong argument against elevating fornication above other sins. In fact, Jesus's main focus is on issues of social justice: feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, making sure the poor are not oppressed. It is the meek who will inherit the earth, not the sexually pure, the poor who will receive the kingdom of heaven, the peacemakers who will be called the sons of God.

 

:iagree:

 

And I'm a Catholic :)

 

KingM, I have found nothing insulting about your posts, but I have seen insulting and offensive remarks in return.

[Lovedtodeath]

Matthew 19:9 sorry

i was just looking for those scriptures in 1 corinthians, you made the point i was trying to make. KUDOS

 

Mathew 19:19 Honour thy father and they mother; and Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself

 

I don't see permission to divorce in this passage. :001_huh: Can you please explain to me what you were thinking?:confused:

 

As to the OP's question:

If, as someone else posted earlier, "sexual immorality" is defined as fornication as well as adultery then 1 Corinthian 6:13-20 applies to this thread.

12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[b] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

 

Also, 1 Cor 7:1-3

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

 

and 1 Cor 7:8-9

8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

Talk about getting married to avoid temptation and sexual immorality, ie. sex outside of marriage.

[KarenNC]

OK Karen, but then I really need to go.

 

Very few verses in the Bible stand alone. The majority of them must be taken against the vast tapestry of the entire work in order for their meaning to be clear. Peekaboo has a very good understanding of the Bible in its entirety, and so her understanding of verses is very accurate.

 

Now try not to be offended here. This is painful truth, but truth nonetheless. Proof texters, whether they're under-educated narcissistic church leaders or mis-educated victims of equally narcissistic academicians, simply don't understand the context of the Bible verses they quote. They tend to get upset when they're laughed at, so Christians try to be gentle. That being said, how patient with their intellectual laziness must we be? If their pride is pricked, will they go back and perform a more earnest study? We hope so.

 

To be fair, there are many subtle shades of meaning and layers of understanding offered in the Bible. It is for this reason that Christians can make it a lifelong study, and learn something each time they reflect on scripture. I can be grateful to Peek a Boo. Her suggested scripture reading was spot-on.

 

To reframe this, from the perspective of Eliana and her co-religioinists (as outlined in her post), most references to texts from the Hebrew Scriptures by Christians would be considered "proof-texting" because they do not take into account the entire context of the Torah (both written and oral). "How patient with their intellectual laziness" must others be? "If their pride is pricked, will they go back and perform a more earnest study?"

 

It all comes down to interpretation and whose authority to interpret one accepts, so KingM's response appears to me to be quite valid.

[Lovedtodeath]

To reframe this, from the perspective of Eliana and her co-religioinists (as outlined in her post), most references to texts from the Hebrew Scriptures by Christians would be considered "proof-texting" because they do not take into account the entire context of the Torah (both written and oral). "How patient with their intellectual laziness" must others be? "If their pride is pricked, will they go back and perform a more earnest study?"

 

It all comes down to interpretation and whose authority to interpret one accepts, so KingM's response appears to me to be quite valid.

 

We aren't picking bits out of the Torah and using them to tell Jews what to think or do, nor are we telling Eliana that her views on the matter are wrong. So what we are doing is very different than what KingM is doing.

[Lovedtodeath]

2 Peter 3:16: In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures...

[Dirtroad]

Smokes! I have read a bunch of the posts... I never knew this was a debate in the Christian or Jewish community. I am learning something new.

 

Paul tells us that if we can't control ourselves (lust/flesh) to get married. I am paraphrasing but that is the main jist of it. I need to find the verse to be a real "quote".

 

Wow.

[Jill- OK]

Smokes!

 

Paul tells us that if we can't control ourselves (lust/flesh) to get married. I am paraphrasing but that is the main jist of it. I need to find the verse to be a real "quote".

 

Wow.

 

I Cor. 7:9, I believe.

 

Dirtroad...can I ask what the picture in your avatar is? I always wonder when I see it...

[Karenciavo]

Smokes! I have read a bunch of the posts... I never knew this was a debate in the Christian or Jewish community. I am learning something new.

 

Paul tells us that if we can't control ourselves (lust/flesh) to get married. I am paraphrasing but that is the main jist of it. I need to find the verse to be a real "quote".

 

Wow.

 

I'm totally tracking your vibe Dirtroad

[KarenNC]

Paul tells us that if we can't control ourselves (lust/flesh) to get married. I am paraphrasing but that is the main jist of it. I need to find the verse to be a real "quote".

 

1 Corinthians 7 (New International Version---http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=7&version=31 is the entire chapter with footnotes so that you won't be accused of "prooftexting";))

Edited July 8, 2009 by KarenNC
originally included entire chapter, but decided that was tending to snarky

[Karenciavo]

Dirtroad...can I ask what the picture in your avatar is? I always wonder when I see it...

 

The new Masterpiece version of Jane Eyre.

[MamaT]

I'm totally tracking your vibe Dirtroad

 

Me too.