Christian question I can't ask people I know

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

This is something I have often wondered, but I can't ask anyone I know without hurting their feelings. I'm not judging, but I am curious how practicing Christian justify having...teA...with someone they are not married to. I like to think I know my Bible pretty well, but is there something in there that lets some people think it's okay? Because I was strictly brought up to believe that it's a sin. (Which may or may not be labeled as such in the Bible.)

 

You can PM me if you want, but there were other Christianity questions being asked, so it seemed like a good time.

[milovany]

I can tell you that I was on an Orthodox discussion board once, and there was a guy who called himself a Christian making the case that, according to the Bible, TeA outside of marriage is okay, even desirable (on God's part). So apparently it's one of those areas where you could "prove" your argument (whichever side your argument falls on) biblically. However, it's been the tradition/teaching of the church from the beginning that TeA is something only male/female married couples should "drink."

Edited September 12, 2011 by milovaný

[Jean in Newcastle]

I have never ever heard anyone who was a Christian call s*x outside of marriage anything other than a sin. Even Christians who I know have s*x out of marriage still acknowledge that it is a sin - they just want to do it anyway.

[Ewe Mama]

I have never ever heard anyone who was a Christian call s*x outside of marriage anything other than a sin. Even Christians who I know have s*x out of marriage still acknowledge that it is a sin - they just want to do it anyway.

 

 

:iagree:

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

I have never ever heard anyone who was a Christian call s*x outside of marriage anything other than a sin. Even Christians who I know have s*x out of marriage still acknowledge that it is a sin - they just want to do it anyway.

 

And I can't understand that. I know having the Holy Spirit doesn't keep us from sinning, and doesn't even keep us from sometimes desiring to sin, but believing those actions are a sin, and continue doing it...how do they reconcile that?

[8circles]

And I can't understand that. I know having the Holy Spirit doesn't keep us from sinning, and doesn't even keep us from sometimes desiring to sin, but believing those actions are a sin, and continue doing it...how do they reconcile that?

 

Do you not do anything sinful that you acknowledge as sin? You never are successfully tempted?

[Parrothead]

And I can't understand that. I know having the Holy Spirit doesn't keep us from sinning, and doesn't even keep us from sometimes desiring to sin, but believing those actions are a sin, and continue doing it...how do they reconcile that?

Free will. We are fallen as a whole and as individuals.

 

From a Catholic perspective this is why Jesus instituted the sacrament of reconciliation.

[milovany]

And I can't understand that. I know having the Holy Spirit doesn't keep us from sinning, and doesn't even keep us from sometimes desiring to sin, but believing those actions are a sin, and continue doing it...how do they reconcile that?

 

The same way I "reconcile" having a fourth donut when three was too many, or using my cell phone while driving even though it's against the law in my state. Because I want to. Lord have mercy on us all. And I agree with Chucki, the sacrament of confession/repentance is the tool the Lord gave his Church to battle these issues. When I was not in a sacramental church, it was much easier to continue sinning by choice. No one was "checking" me. Now that I am confessing my sins out loud to another person, I see change happening very much.

[Jmac]

All the Christians I know believe that adultery is a sin (which that would be classified as). But different Christians at different times, as imperfect sinners, justify many different sins like homosexuality, greed and gluttony. If something feels good, we want to believe that it IS good. That doesn't make it not a sin.

[Jean in Newcastle]

And I can't understand that. I know having the Holy Spirit doesn't keep us from sinning, and doesn't even keep us from sometimes desiring to sin, but believing those actions are a sin, and continue doing it...how do they reconcile that?

 

I think the Bible talks about this in the context of a seared conscience. At first a person might feel guilty, but as they continue to ignore the prompting and conviction of the Holy Spirit, their conscience no longer functions in that area.

[Ipsey]

This is something I have often wondered, but I can't ask anyone I know without hurting their feelings. I'm not judging, but I am curious how practicing Christian justify having...teA...with someone they are not married to. I like to think I know my Bible pretty well, but is there something in there that lets some people think it's okay? Because I was strictly brought up to believe that it's a sin. (Which may or may not be labeled as such in the Bible.)

 

You can PM me if you want, but there were other Christianity questions being asked, so it seemed like a good time.

 

In some Christian cultures, couples could come together, set up home, have sex, start families before the marriage. If a minister could come only several times a year, they were basically assumed married, took on all manner of marital activity, but then eventually, the actual religious magic got there.

 

It wasn't considered sin by the community. . . it was a perfectly Christian thing to do. . . .

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

Thank you all for answering. I have a person in my life who is very dear to me who has lived this kind of lifestyle and I can't risk asking her these questions.

[TheReader]

And I can't understand that. I know having the Holy Spirit doesn't keep us from sinning, and doesn't even keep us from sometimes desiring to sin, but believing those actions are a sin, and continue doing it...how do they reconcile that?

 

Do you not do anything sinful that you acknowledge as sin? You never are successfully tempted?

 

Because it's an especially tempting sin....?

 

If you want a somewhat logical discussion, though I hate to use that word having not taken any course in logic....

 

classify the unmarried couples.

 

(note: I'll celebrate my 14th wedding anniversary in mid October. My oldest son will turn 14 in late September.)

 

Teens too young to marry. Raging hormones. "I know better than my parents, my church, my pastor; what makes this the line and not that? Where is the line? Is kissing okay? What about this next step...? And this.....? And this......?" and then, well, tea is brewed and then it's hard to go backwards.

 

Young adults dating but not married yet. See above.

 

Older adults who are between marriages, or divorced & dating, or widowed and dating, or whatever. maybe they think that "those rules" apply to young kids, not grown adults able to make wise decisions. And the whole "who wants to go backwards" thing. Like I said, it's an especially tempting temptation, ya know?

 

People in committed relationships who for whatever reason don't actually want to marry. Ummm, could we honestly expect a lifetime of no tea just because they don't wish to marry? Not saying it's not a sin, just saying.....it would never dawn on me to expect abstinence from a committed adult couple.

 

And then because most people, some people, can rationalize it as being "a rule for hormonal teens" and thus not applying to them.

 

And because there is debate over what exactly sexual immorality means. The debauchery in Bible times wasn't just committed couples having tea with one another. It was multiple partner types of sharing parties and I haven't studied in depth to know exactly what all else, but I do know there's enough debate on the topic so that not everyone who reads the verses on sexual immorality agrees with what exactly they mean.

 

But mostly, why do any of us do anything we know is sin? Lie? Eat too much at Thanksgiving? every year, over and over again? Gossip about our neighbor? Or, umm, "share a prayer request...." about a neighbor? yell at our kids in anger? Count the ways we're better than Jane Doe and pat ourselves on the back, puffed up with pride, because at least we don't (fill in the blank)?

 

We sin because we're human. And, ya know, tea's a pretty appealing thing, and emotional on top of that, which tends to get people thinking by feeling rather than intellect and logic and suddenly what was clear is cloudy and then what was cloudy is clear, but the other way 'round.

 

ETA: Umm, I answered from the point of view of tea before marriage; I was not thinking along the lines of a married person having tea with someone not his/her spouse. To explain that one, I'd go with Kirch's explanation.....

Edited September 12, 2011 by TheReader

[SorrelZG]

The presence of the Holy Spirit causes one to be grieved by their own sin and hungering and thirsting after righteousness. Anyone who does not feel this grief or hungering and thirsting but delights in sin, preferring it to holiness, has no basis upon which to call themselves a disciple of Christ. You can't claim fellowship with Christ while delighting in the things that He went to the cross for. Ultimately it is a matter of the heart - all sin: Christ's disciples hate that fact and are pursuing righteousness and continued sanctification; those that take Christ's name up vainly in false profession enjoy their sin and excuse it.

[Kirch]

I think the Bible talks about this in the context of a seared conscience. At first a person might feel guilty, but as they continue to ignore the prompting and conviction of the Holy Spirit, their conscience no longer functions in that area.

 

:iagree: It's a slippery slope. I don't think any Christian goes out and says, "Hmm . . . I think I'll go cheat on my spouse today!" But as she gives in to "little" things--flirting with a coworker, then spending time with him, sharing inappropriately intimate things . . . little by little, one small compromise at a time, she follows the path until either she is so entrenched that she can justify it to herself (the "seared conscience" Jean mentioned) or she feels there's no way out and she's stuck. It's the same way with any sin that we find ourselves stuck in.

[5KidzRUs]

In some Christian cultures, couples could come together, set up home, have sex, start families before the marriage. If a minister could come only several times a year, they were basically assumed married, took on all manner of marital activity, but then eventually, the actual religious magic got there.

 

It wasn't considered sin by the community. . . it was a perfectly Christian thing to do. . . .

 

I have thought about this but have never researched it. Is sex a sin "outside marriage" if the (Christian) couple took vow together between them and God?

Are there scriptures that say it need to be paid, logged and registered with the government?

[2_girls_mommy]

In some Christian cultures, couples could come together, set up home, have sex, start families before the marriage. If a minister could come only several times a year, they were basically assumed married, took on all manner of marital activity, but then eventually, the actual religious magic got there.

 

It wasn't considered sin by the community. . . it was a perfectly Christian thing to do. . . .

 

I remember reading about this when I studied the middle ages. I was surprised by it, but it made sense once I thought about it.

[TheReader]

:iagree: It's a slippery slope. I don't think any Christian goes out and says, "Hmm . . . I think I'll go cheat on my spouse today!" But as she gives in to "little" things--flirting with a coworker, then spending time with him, sharing inappropriately intimate things . . . little by little, one small compromise at a time, she follows the path until either she is so entrenched that she can justify it to herself (the "seared conscience" Jean mentioned) or she feels there's no way out and she's stuck. It's the same way with any sin that we find ourselves stuck in.

 

:iagree:

 

disregard my first response, where I thought the OP was asking about general tea before marriage or between two unmarried people.

 

I'm gathering now that she meant tea between people married but not to each other.....

[TheReader]

I have thought about this but have never researched it. Is sex a sin "outside marriage" if the (Christian) couple took vow together between them and God?

Are there scriptures that say it need to be paid, logged and registered with the government?

 

I don't know the Bible answer, but it's certainly one of the ways dh & I justified it when we were college students.....

[Georgiana Daniels]

I think the Bible talks about this in the context of a seared conscience. At first a person might feel guilty, but as they continue to ignore the prompting and conviction of the Holy Spirit, their conscience no longer functions in that area.

 

:iagree:

 

 

I think the same goes for all sin, not just the ones that are obvious to outside observers.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I remember reading about this when I studied the middle ages. I was surprised by it, but it made sense once I thought about it.

 

In a way, it does make sense for the context of the day, but looking at it that way, we could almost justify any sin by the context. Interesting to think about, though!

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

:iagree:

 

disregard my first response, where I thought the OP was asking about general tea before marriage or between two unmarried people.

 

I'm gathering now that she meant tea between people married but not to each other.....

 

Nope, you were correct the first time.

[TheReader]

Nope, you were correct the first time.

 

ah, okay. Well, hopefully my response was helpful. If you want more...frank..discussion, as a BTDT, I'd be open to answering a PM if you like.

[angela in ohio]

Do you not do anything sinful that you acknowledge as sin? You never are successfully tempted?

 

The very worst sin is the one we are personally not tempted by. ;)

[Denise in Florida]

I will explain my take on this. This is a place I have come to after prayer and study but I cite no authority.

 

The Bible contains social restrictions (wisdom literature) and commandments regarding the convent with God.

 

Social laws might be things like leaving gleanings in your field for the poor, marrying your late brothers wife, and women not preaching in church. These have become open to a great deal of debate. (to say the least :001_smile:)

 

This is where I believe pre-marital sex falls. It is not a good idea, or good for the society as a whole, but it is not breaking a convenant relationship.

 

Adultery (extra-marital sex) is part of covenant type law. You are breaking a vow, it harms not just you but your spouse as well and your children. It is also breaking a promise made before God.

 

Therefore, I do not equate pre-marital sex (a breaking of a social requirement) with adultery (sin).

 

I do not adovacte promiscuous sex I don't think it is emotionally or physically healthy. But if pressed, I would say you are better off sowing your wild oats first before you make any promises.

 

This could be taken further to say it would be preferable to have long term non married sequential relationships with two or three men than to marry and divorce two or three men. This is where the logic breaks down and I have to shelve my idea and go back to the beginning. :glare:

 

No one has to agree with me, I welcome debate. Please keep it nice though and remember that I do identify as a Christian, I do study my Bible, I do care about my society. It just isn't as clear cut to me as it seems to others.

 

Thanks

[lionfamily1999]

Denise in Florida, would you consider pre-marital sex sexual immorality?

[Denise in Florida]

The very worst sin is the one we are personally not tempted by. ;)

 

I love this. This should be on a t-shirt. Okay, I have said that twice today already, maybe I need to open a t-shirt shop.

[5KidzRUs]

I will explain my take on this. This is a place I have come to after prayer and study but I cite no authority.

 

The Bible contains social restrictions (wisdom literature) and commandments regarding the convent with God.

 

Social laws might be things like leaving gleanings in your field for the poor, marrying your late brothers wife, and women not preaching in church. These have become open to a great deal of debate. (to say the least :001_smile:)

 

This is where I believe pre-marital sex falls. It is not a good idea, or good for the society as a whole, but it is not breaking a convenant relationship.

 

Adultery (extra-marital sex) is part of covenant type law. You are breaking a vow, it harms not just you but your spouse as well and your children. It is also breaking a promise made before God.

 

Therefore, I do not equate pre-marital sex (a breaking of a social requirement) with adultery (sin).

 

I do not adovacte promiscuous sex I don't think it is emotionally or physically healthy. But if pressed, I would say you are better off sowing your wild oats first before you make any promises.

 

This could be taken further to say it would be preferable to have long term non married sequential relationships with two or three men than to marry and divorce two or three men. This is where the logic breaks down and I have to shelve my idea and go back to the beginning. :glare:

 

No one has to agree with me, I welcome debate. Please keep it nice though and remember that I do identify as a Christian, I do study my Bible, I do care about my society. It just isn't as clear cut to me as it seems to others.

 

Thanks

 

:iagree: with you though I never went that route.

[Denise in Florida]

All the Christians I know believe that adultery is a sin (which that would be classified as). But different Christians at different times, as imperfect sinners, justify many different sins like homosexuality, greed and gluttony. If something feels good, we want to believe that it IS good. That doesn't make it not a sin.

 

I read the OP's post to be about pre-marital sex. Pre-marital sex is not adultery. If OP is discussing extra-marital sex that is different.

[JoyfulMama]

I keep trying to think of a response, and everything that I want to say would get my post deleted. :glare:

 

I have asked this to someone I am close to, and well, it didn't go over well. I didn't figure it would, either.

 

So instead I'll just say, "Because they want to."

[lionfamily1999]

I will explain my take on this. This is a place I have come to after prayer and study but I cite no authority.

 

The Bible contains social restrictions (wisdom literature) and commandments regarding the convent with God.

 

Social laws might be things like leaving gleanings in your field for the poor, marrying your late brothers wife, and women not preaching in church. These have become open to a great deal of debate. (to say the least :001_smile:)

 

This is where I believe pre-marital sex falls. It is not a good idea, or good for the society as a whole, but it is not breaking a convenant relationship.

 

Adultery (extra-marital sex) is part of covenant type law. You are breaking a vow, it harms not just you but your spouse as well and your children. It is also breaking a promise made before God.

 

Therefore, I do not equate pre-marital sex (a breaking of a social requirement) with adultery (sin).

 

I do not adovacte promiscuous sex I don't think it is emotionally or physically healthy. But if pressed, I would say you are better off sowing your wild oats first before you make any promises.

 

This could be taken further to say it would be preferable to have long term non married sequential relationships with two or three men than to marry and divorce two or three men. This is where the logic breaks down and I have to shelve my idea and go back to the beginning. :glare:

 

No one has to agree with me, I welcome debate. Please keep it nice though and remember that I do identify as a Christian, I do study my Bible, I do care about my society. It just isn't as clear cut to me as it seems to others.

 

Thanks

 

Denise in Florida, would you consider pre-marital sex sexual immorality?

:lol: I think I got lost in the mix ;)

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

I read the OP's post to be about pre-marital sex. Pre-marital sex is not adultery. If OP is discussing extra-marital sex that is different.

 

Nope, not asking about extra-marital sex. Those people I feel free in judging :glare:

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

I keep trying to think of a response, and everything that I want to say would get my post deleted. :glare:

 

I have asked this to someone I am close to, and well, it didn't go over well. I didn't figure it would, either.

 

So instead I'll just say, "Because they want to."

 

This is what I am afraid of as well. I've already had to many riffs with this person, I don't want more :sad:

[Denise in Florida]

:lol: I think I got lost in the mix ;)

 

I understand that. :lol:

 

As for sexual immorality, I am not sure. It is sexually and socially unwise but I think the moral component comes into play when you are breaking a covenant or promise.

 

Oddly I have I very high standard for keeping a covenant I think emotional adultery (flirting with co-workers, betraying a spouse's confidentially to outsiders) is the moral equivalent of sexual adultery. Just like Jesus said anger was the moral equivalent of murder.

[lionfamily1999]

This is what I am afraid of as well. I've already had to many riffs with this person, I don't want more :sad:

:grouphug:

[Denise in Florida]

Nope, not asking about extra-marital sex. Those people I feel free in judging :glare:

 

I firmly believe extra-marital sex is a sin.

 

I said this below in another post but, in the case of adultery it is not just actual sex that matters. Emotional adultery: treating another woman better than your wife, asking for her opinions instead of your wifes, betraying your husband's confidences, flirting/dating-everything-but-sex, is every bit as immoral as sexual adultery.

 

This breaks the convenant even if no nudity ever gets involved. :glare:

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

I firmly believe extra-marital sex is a sin.

 

I said this below in another post but, in the case of adultery it is not just actual sex that matters. Emotional adultery: treating another woman better than your wife, asking for her opinions instead of your wifes, betraying your husband's confidences, flirting/dating-everything-but-sex, is every bit as immoral as sexual adultery.

 

This breaks the convenant even if no nudity ever gets involved. :glare:

 

I agree completely. I believe this also applies to people who are separated, but not officially divorced. Which is also a subject I can not bring up with...people I know.

[Cricket]

I will explain my take on this. This is a place I have come to after prayer and study but I cite no authority.

 

The Bible contains social restrictions (wisdom literature) and commandments regarding the convent with God.

 

Social laws might be things like leaving gleanings in your field for the poor, marrying your late brothers wife, and women not preaching in church. These have become open to a great deal of debate. (to say the least :001_smile:)

 

This is where I believe pre-marital sex falls. It is not a good idea, or good for the society as a whole, but it is not breaking a convenant relationship.

 

Adultery (extra-marital sex) is part of covenant type law. You are breaking a vow, it harms not just you but your spouse as well and your children. It is also breaking a promise made before God.

 

Therefore, I do not equate pre-marital sex (a breaking of a social requirement) with adultery (sin).

 

I do not adovacte promiscuous sex I don't think it is emotionally or physically healthy. But if pressed, I would say you are better off sowing your wild oats first before you make any promises.

 

This could be taken further to say it would be preferable to have long term non married sequential relationships with two or three men than to marry and divorce two or three men. This is where the logic breaks down and I have to shelve my idea and go back to the beginning. :glare:

 

No one has to agree with me, I welcome debate. Please keep it nice though and remember that I do identify as a Christian, I do study my Bible, I do care about my society. It just isn't as clear cut to me as it seems to others.

 

Thanks

 

In the RC tradition, hasn't the teaching been that the very sex act is what consummates the marriage? Isn't that the basis for an annulment, if consummation does not take place? I believe part of the traditional church teachings about sex is that the act itself is the forming of a covenant between two people; so by engaging in premarital sex you are in actuality "marrying" and "divorcing" many people. I need to read more on the subject but that was always my understanding.

 

This sort of goes along with the pp that talked about people living together before having a ceremony because clergy was not available. In that society, I believe a couple didn't just move in with a boyfriend, they were truly married in their minds and actions and society treated them as such.

[2_girls_mommy]

That is how I was reading it when I was studying the middle ages. The "marriage" was consummated before the priest made it official. But it would still require an anullment if the priest never made it before one could marry someone else. The consummation was the marriage and vows between christians and God.

 

I do believe some still feel this way. Although priests are readily available now in most places :)

[lionfamily1999]

I understand that. :lol:

 

As for sexual immorality, I am not sure. It is sexually and socially unwise but I think the moral component comes into play when you are breaking a covenant or promise.

 

Oddly I have I very high standard for keeping a covenant I think emotional adultery (flirting with co-workers, betraying a spouse's confidentially to outsiders) is the moral equivalent of sexual adultery. Just like Jesus said anger was the moral equivalent of murder.

What about prostitution? What covenant or promise is the prostitute breaking?

[lionfamily1999]

I agree completely. I believe this also applies to people who are separated, but not officially divorced. Which is also a subject I can not bring up with...people I know.

Even after the divorce...

[Denise in Florida]

In the RC tradition, hasn't the teaching been that the very sex act is what consummates the marriage? Isn't that the basis for an annulment, if consummation does not take place? I believe part of the traditional church teachings about sex is that the act itself is the forming of a covenant between two people; so by engaging in premarital sex you are in actuality "marrying" and "divorcing" many people. I need to read more on the subject but that was always my understanding.

 

This sort of goes along with the pp that talked about people living together before having a ceremony because clergy was not available. In that society, I believe a couple didn't just move in with a boyfriend, they were truly married in their minds and actions and society treated them as such.

 

That is not my understanding but I have not studied the RC position on this.

 

It does not seem immediately apparent that sex = marriage to me. Abraham was not married to Sarah's servant was he? (actual question not sarcasm). Also we hear that Solomon had many wives and many concubines. What was the differentiating factor between wives and concubines if he presumably had sex with both? (again actual question, not being argumentative).

 

I would love a better understanding of the RC view, do you have a link?

[Jean in Newcastle]

In the RC tradition, hasn't the teaching been that the very sex act is what consummates the marriage? Isn't that the basis for an annulment, if consummation does not take place? I believe part of the traditional church teachings about sex is that the act itself is the forming of a covenant between two people; so by engaging in premarital sex you are in actuality "marrying" and "divorcing" many people. I need to read more on the subject but that was always my understanding.

 

This sort of goes along with the pp that talked about people living together before having a ceremony because clergy was not available. In that society, I believe a couple didn't just move in with a boyfriend, they were truly married in their minds and actions and society treated them as such.

 

This I would agree with.

[Denise in Florida]

What about prostitution? What covenant or promise is the prostitute breaking?

 

none. She is breaking the civil law, she is also generally seen as behaving is a socially destructive and physically risky way.

 

edit: if you are talking about prostitution in Biblical times, she is breaking a social more and the civil penalty would be death.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Denise in Florida

[lionfamily1999]

That is not my understanding but I have not studied the RC position on this.

 

It does not seem immediately apparent that sex = marriage to me. Abraham was not married to Sarah's servant was he? (actual question not sarcasm). Also we hear that Solomon had many wives and many concubines. What was the differentiating factor between wives and concubines if he presumably had sex with both? (again actual question, not being argumentative).

 

I would love a better understanding of the RC view, do you have a link?

I'm not RC, I am a member of a Baptist church, but I have a few answers to your other questions :D.

 

In Romans (6:16) Paul says, "Do 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.'" He's referencing Gen 2:24, "For this reason a man wil leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." So, Paul says that 'uniting' with a prostitute means you're one flesh with them and that's what Christians tend to consider marraige.

 

Gen 16 (that's the part with Hagar) 3, "So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife."

[angela in ohio]

I love this. This should be on a t-shirt. Okay, I have said that twice today already, maybe I need to open a t-shirt shop.

 

I'd be the first to buy it. I know that I have to remind myself of this ALL the time. Why on earth would someone view pornography? Because they are tempted by it the way I am tempted by chocolate cake. The time I would really like the t-shirt is when a man who struggles with a porn addiction is going on judging an unwed mother or an overweight woman (gee, did that sound too specific? ;))

 

Sorry, only tangentially related to the OP.

 

(I am in no way saying sin is okay; I am saying that I am a wretched sinner.)

[lionfamily1999]

none. She is breaking the civil law, she is also generally seen as behaving is a socially destructive and physically risky way.

 

edit: if you are talking about prostitution in Biblical times, she is breaking a social more and the civil penalty would be death.

I'm sorry Denise, I post and then see that you've posted :p Prostitution is listed with sexual immorality, that is considered sexual immorality. I thought you knew that, this is not coming out with the tone it's meant for... what I mean is that I thought you knew prostitution is listed with sexual immorality and so you knew something I didn't (how it differed from pre-marital sex while going along with adultery). This was not meant to be a question so I could 'prove' you wrong, iykwIm.

 

Irk.

 

Does any of that make sense? I didn't expect your answer to be what it was, rather I expected to learn something new... if that makes sense.

[Denise in Florida]

I'm sorry Denise, I post and then see that you've posted :p Prostitution is listed with sexual immorality, that is considered sexual immorality. I thought you knew that, this is not coming out with the tone it's meant for... what I mean is that I thought you knew prostitution is listed with sexual immorality and so you knew something I didn't (how it differed from pre-marital sex while going along with adultery). This was not meant to be a question so I could 'prove' you wrong, iykwIm.

 

Irk.

 

Does any of that make sense? I didn't expect your answer to be what it was, rather I expected to learn something new... if that makes sense.

 

:001_smile: I know what you mean. I appreciate the discussion because I know my thoughts aren't a perfect understanding.

 

Promiscous sex, prostitution etc are not good, I am not in favor of them. :lol: They damage society and individuals. We are clearly given societal requirements (wisdom literature) not to behave that way. This goes back to the original ponderings I had about the difference between wisdom literature and convenant law. Prostitution and pre-marital sex are not okay but they aren't the equivalent of adultery.

 

We are commanded to 'not commit adultery'.

 

The Biblical punishment for prostitution of stoning was more a civil law than a religious commandment.

 

Pokes holes in this at will. I appreciate bouncing these ideas off women who I know are actual 'thinkers' not just those who parrot what someone has told them. That is why I enjoy hanging around this board even though my homeschooling years are almost over.

[Denise in Florida]

I'm not RC, I am a member of a Baptist church, but I have a few answers to your other questions :D.

 

In Romans (6:16) Paul says, "Do 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.'" He's referencing Gen 2:24, "For this reason a man wil leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." So, Paul says that 'uniting' with a prostitute means you're one flesh with them and that's what Christians tend to consider marraige.

 

Gen 16 (that's the part with Hagar) 3, "So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife."

 

Thank you for the response. This discussion is really helping me refine my thoughts.

 

1) thank you for the reminder about Hagar. Didn't she also remain a servant? she wasn't elevated in status was she? And what about the concubime/wife thing? This is a list for me to ponder, but if you have thoughts I would gladly hear them.

 

2) I have always taken Paul's words to be a warning against casual sex. Sort of an early version of 'you are sleeping with everyone your partner has ever slept with' thing. I took this as part of the wisdom literature about casual sex being a harm to society, but had not read it as being a violation of a covenant taken before God.

 

I am still hoping to get a link to the RC viewpoint, but I obviously need to incorporate this into my thoughts.

 

Thank you again for providing specific references.

[tiffanieh]

Thank you all for answering. I have a person in my life who is very dear to me who has lived this kind of lifestyle and I can't risk asking her these questions.

 

I have not read all the replies right now, but if this is a DEAR FRIEND, why would you NOT ask her these questions? As a Christian we are to go to our brothers and sisters in Christ when they are struggling, even if they don't recognize it, and speak to them. Wouldn't you rush to your friend if she were burning on fire and throw water on her? The same applies to a friend that is living as an adulterer, sinner, etc. She is missing out of the blessings the Lord has to offer her, and the ultimate peace that she will only find when she is living her life according to the way God planned for us to live. If she is truly a Christian, then she cannot be feeling peace in her heart, and it will only be unsettling to her until she reconciles with it.

 

As her friend, it is your duty to beseech her with love.