What is the definition of Fornication in Christianity?

Zenad · Post by **Zenad** » Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:06 am

As it in the topic What is the definition of Fornication in Christianity?

Thanks...

OnceConvinced · Post by **OnceConvinced** » Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:03 am

My understanding was that it was any form of extra-marital sex.

Zenad · Post by **Zenad** » Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:27 pm

So, there is no fornication before marriage, is that what are you saying?

OnceConvinced · Post by **OnceConvinced** » Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:59 am

Sorry, my bad, I used the wrong word. Any form of sex that is not within marriage is consider fornication. So that would include pre-marital sex.

Zenad · Post by **Zenad** » Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:22 am

Thanks,

Can you show that in the Bible because, you know, most of the Christians, actually, have no commitment to this definition.

officer2002 · Post by **officer2002** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:56 pm

I can not think of a verse in the Bible that define's fornication.
My understanding is that fornication is any sex between two people who are not married(to anyone). Adultery is when one or both sex partners are married(but not to each other).

Slopeshoulder · Post by **Slopeshoulder** » Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:16 pm

The bible isn't a rulebook, and Christianity is more than the bible. It's also a 2000 year old history of theology, ethics, philosophy, art, etc., all of which is relevant.

But yes, traditionally fornication is any sex between unmarried people.

But today it raises an interesting question among those of us who believe that the frequent choice between early or bad marriages on the one hand vs. long term abstinance on the other is a stupid and unworkable choice. After all, we live longer, mature earlier, marry later, marry more than once rather often, women are self supporting and not chattel, and we have law and technology to address most of the complications that arise from our sexual lives. So we appropriate the basic concept, and see what was at stake in it, in order to apply to our own time, if possible and advisable.

A quick think suggests that the rules against fornication were to protect woman from unwanted pregnancies in an unmarried and therefore unprotected state, to protect property, and to sustain stable social order, and limit sex to circumstances when babies could be welcomed and cared for. Later, there were romantic victorian notions pertaining the the genitals as somehow emblematic of the sacred virute of the self, so purity became a value for some and Christianity embraced this. And remember, people used to get married at 12-13 and were dead by 35.

But revisited, it suggests that perhaps romantic love is a precondition for sex, or perhaps simply generalized love, respect for persons, subjectivity not objectivity, informed consent, mutuality, honesty, justice, soberness (if only for consent), non-compulsion, fairness, and responsibility. Maybe the absence of some or all of this is what defines fornication. In this light, being "married" is no longer the issue. but the concept is reappropriated for our times, carrying forward christian, jewish (and secular) ethical themes. And it rules out legendary roman, barbarian, serbian, darfurian, congolese, and frat style wench grabbing and taking with little consent and much drink and no responsibility or mutuality or regard.

So this approach to the traditional rule against fornication would steer a middle course between the extremes of opportunistic libertinism and abuse on the one hand and stale repression on the other, both of which undermine human flourishing.

Check out the book, Just Love, by Margeret Farley.