Premarital Sex

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Premarital Sex

Post #1

Post by Paradigm »

According to Matt 7:12 It's not only ok, it is required by law that you do to your girlfriend whatever naughty things you would have her do to you.

The Greek word "pornea" has been translated in the New Testement quite accurately as "sexual immorality.". Since it is inarguably moral to obey Jesus, and He commanded that you do to your girlfriend whatever naughty things you would have her do to you, injunctions against sexual immorality obviously do not amount to an injunction against premarital sex.

If your argument is that "sexual immorality" means "any sex outside of marriage" please cite the passage that defines it as such.

Question for debate: Does the Bible prohibit premarital sex?
Last edited by Paradigm on Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Post #21

Post by Paradigm »

The quote tree game is becoming unwieldy, so I shall try to address your main points instead of point for point rebuttal. If you feel I skipped over an important main point, let me know and I will try to address it.
Adultery is sex with a woman who is 'married' according to the Bible.
This is incorrect: See Matt 5:27-28. Adultery can be committed with no sex involved. moicheia refers to infidelity. Infidelity refers to betrayal, being disloyal, or breaking a covenant relationship. Idolatry is referred to as adultery many times throughout the Bible. (Jeremiah 3 is a fun example) Idolatry did not necessarily involve sex, but did involve betrayal, disloyalty, and breaking a sacred covenant with God.
Even if it mentions the word 'IS", my point is still valid. The Golden Rule is very general, but if you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings then you'd see that Jesus is presupposing a moral commandments of God.
Jesus says "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you."

You seem to be claiming that what Jesus really meant was "In everything, do what the 5 books of Moses say to do, except for the parts that have to do with ceremonial laws, cleanliness, dietary restrictions and anything else determined by the mainstream religious zeitgeist to fall outside the scope of "moral law."

This seems like an extraordinary leap to me. I like to think that Jesus generally said what He meant, and am very cautious about assuming that He meant something else.

"In everything" has a very straightforward meaning. Ir doesn't mean "in some things but not others" or "in most things with a few exceptions." It means that the Golden rule is applicable in every situation.

"Do to others as you would have them do to you" also has a straightforward meaning. It means that the things that you would have others do to you are the same things that you should do to others. To paraphrase, you should treat others in the way that you yourself want to be treated.

"for this is the Law and the Prophets" Also has a pretty straightforward meaning. The Law (the rules you should follow) and the Prophets (the will of God as imparted through prophecy) consists of doing to others as you would have them do to you.

If you think it means "do to others as commanded by the books of Moses, even if that isn't actually how you would want to be treated" then Jesus may as well have said "In everything, do to others as red firetruck ice cream muskrat."
So lets say even if you did have to pay only a bride price but for some reason you still don't get the girl, well having to pay the bride price is still a penalty. If premarital sex was morally right, why would someone have to pay a penalty for doing right? You'd say because of property damage (or ruining the girls virginity) but it would still be wrong to do, especially when it's done on purpose.
Sure, if you go around deliberately damaging other people's property, that isn't very cool. If you tell someone you will take care of their livestock, and then you neglect it, you should make restitution for the livestock that they lost because of your neglect.

My point was that women are no longer property, and so deflowering them does not rob anyone of wealth. No penalty is imposed aside from restitution to a girls owner. If the girl has no owner, there is no penalty. There is no penalty because there is no crime.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 wasn't about getting duped, the verse clearly mentions it's because the girl was PROMISCUOUS or a harlot.
"If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,� 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin." - Deut 22:13-15

The story here is clearly about a man who accuses the girls previous owners of delivering used goods and claiming they were new.

It doesn't make sense that a widow who remarries should have to provide proof of virginity, because she obviously is not a virgin, and if a man knows going into the relationship that she is no a virgin, there is no crime. He also doesn't pay a bride price to the widow's father if the widow is no longer the father's property.

Suppose a girl has sex with a man, the man offers to marry, but the father refuses. The man still has to pay the bride price to the father, but she remains unmarried. Are you claiming that by refusing to let her daughter marry, the father is sentencing her to death?

If another man knows ahead of time that she is not a virgin and still wishes to marry her, can he not do so?

Look at Exodus 22:17 again:

"If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins."

If there is a specific bride-price for virgins, it is implied hat there is also a different, (lower) bride price for non-virgins.
You mention for me to post an example so I'd say Leviticus 19:29 would apply to your request.
I would say i doesn't. I am not talking about sex for hire. I am talking about sex for intimacy with someone you care about but aren't married to.
Menstration would fall under the laws that have to do with clean and uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19 and Leviticus 12:2). Also, it seems that the laws on clean/unclean were also made for ceremonial purposes (Leviticus 5:2-6). So from the passages I mentioned in my comment you quoted me from, I'd say that Matthew 15:1-16 esp. vss. 16-20 deal with Jesus saying how cleanliness and uncleanliness don't apply today.
“Are you still so dull?� Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.�
Eating with unwashed hands is not the same as menstruating. Also, eating with unwashed hands has noting to do with OT law. Eating with unwashed hands was from the Talmud, not from Mosaic Law. Jesus wasn't saying that OT laws about cleanliness didn't apply, he said that Jewish traditions that never came from God to begin with didn't apply.
The only thing I can say about Jesus not following all of the laws is that some of the laws he considered unnecessary. Instead of sacrifices from priests, Jesus was our sacrifice and priest. I believe the logic for Jesus deeming SOME laws inapplicable has to do with a similar logic in the previous sentence. But what Jesus does not violate or say doesn't apply are the laws on sexuality, etc.
The conflicts with this:
Jesus was not a moral relativist since his message was not to sin and that the law was the knowledge of sin.
If the law is the knowledge of sin, then we know by the law that menstruation is a sin. We know by the law that wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing is a sin. We know by the law that gathering food on Saturdays is a sin.

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matt 5:18

If Jesus believed that some parts of the Pentateuch were unnecessary, it can only be that He did not consider them part of the Law. Perhaps they were bits that the lying pen of the scribes had rendered falsely.

In any event, just cause it was in Exodus doesn't make it part of the law. Jesus consistently corrected what the teachers of law were teaching. "You have heard it said X, but I tell you Y."

He has already established that He is not changing the law, he is telling people what the law ACTUALLY IS, because the scribes (the people who wrote down the 5 books of Moses) and the teachers o law, were butchering it.
Can you show me where and how God was involved with Absalom sleeping with David's concubines? There's clearly some figurative language at play here because God did not literally grab David's concubines and physically hand them over to Absalom especially if you read how that event took place. The passages in 2 Samuel 12 could just mean God allowing it to happen.
Ok, supposing you were right, which you aren't, but supposing you were. It still demonstrates sex outside of marriage that God was ok with. It was sex outside of marriage that God had told David He would make happen as a punishment for David's one and only sin.

Since God planned for it to happen, allowed it to happen, and explicitly made a point of taking credit for it happening, we can safely say that Go was ok with it.
I know what God is said to have said but if you continue reading you'd see that he did not follow through with what he said. Absalom slept with David's concubines based on advice from a man. There's no mention of God in that event or God causing it.
Ok, well if God said he was going to do something and then didn't follow through with it, that pretty much makes Him a big liar.

Seems to me that the intuitive reading of the passage is that God made it happen by hardening heart, manipulating events, etc...

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18094
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 661 times
Contact:

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #22

Post by JehovahsWitness »

#QUESTION Are sexual relationships with or without personal vows of exclusivity comparable to the Hebrew maritial arrangement for concubines?

No, essentially the only difference between a primary wife and a concubine was that with the concubline (usually a slave girl) no bride price was exchanged. Apart from this, the girl came under the ownership of her husband and was recognised as the as being a legal part of the husbands household.

Anthropologist Kathleen Gough Aberle writes:
  • Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum. **
A Hebrew girl (or slave) that had sex or took a lover without the formally being declared as a concubine, could not expect any offspring conceived to be legitimately recognized by the members of the society at the time. Such a girl would be viewed as little more than a glorified prostitute and prostitution was illegal. She had not been given by her father or her owner and thus transfered from the paternal home to the new home; her simply moving in, having sexual intercourse or starting a sexual relationship was not the equivalent of the public act of handing the daugher (or slavegirl) over and agreeing (before witnesses) that authority over the girl had been transfered which amounted effectively to a marital transaction. This and this alone would legitimize her offspring.

The question is not what legitimizes offspring and represents that transfer to a new family unit today, but that there WAS a legally and socially recognized "marital" structure within which concubinal sex occured. One cannot legitimately argue that there was a structure within which sex was acceptable and at the same time argue that this same structure illustrates that sex outside of a structured arrangement was justified; this is like arguing that oranges illustrate the absense of the existence of fruit.

If the original point is "was premarital sex lawful under the Hebrew arrangement?" once any form of maritial structure is established - and there is no doubt that concubinage was a formal structure - then it cannot be used to argue that sex was accepted outside of a formal maritial structure (whatever that structure was). Arguing that modern day boyfriend-girlfriend arrangements arguably EQUATES to ancient "marriage" is irrelevent, since the question is not what equates to marriage today but is sex OUTSIDE of whatever equates to marriage acceptable? The answer clearly is no.






**(1959 The Nayars and the definition of marriage. Journal of the Royal anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland)
http://orion.oac.uci.edu/~dbell/html/body_gough.html
To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SEX , MARRIAGE and ... DIVORCE
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Mon May 09, 2022 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Angel

Post #23

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote:Adultery is sex with a woman who is 'married' according to the Bible.
This is incorrect: See Matt 5:27-28. Adultery can be committed with no sex involved. moicheia refers to infidelity. Infidelity refers to betrayal, being disloyal, or breaking a covenant relationship. Idolatry is referred to as adultery many times throughout the Bible. (Jeremiah 3 is a fun example) Idolatry did not necessarily involve sex, but did involve betrayal, disloyalty, and breaking a sacred covenant with God.
You bring up infidelity and try to hide the fact that it also refers to adultery. This is obvious otherwise what else is meant by marital infidelity or unfaithfulness going by biblical standards and even in our modern day? You also bring up idolatry being adultery but that doesn't take away the fact that adultery is clearly defined as unlawful 'intercourse' when it's in the context of a MARRIAGE so your point about idolatry is out of context and irrelevant.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Even if it mentions the word 'IS", my point is still valid. The Golden Rule is very general, but if you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings then you'd see that Jesus is presupposing a moral commandments of God.
Jesus says "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you."

You seem to be claiming that what Jesus really meant was "In everything, do what the 5 books of Moses say to do, except for the parts that have to do with ceremonial laws, cleanliness (which were about ceremonial laws , dietary restrictions and anything else determined by the mainstream religious zeitgeist to fall outside the scope of "moral law."

This seems like an extraordinary leap to me. I like to think that Jesus generally said what He meant, and am very cautious about assuming that He meant something else.

"In everything" has a very straightforward meaning. Ir doesn't mean "in some things but not others" or "in most things with a few exceptions." It means that the Golden rule is applicable in every situation.

"Do to others as you would have them do to you" also has a straightforward meaning. It means that the things that you would have others do to you are the same things that you should do to others. To paraphrase, you should treat others in the way that you yourself want to be treated.

"for this is the Law and the Prophets" Also has a pretty straightforward meaning. The Law (the rules you should follow) and the Prophets (the will of God as imparted through prophecy) consists of doing to others as you would have them do to you.

If you think it means "do to others as commanded by the books of Moses, even if that isn't actually how you would want to be treated" then Jesus may as well have said "In everything, do to others as red firetruck ice cream muskrat."
You're not factoring in ALL of Jesus' teachings and in wrongly doing so you're taking the Golden Rule out of context. "In everything" refers to the part about "do unto others" rather than to ALL of the laws. Presumably, when Jesus was referring to follow the Law, he was not referring to all of the Laws but only the ones that have to do with moral behavior. This is a deduction when you combine all of his teachings like the ones where he dismisses the ceremonial laws, observing special days, clean and unclean food, etc. Refer to Colossians 2:16-17 as one example to what I'm saying. More relevant to the topic of this thread, the NT also reinforces sexual morality when it mentions to abstain from sexual immorality. I talk about how only the moral laws would apply down below, towards the end of this post.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: So lets say even if you did have to pay only a bride price but for some reason you still don't get the girl, well having to pay the bride price is still a penalty. If premarital sex was morally right, why would someone have to pay a penalty for doing right? You'd say because of property damage (or ruining the girls virginity) but it would still be wrong to do, especially when it's done on purpose.
Sure, if you go around deliberately damaging other people's property, that isn't very cool. If you tell someone you will take care of their livestock, and then you neglect it, you should make restitution for the livestock that they lost because of your neglect.

My point was that women are no longer property, and so deflowering them does not rob anyone of wealth. No penalty is imposed aside from restitution to a girls owner. If the girl has no owner, there is no penalty. There is no penalty because there is no crime.
No, since SEX was involved, that takes it to another level than just damaging any property. What damage is done to an animal when a woman has sex with the animal that belongs to them and yet we still find it forbidden. This is one example that shows God has regulations on sex itself besides just property rights or damage. Also look at Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which parallels with the verse in Exodus 22:16. In both cases, the property (or woman) is damaged since her virginity is lost. When the guy pays the bride price, he gets the girl no matter what, and in fact the Deuteronomy passage I mentioned doesn't even make mention of the father's disapproval. Let me add to some of my previous points, as well.

If the father doesn't give away his daughter away to the guy for marriage then the daughter she'd be guilty of harlotry as soon as she attempts to sleep with ANOTHER guy. And subsequenlty, the penalty of being a harlot would apply as the following passage mentions..

Deuteronomy 22:20-21
But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Deuteronomy 22:20-21 wasn't about getting duped, the verse clearly mentions it's because the girl was PROMISCUOUS or a harlot.
"If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,� 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin." - Deut 22:13-15

The story here is clearly about a man who accuses the girls previous owners of delivering used goods and claiming they were new.
You're wrong and you're leaving out details. Did you read the rest of the story like Deuteronomy chapter 22 vss. 20-21? These verses CLEARLY mention WHY the girl in the passages you're referring to is to be stoned by the town people. I'll post the passage again..

Deuteronomy 22:20-21
But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
Paradigm wrote: It doesn't make sense that a widow who remarries should have to provide proof of virginity, because she obviously is not a virgin, and if a man knows going into the relationship that she is no a virgin, there is no crime. He also doesn't pay a bride price to the widow's father if the widow is no longer the father's property.
Read the passage that you quoted from again. Of course, it is clearly in reference to a girl who has never married before and therefore should've been a virgin. Deuteronomy 22 starting with vs. 13 is very clear on that and I"ve yet to see you factor in this point with ALL of the details included in the passage. Until you do, your conclusion will always be off because you're missing pieces to the puzzle.
Paradigm wrote: Suppose a girl has sex with a man, the man offers to marry, but the father refuses. The man still has to pay the bride price to the father, but she remains unmarried. Are you claiming that by refusing to let her daughter marry, the father is sentencing her to death?
Yes, IF she goes off to ANOTHER man but then the father would be in the wrong also for breaking the command to have his daughter marry the guy which is implied in Exodus 22:16 and more explicit in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Paradigm wrote: If another man knows ahead of time that she is not a virgin and still wishes to marry her, can he not do so?
It depends on what the previous sexual partner and girl does. But in the OT, she'd be dead because she played a 'harlot'. Under the New Covenant, she would not die since the penalties for sins are done away with if you accept Jesus (that is found in principle in John 8:1-12). The only way around it I see is if the woman commits adultery on the guy she lost her virginity to end the marriage from there. I know this is a tough moral to follow especially in our modern day promiscuous culture. Even some married Christians are divorcing for reasons that do NOT involve sexual immorality and remarrying and they are in the wrong although as soon as the girl sleeps with the new guy then she engaged in sexual immorality at that point and that would be justifiable grounds for her to remarry. That's slick but it would work in my opinion.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: You mention for me to post an example so I'd say Leviticus 19:29 would apply to your request.
I would say i doesn't. I am not talking about sex for hire. I am talking about sex for intimacy with someone you care about but aren't married to.
In the Hebrew meaning for the word prostitute, harlot, or whore, it doesn't necessarily have to do with paid sex since it could simply mean acting like a prostitute or whore since they both engage in fornication (harlot).

Leviticus 19:29
29 ‘Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness.
Paradigm wrote:
Paradigm wrote: The only thing I can say about Jesus not following all of the laws is that some of the laws he considered unnecessary. Instead of sacrifices from priests, Jesus was our sacrifice and priest. I believe the logic for Jesus deeming SOME laws inapplicable has to do with a similar logic in the previous sentence. But what Jesus does not violate or say doesn't apply are the laws on sexuality, etc.
The conflicts with this:
Jesus was not a moral relativist since his message was not to sin and that the law was the knowledge of sin.
If the law is the knowledge of sin, then we know by the law that menstruation is a sin. We know by the law that wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing is a sin. We know by the law that gathering food on Saturdays is a sin.

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matt 5:18

If Jesus believed that some parts of the Pentateuch were unnecessary, it can only be that He did not consider them part of the Law. Perhaps they were bits that the lying pen of the scribes had rendered falsely.

In any event, just cause it was in Exodus doesn't make it part of the law. Jesus consistently corrected what the teachers of law were teaching. "You have heard it said X, but I tell you Y."

He has already established that He is not changing the law, he is telling people what the law ACTUALLY IS, because the scribes (the people who wrote down the 5 books of Moses) and the teachers o law, were butchering it.
Yes, Jesus mentioned that nothing from the Law will disappear but that doesn't mean we have to follow all of it. The law could still be there for informational purposes even if we don't follow it as far as I'm concerned. Although you have to wonder what did Jesus mean when he was referring to NOTHING (as opposed to some things like the ceremoinal laws, dietary laws while the moral laws are still in place) law not passing away until everything is fulfilled. What is the fulfillment in reference to? Could it have already been done? Could it be 2 Colossians 2:16-18:

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

This passage points to some type of accomplishment or transition especially since it shows some of the decrees in God's law not applying anymore.
Also refer to the Hebrews 10:8 and 18:

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them�—though they were offered in accordance with the law.
18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Can you show me where and how God was involved with Absalom sleeping with David's concubines? There's clearly some figurative language at play here because God did not literally grab David's concubines and physically hand them over to Absalom especially if you read how that event took place. The passages in 2 Samuel 12 could just mean God allowing it to happen.
Ok, supposing you were right, which you aren't, but supposing you were. It still demonstrates sex outside of marriage that God was ok with. It was sex outside of marriage that God had told David He would make happen as a punishment for David's one and only sin.
If God did what he said he would do in 2 Samuel 12:11 then it would be doing evil since it's in contradiction with his own laws regarding not sleeping with another man's wife let alone your father's wife. But there's no mention of God doing what 2 Samuel 12:11 said he would do nor does it mention him being okay with what happened when someone did sleep with David's wives.
Paradigm wrote: Since God planned for it to happen, allowed it to happen, and explicitly made a point of taking credit for it happening, we can safely say that Go was ok with it.
I see no scriptural evidence of planning or how did God plan it I should ask? You read 2 Samuel 12:11 literally and I'm usually a skeptic against those who say passages should not be taken literally, but I have warrant in this case because of NO evidence of God doing anything beyond TALK (and perhaps figurative talk) if you read 2 Samuel 16:20-23 and why the person who slept with David's wives did so. With all this in mind, I find it possible that God allowed it to happen and saw it as David getting a taste of his own medicine since David deceptively took Bathsheeba to be his wife which is what David was being judged for to begin with. It's a weird case of justice or a harsh lesson for David, in that case.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: I know what God is said to have said but if you continue reading you'd see that he did not follow through with what he said. Absalom slept with David's concubines based on advice from a man. There's no mention of God in that event or God causing it.
Ok, well if God said he was going to do something and then didn't follow through with it, that pretty much makes Him a big liar.

Seems to me that the intuitive reading of the passage is that God made it happen by hardening heart, manipulating events, etc...
Lying or boasting is a probable interpretation. Figurative language especially in the context of a prophetc judgements which is common is also a probable interpretation.

User avatar
Slopeshoulder
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post #24

Post by Slopeshoulder »

Asking what the Bible says usually sets us up for a series of errors, inviting an orgy of amatuerishness, no pun intended.

Whenever anyone asks me what the bible says, which thank God is rarely, I always ask:

- Does the bible say one thing, or many things? How do these interact and what do they add up to?

- Are you asking literally, at the words in a verse level, or thematically across texts and as text/artifact?

- Can we possibly divorce what the bible may say from how people have read it and do read it? Should we?

- If we think we know what is says, don't we then have to ask immediately what we are to do with it today?

- In what way is what the bible allegedly says considered reliable, normative, and relevant?

Carry on...

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Post #25

Post by Paradigm »

Angel wrote: You bring up infidelity and try to hide the fact that it also refers to adultery. This is obvious otherwise what else is meant by marital infidelity or unfaithfulness going by biblical standards and even in our modern day?
I'm not trying to hide anything. Marital infidelity even in our modern day means betraying a marriage covenant. Swingers do not consider swinging marital infidelity because there is no betrayal of the marriage covenant.

The only reason having sex with someone other than your spouse is USUALLY considered adultery is because most marriage covenants USUALLY involve monogamous sexual expectations. In a marriage covenant without expectations of monogamy, swinging is not unfaithful to the marriage covenant, is not a betrayal of one's spouse, and is not considered marital infidelity.
You also bring up idolatry being adultery but that doesn't take away the fact that adultery is clearly defined as unlawful 'intercourse' when it's in the context of a MARRIAGE so your point about idolatry is out of context and irrelevant.
Idolatry was adulterous because it broke a covenant in which there was an expectation of monotheism.

Even if it mentions the word 'IS", my point is still valid. The Golden Rule is very general, but if you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings then you'd see that Jesus is presupposing a moral commandments of God.
Show me where the Bible says that Jesus is presupposing anything. Show me where Jesus says that the Golden rule should only be followed under certain conditions. (i.e. only follow this rule if you don't want people having sex with you.)


You're not factoring in ALL of Jesus' teachings
Yes I am. Quote me a teaching that I am not taking into account.
and in wrongly doing so you're taking the Golden Rule out of context.
The Golden rule is not context dependent. It applies "in everything" not "in a particular context."
"In everything" refers to the part about "do unto others" rather than to ALL of the laws.
Not sure I follow. Do you mean that "in everything" refers to "doing to others as you would have them do to you" in everything that you do? In that case I agree.
Presumably, when Jesus was referring to follow the Law, he was not referring to all of the Laws but only the ones that have to do with moral behavior.


Even more presumably he was referring to the one thing that He identified as being 'the law'. Namely the Golden Rule.
This is a deduction when you combine all of his teachings like the ones where he dismisses the ceremonial laws, observing special days, clean and unclean food, etc. Refer to Colossians 2:16-17 as one example to what I'm saying.


Since morality has to do with loving others and treating them as you want to be treated, we can presume that he wasn't talking about arbitrary laws that have nothing to do with how you want others to treat you.
More relevant to the topic of this thread, the NT also reinforces sexual morality when it mentions to abstain from sexual immorality. I talk about how only the moral laws would apply down below, towards the end of this post.
Ok, it follows then that when the NT is talking about sexual immorality, it is only talking about the sexual laws that have to do with morality, and that it is not talking about sexual laws that are ceremonial or about cleanliness or culture specific.
No, since SEX was involved, that takes it to another level than just damaging any property.


Sex doesn't talk it to another level, morality takes it to another level. If laws about cleanliness no longer apply, then they no longer apply, regardless of whether sex is involved or not.

“‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period." - Leviticus 18:19

If Menstruation is an issue of cleanliness, and Jesus has dismissed cleanliness laws, then it is now ok to have sex with women on their period. The fact that there is sex involved doesn't reclassify it from a cleanliness issue to a moral issue. When in the bible does it ever say such a thing?

Some sexual laws had to do with morality (i.e. Leviticus 18:20) so those laws still apply. Where is it ever written that anything involving sex autimatically becomes an issue of morality?
What damage is done to an animal when a woman has sex with the animal that belongs to them and yet we still find it forbidden. This is one example that shows God has regulations on sex itself besides just property rights or damage.


It doesn't demonstrate that all his regulations on sex ere moral in nature instead of ceremonial.
Also look at Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which parallels with the verse in Exodus 22:16. In both cases, the property (or woman) is damaged since her virginity is lost. When the guy pays the bride price, he gets the girl no matter what, and in fact the Deuteronomy passage I mentioned doesn't even make mention of the father's disapproval. Let me add to some of my previous points, as well.
Clearly this is a culture specific ceremonial law, like wearing tassels on your clothes and not wearing blended fabrics. How does sex being involved reclassify it as moral law?
If the father doesn't give away his daughter away to the guy for marriage then the daughter she'd be guilty of harlotry as soon as she attempts to sleep with ANOTHER guy. And subsequenlty, the penalty of being a harlot would apply as the following passage mentions.
Only if she is being promiscuous IN HER FATHERS HOUSE.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil (calamity) from among you.
Yes, Jesus mentioned that nothing from the Law will disappear but that doesn't mean we have to follow all of it.


Yes it does, otherwise it isn't the law anymore.
The law could still be there for informational purposes even if we don't follow it as far as I'm concerned.


The code of Hammurabi is there for informational purposes, but it isn't law anymore, because we don't have to follow it.
Although you have to wonder what did Jesus mean when he was referring to NOTHING (as opposed to some things like the ceremoinal laws, dietary laws while the moral laws are still in place) law not passing away until everything is fulfilled. What is the fulfillment in reference to? Could it have already been done? Could it be 2 Colossians 2:16-18:

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

This passage points to some type of accomplishment or transition especially since it shows some of the decrees in God's law not applying anymore.
Also refer to the Hebrews 10:8 and 18:
Ok, where does it say that cleanliness rituals like not having sex with a woman on her period still apply?

Angel

Post #26

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: You bring up infidelity and try to hide the fact that it also refers to adultery. This is obvious otherwise what else is meant by marital infidelity or unfaithfulness going by biblical standards and even in our modern day?
I'm not trying to hide anything. Marital infidelity even in our modern day means betraying a marriage covenant. Swingers do not consider swinging marital infidelity because there is no betrayal of the marriage covenant.
This is the BIBLICAL theology, doctrine, and dogma section and not the anything-goes section. You will get no where here until you acknowledge the 'specifics' behind a marriage covenant in terms of the BIBLE. According to the BIBLE, adultery is a man sleeping with another man's wife so swinging would fit as being 'adultery'.
Paradigm wrote: The only reason having sex with someone other than your spouse is USUALLY considered adultery is because most marriage covenants USUALLY involve monogamous sexual expectations. In a marriage covenant without expectations of monogamy, swinging is not unfaithful to the marriage covenant, is not a betrayal of one's spouse, and is not considered marital infidelity.
Again, we're talking about marriage as defined by the BIBLE and you're giving me the standards of swingers. The two standards are not compatible. The Bible does not say that sleeping with another man's wife is SOMETIMES or USUALLY a sin, it is a sin. That is my conclusion until you can stick to the terms of the Bible and show me how are the rules regarding adultery 'conditional'. I'm aware that swingers would not call it adultery or probably don't care either way, but that doesn't take away the fact that the Bible classifies swinging as adultery. This is just a matter of the Bible being in disagreement with the swinging lifestyle and it should be left as that.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Even if it mentions the word 'IS", my point is still valid. The Golden Rule is very general, but if you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings then you'd see that Jesus is presupposing a moral commandments of God.
Show me where the Bible says that Jesus is presupposing anything. Show me where Jesus says that the Golden rule should only be followed under certain conditions. (i.e. only follow this rule if you don't want people having sex with you.)
Aren't you aware of the teachings of Jesus where he mentions to not sin? How can you reconcile the Golden Rule with not being able to sin which you've failed to consider time after time? A reasonable conclusion would be that Jesus is presupposing God's laws, since He's speaking to potential BELIEVERS who are already suppose to be following God's laws and since his other teachings mentions to not sin, etc, etc.

Also, the same way Jesus talks about the Golden Rule is compatible with Romans 13:8-10 regarding how love IS the fulfillment of the Law. Notice how Paul breaks down what's involved in love starting with vs. 9 and notice how the parts are part of God's laws and not just any law or morals.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: You're not factoring in ALL of Jesus' teachings
Yes I am. Quote me a teaching that I am not taking into account.
Lets take Matthew 5:32 where Jesus talks about the terms for divorce/remarriage. That's a condition on the Golden Rule. If you have a husband who would divorce his wife for any reason and the wife also has the same standards and they both remarry, they would clearly be in violation of Matthew 5:32 but going by your logic they would still be following the Golden Rule. That's a contradiction, unless you factor in all of Jesus' teachings and factor in the compatible teaching found in Romans 13:8-10. And yes, the Golden Rule can be followed while not sinning if someone has the LAW as their moral standard and act in accordance to it and ASSUMES that the other person would do the same.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: and in wrongly doing so you're taking the Golden Rule out of context.
The Golden rule is not context dependent. It applies "in everything" not "in a particular context."
I'm not sure if you're saying that every action is permissible because the Golden Rule is a restriction itself. You can't just do anything, you have to have your own standard and ASSUME the other person's standards when doing something to or for someone.

Consider this passage, 1 Corinthians 16:14 which mentions , "Do EVERYTHING in love". Now lets factor in a parallel teaching to the Golden Rule which is found in Romans 13:8-10 which mentions that LOVE is the fulfillment and summing up of the Law and Paul explains in Romans 13:9 what's involved in loving - not stealing, not murdering, or following the Law in other words. So here we have an example of doing EVERYTHING in love being dependent on or presupposing the standards in the Law. The same can and DOES apply to the Golden Rule when you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Presumably, when Jesus was referring to follow the Law, he was not referring to all of the Laws but only the ones that have to do with moral behavior.

Even more presumably he was referring to the one thing that He identified as being 'the law'. Namely the Golden Rule.
Again, context, context, context. Is that all that Jesus' teachings mention or did he get to specifics in other parts of his teachings? What about the part about not divorcing a wife for any reason? What about my previous point to do EVERYTHING in LOVE and HOW THAT IS FULFILLED. If you factor in all of Jesus' teachings, which I reiterate time and time again in this post and in others when you first raised this point, you'll find that Jesus does not want us to sin. You'll find that Jesus wants us to follow the Golden Rule. So how do you NOT sin while still following the Golden Rule? You can only do so by presupposing the Law as a moral standard for people.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: This is a deduction when you combine all of his teachings like the ones where he dismisses the ceremonial laws, observing special days, clean and unclean food, etc. Refer to Colossians 2:16-17 as one example to what I'm saying.

Since morality has to do with loving others and treating them as you want to be treated, we can presume that he wasn't talking about arbitrary laws that have nothing to do with how you want others to treat you.
It's explained what love would involve if you readRomans 13:8-10.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: More relevant to the topic of this thread, the NT also reinforces sexual morality when it mentions to abstain from sexual immorality. I talk about how only the moral laws would apply down below, towards the end of this post.
Ok, it follows then that when the NT is talking about sexual immorality, it is only talking about the sexual laws that have to do with morality, and that it is not talking about sexual laws that are ceremonial or about cleanliness or culture specific.
I agree with that especially if you consider that adultery and AVOIDING playing the harlot (by NOT engaging in pre-marital sex with no intent to marry esp. repeatedly) are not matters of cleanliness. Jesus teaches about adultery, as well. Not having sex with a woman who's on her period is mentioned specifically as being about cleanliness (e.g. Leviticus 15:24).
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: No, since SEX was involved, that takes it to another level than just damaging any property.

Sex doesn't talk it to another level, morality takes it to another level. If laws about cleanliness no longer apply, then they no longer apply, regardless of whether sex is involved or not.

“‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period." - Leviticus 18:19

If Menstruation is an issue of cleanliness, and Jesus has dismissed cleanliness laws, then it is now ok to have sex with women on their period. The fact that there is sex involved doesn't reclassify it from a cleanliness issue to a moral issue. When in the bible does it ever say such a thing?

Some sexual laws had to do with morality (i.e. Leviticus 18:20) so those laws still apply. Where is it ever written that anything involving sex autimatically becomes an issue of morality?
My standard for determining sex that has to do with cleanliness/ceremonial as opposed to sex that has to do with moral behavior is when the Bible explicitly mentions it as being a cleanliness issue. Leviticus 15:24 does this whereas the laws regarding adultery and premarital sex do not mention cleanliness (e.g. Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:13-30, Leviticus 19:29, etc).
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: What damage is done to an animal when a woman has sex with the animal that belongs to them and yet we still find it forbidden. This is one example that shows God has regulations on sex itself besides just property rights or damage.

It doesn't demonstrate that all his regulations on sex ere moral in nature instead of ceremonial.
Some laws involve regulations on sex for morals reasons and others for ceremonial/cleanliness reasons. You and I seem to agree here on this fact. Where we don't agree is how you determine such and I've gone by the words of the text itself, like when it mentions it's an issue of cleanliness and when it mentions NOTHING of the sort.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Also look at Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which parallels with the verse in Exodus 22:16. In both cases, the property (or woman) is damaged since her virginity is lost. When the guy pays the bride price, he gets the girl no matter what, and in fact the Deuteronomy passage I mentioned doesn't even make mention of the father's disapproval. Let me add to some of my previous points, as well.
Clearly this is a culture specific ceremonial law, like wearing tassels on your clothes and not wearing blended fabrics. How does sex being involved reclassify it as moral law?
These passages do NOT mention anything about cleanliness nor being applied only for the old covenant/OT. Besides your lack of evidence, your way of determining between ceremonial/cleanliness along with culture or covenant specific seems to be arbitrary. On other posts, which I can quote from if I have to, you've mentioned sex being about property rights and now you're saying it's about cleanliness/ceremonial. Which is it?
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: If the father doesn't give away his daughter away to the guy for marriage then the daughter she'd be guilty of harlotry as soon as she attempts to sleep with ANOTHER guy. And subsequenlty, the penalty of being a harlot would apply as the following passage mentions.
Only if she is being promiscuous IN HER FATHERS HOUSE.
You're referring to Deuteronomy 22:20-21. Let me first mention that these passages refer to a punishment taking place AFTER marriage. But if the girl married the guy she lost her virginity to as instructed by the Law then this wouldn't be an issue to begin with which makes your point moot. But to cover the passages in question more specifically, a woman being in her father's house signified not being married so when Deuteronomy 22:20-21 talks about "while in her father's house" that's just another way of saying while she's not married. The most common circumstance for finding an unmarried girl back then was her living in her father's house, so that's a reason why being promiscuous while "in her fathers house" was the only thing mentioned instead of just saying any unmarried promiscuous women.

Also, refer to Leviticus 19:29. This passage mentions that prostitution or harlotry would turn the land into wickedness. Can't prostitution be practiced with or without a father so it doesn't make sense that a prostitutes or promiscuous women living with their father would turn a land to wickedness and promiscuous women living without their father wouldn't.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Yes, Jesus mentioned that nothing from the Law will disappear but that doesn't mean we have to follow all of it. The law could still be there for informational purposes even if we don't follow it as far as I'm concerned.

Yes it does, otherwise it isn't the law anymore. The code of Hammurabi is there for informational purposes, but it isn't law anymore, because we don't have to follow it.
It is still a law but not 'the' law, as in the law to be followed. A law can be simply a collection of rules. It doesn't matter if no one followed them but their purpose was still to serve as rules.

Your objection here is a moot point because of the following verses below that you quoted me on.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Although you have to wonder what did Jesus mean when he was referring to NOTHING (as opposed to some things like the ceremoinal laws, dietary laws while the moral laws are still in place) law not passing away until everything is fulfilled. What is the fulfillment in reference to? Could it have already been done? Could it be 2 Colossians 2:16-18:

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

This passage points to some type of accomplishment or transition especially since it shows some of the decrees in God's law not applying anymore.
Also refer to the Hebrews 10:8 and 18:
Ok, where does it say that cleanliness rituals like not having sex with a woman on her period still apply?
I'm not sure exactly and generally I don't dismiss laws in the OT unless I can support it by some explicit passage or principle from the NT. As far as I know, the NT does not dismiss sex laws that did not have to do with cleanliness.

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Post #27

Post by Paradigm »

This is the BIBLICAL theology, doctrine, and dogma section and not the anything-goes section. You will get no where here until you acknowledge the 'specifics' behind a marriage covenant in terms of the BIBLE. According to the BIBLE, adultery is a man sleeping with another man's wife so swinging would fit as being 'adultery'.
And I have already shown that according to the BIBLE (Matt 5:28), the bolded statement above is incorrect. According to the BIBLE adultery can happen as a betrayal purely of the heart, with no sex involved.
Aren't you aware of the teachings of Jesus where he mentions to not sin? How can you reconcile the Golden Rule with not being able to sin which you've failed to consider time after time?
I haven't failed to consider it. You have failed to listen. Saying "don't sin" is exactly the same as saying "don't break the golden rule." If you aren't breaking the Golden Rule, you aren't sinning. If you are sinning, you are breaking the Golden Rule. If you are breaking the Golden Rule, you are sinning. Sinning = breaking the golden rule. not sinning = following the golden rule.

That I how I reconcile it.
Lets take Matthew 5:32 where Jesus talks about the terms for divorce/remarriage. That's a condition on the Golden Rule. If you have a husband who would divorce his wife for any reason and the wife also has the same standards and they both remarry, they would clearly be in violation of Matthew 5:32 but going by your logic they would still be following the Golden Rule.
So odd that you want to take everything else as an absolute, but you don't want to take the Golden Rule as an absolute.

Jesus is clearly presupposing that a wife does not want to be abandoned by a husband, and that if the husband were in her place, he would not want to be abandoned. Therefore it is a sin for a man to abandon his wife, because that would be treating her in a way that he would not want to be treated himself.

Are you really arguing that it would be a sin for a man to divorce his wife out of love? If divorcing his wife was for whatever reason the only way he could save her life, is it then a sin to do good?

Why would you assume that the law against divorce and remarriage is strict and unyielding, while the law to love one another and treat each other in the way you would want to be treated is somehow flexible and doesn't always apply?

I think you entirely missed the point of what Jesus was teaching:

"On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11 and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.� 13 Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.
14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.�

15 The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?�

17 When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing." Luke 13:10-17

Strict adherence to the letter of each law is not the goal here. Doing good. Being a good neighbor, treating fellow humans with respect and dignity. Those are the things He held as important.

When the law says "Don't steal" it assumes you don't want people stealing from you.

My gf promised me she would quit smoking, and I promised her I would help. One day I found some cigarettes she had hidden, so I stole them and threw them away. I am not repentant for breaking the commandment not to steal because I understand the spirit of the commandment. It isn't an arbitrary commandment that exists independently from the context of human interaction. I was protecting her from her addiction in the same way that I would want to be protected were our positions reversed.

If you want to argue the technical limits of the letter of the law, then the letter of the golden rule conflicts with the letter of the OT laws, and thus we have no way of knowing which one is correct.

You think you can ignore the Golden rule by saying "It only works if you presuppose a desire to follow all the OT laws," and I think I can ignore the OT laws by saying "They only work if you presuppose their application to the Golden Rule."

I'm not sure if you're saying that every action is permissible because the Golden Rule is a restriction itself. You can't just do anything, you have to have your own standard and ASSUME the other person's standards when doing something to or for someone.

Consider this passage, 1 Corinthians 16:14 which mentions , "Do EVERYTHING in love". Now lets factor in a parallel teaching to the Golden Rule which is found in Romans 13:8-10 which mentions that LOVE is the fulfillment and summing up of the Law and Paul explains in Romans 13:9 what's involved in loving - not stealing, not murdering, or following the Law in other words. So here we have an example of doing EVERYTHING in love being dependent on or presupposing the standards in the Law. The same can and DOES apply to the Golden Rule when you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings.
Paul's point was precisely mine, that the law is not arbitrary. Loving your neighbor is not defines as "following the letter of the law" but rather following the spirit of the law is defined as "loving your neighbor".

The law is derived from love, not the other way around. Loving your neighbor doesn't hang upon the law, but rather the other way around. All the law hangs upon loving your neighbor.
Again, context, context, context. Is that all that Jesus' teachings mention or did he get to specifics in other parts of his teachings?
The Golden Rule is specific. Other parts were examples in which Jesus made generalizations regarding how people generally wanted to be treated. He didn't say that there were never exceptions. In fact, he specifically referenced exceptions that had been made for the laws.

"Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.� Luke 6:3-4

David did something that was forbidden by OT law, but an exception was made for him, because the specifics are flexible to the circumstances.

The part that isn't flexible is the spirit of the law, which is to love people and treat them as you wish to be treated.
My standard for determining sex that has to do with cleanliness/ceremonial as opposed to sex that has to do with moral behavior is when the Bible explicitly mentions it as being a cleanliness issue. Leviticus 15:24 does this whereas the laws regarding adultery and premarital sex do not mention cleanliness (e.g. Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:13-30, Leviticus 19:29, etc).
They mention the cultural ceremony of paying a bride price. They mention the cultural ceremony of parents keeping the nuptial sheets. Where does Leviticus 19:19 talk about cleanliness? Do you think i is a sin to wear mixed fabrics sin that isn't a cleanliness issue?
These passages do NOT mention anything about cleanliness nor being applied only for the old covenant/OT. Besides your lack of evidence, your way of determining between ceremonial/cleanliness along with culture or covenant specific seems to be arbitrary. On other posts, which I can quote from if I have to, you've mentioned sex being about property rights and now you're saying it's about cleanliness/ceremonial. Which is it?
Property rights in Ancient Israel is a culture specific. It is ceremonial in the same way that not wearing blended fabrics is. The same way that wearing tassels on robes is. The same way that laws about the feast of unleavened bread is. All of the culture specific laws about what ancient Israelites should eat, what they should wear, what they should consider clean, how they should build their houses, which days they should celebrate, how much they should offer as restitution on a property dispute, etc... are ALL ceremonial.

There is no dichotomy here. It is a ceremonial property rights law, meant only for Ancient Israelites.

Angel

Post #28

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote:This is the BIBLICAL theology, doctrine, and dogma section and not the anything-goes section. You will get no where here until you acknowledge the 'specifics' behind a marriage covenant in terms of the BIBLE. According to the BIBLE, adultery is a man sleeping with another man's wife so swinging would fit as being 'adultery'.
And I have already shown that according to the BIBLE (Matt 5:28), the bolded statement above is incorrect. According to the BIBLE adultery can happen as a betrayal purely of the heart, with no sex involved.
No, the bolded statement in my post isn't incorrect. What you're mentioning is an additional act of what's considered adultery. If you actually take the time to read OTHER parts of the Bible, there is also the PHYSICAL act of adultery. BOTH are wrong.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Aren't you aware of the teachings of Jesus where he mentions to not sin? How can you reconcile the Golden Rule with not being able to sin which you've failed to consider time after time?
I haven't failed to consider it. You have failed to listen. Saying "don't sin" is exactly the same as saying "don't break the golden rule." If you aren't breaking the Golden Rule, you aren't sinning. If you are sinning, you are breaking the Golden Rule. If you are breaking the Golden Rule, you are sinning. Sinning = breaking the golden rule. not sinning = following the golden rule.

That I how I reconcile it.


It's not a matter of Jesus saying not to sin because you also have to factor in what he calls sin. He goes more EXPLICIT than just saying 'do unto others...". Did you not read the parts about adultery in the heart and the physical acts? Did you not read the part of Jesus revealed teachings where he mentions the LAW is the knowledge of sin?

Here's Jesus explaining what 'good' is in a more EXPLICIT way than the Golden Rule that you're stuck on:

Matthew 19:16-18
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?�
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?� Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.�
18 “Which ones?� he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.

Matthew 15:19-20 (Jesus speaking about evil things that defile a man)
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man

John 8:3-11 (esp. vs 3 a woman 'caught' in adultery - physical act... and vs.11 where Jesus calls that a sin)...

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Lets take Matthew 5:32 where Jesus talks about the terms for divorce/remarriage. That's a condition on the Golden Rule. If you have a husband who would divorce his wife for any reason and the wife also has the same standards and they both remarry, they would clearly be in violation of Matthew 5:32 but going by your logic they would still be following the Golden Rule.

So odd that you want to take everything else as an absolute, but you don't want to take the Golden Rule as an absolute.

Jesus is clearly presupposing that a wife does not want to be abandoned by a husband, and that if the husband were in her place, he would not want to be abandoned. Therefore it is a sin for a man to abandon his wife, because that would be treating her in a way that he would not want to be treated himself.


You're reading into the text what Jesus is presupposing. My claims of Jesus presupposing are based on EXPLICIT statements made ELSEWHERE in Jesus' teachings which I've taken the time to document for you in this post. Where do you get the idea from that the wife did not want to leave the husband? Can you prove that? What makes you think that if a husband commits adultery, that she won't wanna leave him for a guy who would be faithful?

Paradigm wrote: Are you really arguing that it would be a sin for a man to divorce his wife out of love? If divorcing his wife was for whatever reason the only way he could save her life, is it then a sin to do good?

Why would you assume that the law against divorce and remarriage is strict and unyielding, while the law to love one another and treat each other in the way you would want to be treated is somehow flexible and doesn't always apply?


The Golden Rule does not apply in the way YOU want it to apply because of Jesus' own teachings. The same way I've demonstrated to you how doing 'everything' in love is also built on following the law. Interestingly, you left that point out which I made in my very last post. I can only call something absolute if that's what the Bible says it should be taken as. You've failed to substantiate your points because you simply aren't factoring in ALL of Jesus' teachings to NOT sin and if you can't SIN then that point alone restricts the Golden Rule to only applying no NON-sinful acts. If the Golden Rule leads to sinful acts, then you're outside of Jesus' intent and teachings for that rule as made explicitly with Jesus' other teachings throughout the NT.

Paradigm wrote: I think you entirely missed the point of what Jesus was teaching:

"On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11 and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.� 13 Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.
14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.�

15 The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?�

17 When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing." Luke 13:10-17

Strict adherence to the letter of each law is not the goal here. Doing good. Being a good neighbor, treating fellow humans with respect and dignity. Those are the things He held as important.

When the law says "Don't steal" it assumes you don't want people stealing from you.[/b]


Part of your conclusion which I've changed to red font proves my point. The Golden Rule presupposes 'good' based on the LAWs of God, like DO NOT STEAL, etc. That's just how Paul reiterates it in Romans 13:8-10 where he explains that LOVE fulfills the law and how that presupposes not stealing, not murdering, etc which he explains in Romans 13:9.

Paradigm wrote: My gf promised me she would quit smoking, and I promised her I would help. One day I found some cigarettes she had hidden, so I stole them and threw them away. I am not repentant for breaking the commandment not to steal because I understand the spirit of the commandment. It isn't an arbitrary commandment that exists independently from the context of human interaction. I was protecting her from her addiction in the same way that I would want to be protected were our positions reversed.

If you want to argue the technical limits of the letter of the law, then the letter of the golden rule conflicts with the letter of the OT laws, and thus we have no way of knowing which one is correct.


I can understand the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. This is a matter of how the Law is followed but it does not change the fact that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong'. In other words, you still should not steal because it is a sin and of course there are circumstances not involving what you'd call protecting where someone would steal. Either way, I still fail to see the overall point of how someone can use the spirit of the Law to justify sexual sins such as swinging, adultery, pre-marital sexual intercourse, sex with animals, etc.

Paradigm wrote: You think you can ignore the Golden rule by saying "It only works if you presuppose a desire to follow all the OT laws," and I think I can ignore the OT laws by saying "They only work if you presuppose their application to the Golden Rule."


The Law and the Golden Rule are suppose to go hand-in-hand, just like Paul explains a parallel teaching to the Golden Rule in Romans 13:8-10. Also, read ALL of Jesus' teachings. He gets more explicit than just saying "do unto others". He also mentions to not commit 'adultery". I already posted very explicit verses earlier in this post but I'll post another...

John 8:3-11 (esp. vs 3 a woman 'caught' in adultery - physical act... and vs.11 where Jesus calls that a sin)...

You see, I have no problem with the Golden Rule, I just have a problem when someone uses it to justify something that's clearly a sin.

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: I'm not sure if you're saying that every action is permissible because the Golden Rule is a restriction itself. You can't just do anything, you have to have your own standard and ASSUME the other person's standards when doing something to or for someone.

Consider this passage, 1 Corinthians 16:14 which mentions , "Do EVERYTHING in love". Now lets factor in a parallel teaching to the Golden Rule which is found in Romans 13:8-10 which mentions that LOVE is the fulfillment and summing up of the Law and Paul explains in Romans 13:9 what's involved in loving - not stealing, not murdering, or following the Law in other words. So here we have an example of doing EVERYTHING in love being dependent on or presupposing the standards in the Law. The same can and DOES apply to the Golden Rule when you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings.


Paul's point was precisely mine, that the law is not arbitrary. Loving your neighbor is not defines as "following the letter of the law" but rather following the spirit of the law is defined as "loving your neighbor".

The law is derived from love, not the other way around. Loving your neighbor doesn't hang upon the law, but rather the other way around. All the law hangs upon loving your neighbor.


And yet, you're failing to refer to the passage of Romans 13:8-10 entirely where Paul also mentions TO NOT steal, DO NOT murder. Whether you follow the spirit or the letter, murdering, stealing, lying, adultery are all wrong. There's no way around that fact.

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Again, context, context, context. Is that all that Jesus' teachings mention or did he get to specifics in other parts of his teachings?


The Golden Rule is specific. Other parts were examples in which Jesus made generalizations regarding how people generally wanted to be treated. He didn't say that there were never exceptions. In fact, he specifically referenced exceptions that had been made for the laws.

"Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.� Luke 6:3-4

David did something that was forbidden by OT law, but an exception was made for him, because the specifics are flexible to the circumstances.

The part that isn't flexible is the spirit of the law, which is to love people and treat them as you wish to be treated.


There are exceptions like not following the ceremonial laws, the clean and unclean foods, but that does not apply to moral behavioral laws - like killing, raping, adultery, bestiality. lying, etc. Read this passage and see how Jesus handled adultery:

John 8:3-11 (esp. vs 3 a woman 'caught' in adultery - physical act... and vs.11 where Jesus calls that a sin)...

Jesus did not tell the women caught in adultery that her adultery is good. Jesus did not tell the woman under certain circumstances you can commit adultery like he was advocating for eating the consecrated bread. Jesus told the woman to leave her life of 'sin' in regards to unconditional moral laws.

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: My standard for determining sex that has to do with cleanliness/ceremonial as opposed to sex that has to do with moral behavior is when the Bible explicitly mentions it as being a cleanliness issue. Leviticus 15:24 does this whereas the laws regarding adultery and premarital sex do not mention cleanliness (e.g. Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:13-30, Leviticus 19:29, etc).


They mention the cultural ceremony of paying a bride price. They mention the cultural ceremony of parents keeping the nuptial sheets. Where does Leviticus 19:19 talk about cleanliness? Do you think i is a sin to wear mixed fabrics sin that isn't a cleanliness issue?


Leviticus 19:29 does not mention a bride price. Either way, paying a bride price is not a ceremonial law in the OT (sanctuary or Temple related) or at least not any of the ceremonial laws that the NT mentions as not applying anymore like SACRIFICES for sin, special days, weeks, etc. Sure marriage can be a ceremony but after that the ceremony is done the marriage involves other things like sex, raising a family, etc. I'm not sure what your point is about Leviticus 19:19.

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: These passages do NOT mention anything about cleanliness nor being applied only for the old covenant/OT. Besides your lack of evidence, your way of determining between ceremonial/cleanliness along with culture or covenant specific seems to be arbitrary. On other posts, which I can quote from if I have to, you've mentioned sex being about property rights and now you're saying it's about cleanliness/ceremonial. Which is it?


Property rights in Ancient Israel is a culture specific. It is ceremonial in the same way that not wearing blended fabrics is. The same way that wearing tassels on robes is. The same way that laws about the feast of unleavened bread is. All of the culture specific laws about what ancient Israelites should eat, what they should wear, what they should consider clean, how they should build their houses, which days they should celebrate, how much they should offer as restitution on a property dispute, etc... are ALL ceremonial.

There is no dichotomy here. It is a ceremonial property rights law, meant only for Ancient Israelites.


You say property rights are culture specific which in the Bible would just translate to OT or old covenant specific. I fail to see your evidential/scriptural basis for classifying a law as culture-specific due to you LACK of scripture reference when it comes to marriage, premarital sex, adultery - the topics of this thread.

You're being very vague or overly general in your statement. Yes, marriage in the Bible is like property rights but marriages are to still go on under the new covenant unless specified otherwise. Jesus' teachings indicate to not worry about what you wear and eat. Can you show me where he mentions to also not worry about sleeping with another man's wife or premarital sex?

Remember even the NT mentions that the LAW is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20). The way I know which laws don't apply are if the NT mentions it. So far, you've failed to support your overall point on premarital sex, adultery, etc using the NT and OT.

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Post #29

Post by Paradigm »

You see, I have no problem with the Golden Rule, I just have a problem when someone uses it to justify something that's clearly a sin.
Ok, let me demonstrate the difference between our philosophies:

Suppose I am in a parking lot, talking with my diabetic friend, when they have an emergency episode. Another friend of mine who isn't here has left their window open and I notice that they have left some candy in their cup-holder.

The owner of the candy isn't around, so if I take the candy that belongs to them and give it to my diabetic friend, it would be stealing, which we know is a sin.

On the other hand, if my diabetic friend doesn't get some sugar in their system ASAP, there is a solid chance they might die.

According to your philosophy, I should stand here and watch my friend die, since stealing is wrong.

By my philosophy, I should steal the candy and give it to your diabetic friend to save their life, because if it were my candy, and I wasn't around, and stealing my candy could save someone's life, I would genuinely want my candy o be stolen for such a purpose.

In my opinion the Golden Rule is ALWAYS applicable, where as "do not steal" is only applicable in situations where you wouldn't want someone stealing from you.

The only way your version can always be consistent with the Golden Rule is if you would rather have someone stand there and watch their friend die than have them steal your candy to save their friend's life. Is that honestly how you think Jesus would want you to feel?

Angel

Post #30

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
You see, I have no problem with the Golden Rule, I just have a problem when someone uses it to justify something that's clearly a sin.
Ok, let me demonstrate the difference between our philosophies:

Suppose I am in a parking lot, talking with my diabetic friend, when they have an emergency episode. Another friend of mine who isn't here has left their window open and I notice that they have left some candy in their cup-holder.

The owner of the candy isn't around, so if I take the candy that belongs to them and give it to my diabetic friend, it would be stealing, which we know is a sin.

On the other hand, if my diabetic friend doesn't get some sugar in their system ASAP, there is a solid chance they might die.

According to your philosophy, I should stand here and watch my friend die, since stealing is wrong.

By my philosophy, I should steal the candy and give it to your diabetic friend to save their life, because if it were my candy, and I wasn't around, and stealing my candy could save someone's life, I would genuinely want my candy o be stolen for such a purpose.

In my opinion the Golden Rule is ALWAYS applicable, where as "do not steal" is only applicable in situations where you wouldn't want someone stealing from you.

The only way your version can always be consistent with the Golden Rule is if you would rather have someone stand there and watch their friend die than have them steal your candy to save their friend's life. Is that honestly how you think Jesus would want you to feel?
First off, let me say this is NOT my philosophy but the philosophy derived from the Bible. Until you can find me a passage where it's indicated in words or at least in principle that stealing is okay or breaking moral laws are okay (which from that point you may as well say sinning is okay) then your view here is baseless. Now although you and I would steal or agree with it under the scenario you described, but unfortunately the Bible is not always in agreement with our ideals. Afterall, it does document many things that we'd find unfair and wrong like God telling the Israelites to kill babies and other children, it does mention that a man can have as many wives as he wants but the woman can't have multiple husbands, etc, etc.

You bring up the Golden Rule again, but what if someone has a standard to never steal and that they'd want no one to steal from them, meanwhile your diabetic friend has a different standard, therein lies the problem when you don't have the same moral standards. Jesus teaching the Golden rule to prospective BELIEVERS presupposes GOD's LAW, the ONLY moral and perfect law (according to the Bible) for ALL believers to follow.

I can't help but keep noticing why you're not using all of the passages that would help you to understand the Golden Rule like the parallel teaching of that which is found in Romans 13:8-10. There Paul mentions that loving one another is also what the law is about. BUT, he also goes into SPECIFICS of what that would involve IN THE SAME PASSAGE as opposed to the Gospel writers with the Golden Rule. In Romans 13:9, Paul mentions NOT stealing, not murdering, etc. So we find this Golden Rule involving any or every NON-sinful or unlawful act and you are to do EVERYTHING this way (combine Romans 13:8-10 which I already linked to with 1 Corinthians 16:14). And how do you and I know what a sin is to begin with? The LAW!!!

Romans 7:8
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.�

Until I can see that you're factoring in ALL of Jesus' teachings rather than trying to understand ONE Passage in light of ONLY that passage, and when I can see evidence of Jesus advocating to break moral laws or that it's okay to sin, until then, your points for the most part are baseless, unreasonable, and are lacking evidence.

Post Reply