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 #31

Post by Paradigm »

Alright, since you are so keen on me talking about this passage, I will break it down for you:

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,� “You shall not murder,� “You shall not steal,� “You shall not covet,�[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.� 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Romand 13:8-10

“You shall not commit adultery,� - The Romans to whom Paul is speaking do not want their covenant relationships betrayed, so if they follow the golden rule, they won't betray covenant relationships.

“You shall not murder,� - The Romans to whom Paul is speaking do not want to be murdered. Therefore, if they follow the golden rule, they will not murder others.

"You shall not steal" - The Romans to whom Paul is speaking do not want people stealing from them, therefore if they follow the golden rule, they will not steal from others.

“You shall not covet,� - The Romans to whom Paul is speaking do not want people coveting their stuff. Therefore if they follow the Golden Rule, they will not covet other people's stuff.

Paul goes on to imply that instead of memorizing these rules and following them to the letter, you can follow the spirit of the law, which is to love others, and then the rest will fall into place.. If you love someone, you won't WANT to do anything to them that you wouldn't want done to yourself, because you are as invested in their happiness as you are in your own.

Love your neighbor as yourself is one of the two laws upon which all others are based. (Matt 22)

It doesn't say that the concept of love is based on ridged adherence to the letter of each of the little guidelines along the way. It says that the little guidelines are based on love, which is a willingness to lay down your life for someone you care about.

The law said no work on Saturdays, but Jesus ignored the law when it interfered with love. The law said it was a sin to touch a leper, but Jesus ignored the law when it interfered with love.


In the scenario of the diabetic friend, I am faced with a dilemma. I either break the law that says "do not steal" or I break the law that says "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

It is impossible for me to follow one without breaking the other. So which shall I follow?

The point of Romans 13 is that Love is the fulfillment of the law. Not that love entails adherence to strict legalism, but rather that if you love others as you are loved by Jesus then you will always be in line with God's will.

Therefore I conclude that the Bible says the correct course of action would be to act out of love rather than legalism, which means stealing the candy to save the diabetic.

Angel

Post #32

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:Alright, since you are so keen on me talking about this passage, I will break it down for you:

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,� “You shall not murder,� “You shall not steal,� “You shall not covet,�[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.� 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Romand 13:8-10

“You shall not commit adultery,� - The Romans to whom Paul is speaking do not want their covenant relationships betrayed, so if they follow the golden rule, they won't betray covenant relationships.


Please explain how you know what the Romans wanted as opposed to Paul just writing about what he wants or simply reiterating what the Law says, to not STEAL, to NOT commit adultery, etc. In Romans 13:8-10 which is the passage you opened up this post quoting Paul specifically mentions the LAW. Either way, this does NOT take away from the fact that the NT teaches to NOT sin, and the LAW is the knowledge of what a sin is.

Paradigm wrote: “You shall not murder,� - The Romans to whom Paul is speaking do not want to be murdered. Therefore, if they follow the golden rule, they will not murder others.


Please provide evidence of what the Romans wanted and that Paul wrote based on what they wanted instead of Paul writing about what he wanted or Paul simply reiterating what the Law says - to not STEAL, to NOT commit adultery, etc.

Paradigm wrote: "You shall not steal" - The Romans to whom Paul is speaking do not want people stealing from them, therefore if they follow the golden rule, they will not steal from others.


Please provide evidence of what the Romans wanted and that Paul wrote based on what they wanted instead of Paul writing about what he wanted or Paul simply reiterating what the Law says - to not STEAL, to NOT commit adultery, etc.

Paradigm wrote: “You shall not covet,� - The Romans to whom Paul is speaking do not want people coveting their stuff. Therefore if they follow the Golden Rule, they will not covet other people's stuff.


Please provide evidence of what the Romans wanted and that Paul wrote based on what they wanted instead of Paul writing about what he wanted or Paul simply reiterating what the Law says - to not STEAL, to NOT commit adultery, etc.

Paradigm wrote: Paul goes on to imply that instead of memorizing these rules and following them to the letter, you can follow the spirit of the law, which is to love others, and then the rest will fall into place.. If you love someone, you won't WANT to do anything to them that you wouldn't want done to yourself, because you are as invested in their happiness as you are in your own.


Well what Paul is saying also indicates that if you follow the Golden Rule and to love others, you'll in effect do the things in the Law, like not stealing, not committing adultery, etc. One disagreement that I've had with your view is when you derive a SINFUL act out of the Golden Rule because from there you cease being compatible with Jesus' teachings to NOT sin AND follow the Golden Rule.

Paradigm wrote: Love your neighbor as yourself is one of the two laws upon which all others are based. (Matt 22)

It doesn't say that the concept of love is based on ridged adherence to the letter of each of the little guidelines along the way. It says that the little guidelines are based on love, which is a willingness to lay down your life for someone you care about.


Whether it is the spirit of the law or the letter of the law, the law is still the knowledge of sin. The NT mentions to not sin, now how you go about not sinning may have some differences between the OT and NT, but essentially what's the same is that you are still not to sin - commit adultery, have pre-marital sexual intercourse, etc, etc. That's why Paul lays out what would be involved in fulfilling the law through love when he mentions in Romans 13:9, to not steal, not murder, etc, etc.

Paradigm wrote: The law said no work on Saturdays, but Jesus ignored the law when it interfered with love. The law said it was a sin to touch a leper, but Jesus ignored the law when it interfered with love.


But yet he did not ignore the law when it came to moral laws regarding behavior, esp. sexual behavior. Refer to these passages:

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

I'm aware that Jesus mentions to not worry about special days, about what to eat, and also sacrifices for sin and other penalties for violating the law. That still does not take away certain laws that has to do with moral behavior, like not lying, stealing, having sex with your father's wife, adultery, etc. Jesus' teachings reiterate sexual morality and he never says they don't apply anymore.

Paradigm wrote: In the scenario of the diabetic friend, I am faced with a dilemma. I either break the law that says "do not steal" or I break the law that says "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

It is impossible for me to follow one without breaking the other. So which shall I follow?


There is no dilemma here unless you are in conflict between YOUR personal standards and the Bible's standards. The Golden Rule presupposes the LAW of God and not just any law since Jesus ALSO teaches to NOT sin. STEALING is a sin, so you can't apply that with the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule, when you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings would only leave you with NON-sinful acts, and you do everything in NON-sinful ways.

Maybe if you had faith, you could ask God to heal your friend rather than stealing what's not yours.

Paradigm wrote: The point of Romans 13 is that Love is the fulfillment of the law. Not that love entails adherence to strict legalism, but rather that if you love others as you are loved by Jesus then you will always be in line with God's will.

Therefore I conclude that the Bible says the correct course of action would be to act out of love rather than legalism, which means stealing the candy to save the diabetic.


Love is the fulfillment of the Law according to Romans 13. We agree there, but what I see you leaving out is HOW you show love. Love does GOOD, and Paul explains in Romans 13:9 that loving someone would look like not stealing, not committing adultery, etc.. so you are still in effect doing the things of the Law THROUGH love though and not with using sacrifices and penalties to help keep you in line.

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

Post #33

Post by Paradigm »

loving someone would look like not stealing, not committing adultery, etc.
By that logic it would also look like not healing on the Sabbath, not letting your disciples gather food on the Sabbath, not touching lepers, not wearing mixed fabrics etc... since those are also part of the law.

Not wearing mixed fabrics has nothing to do with the temple or rituals, and has nothing to do with cleanliness, so is it still a in to wear cotton/polyester tee shirts?

Angel

Post #34

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
loving someone would look like not stealing, not committing adultery, etc.
By that logic it would also look like not healing on the Sabbath, not letting your disciples gather food on the Sabbath, not touching lepers, not wearing mixed fabrics etc... since those are also part of the law.

Not wearing mixed fabrics has nothing to do with the temple or rituals, and has nothing to do with cleanliness, so is it still a in to wear cotton/polyester tee shirts?
I could not find a reference in the NT that would cover Leviticus 19:19 which is the passages you're referring to so perhaps it still does apply. What's undeniable is that Jesus did say SOME laws are no longer necessary while others still apply and I've documented those areas. At least when it comes to the topic of the thread, sexual morality still applies as indicated by Jesus' teachings regarding adultery, fornication, and other sexual sins defined in the Law.

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

Post #35

Post by Paradigm »

Angel wrote:
Paradigm wrote:
loving someone would look like not stealing, not committing adultery, etc.
By that logic it would also look like not healing on the Sabbath, not letting your disciples gather food on the Sabbath, not touching lepers, not wearing mixed fabrics etc... since those are also part of the law.

Not wearing mixed fabrics has nothing to do with the temple or rituals, and has nothing to do with cleanliness, so is it still a in to wear cotton/polyester tee shirts?
I could not find a reference in the NT that would cover Leviticus 19:19 which is the passages you're referring to so perhaps it still does apply. What's undeniable is that Jesus did say SOME laws are no longer necessary while others still apply and I've documented those areas. At least when it comes to the topic of the thread, sexual morality still applies as indicated by Jesus' teachings regarding adultery, fornication, and other sexual sins defined in the Law.
Sure. All morality still applies. My point is that wearing mixed fabrics isn't a morality issue, and neither is paying the bride price for girls that you sleep with.

There is a way to tell whether something is a moral issue or not. It is called the golden rule.

In the case of the diabetic emergency, taking the candy to give to the diabetic isn't stealing. Just like when David killed Goliath, he wasn't breaking the commandment not to murder. Stealing isn't the act of taking something that isn't yours any more that Murder is the act of taking a life. Similarly, adultery isn't the act of sleeping with another man's wife.

Sins, according to Jesus are an issue of the heart, not of the physical action. When the heart is in line with the Golden Rule, the physical action is not a sin.

Angel

Post #36

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote:
Paradigm wrote:
loving someone would look like not stealing, not committing adultery, etc.
By that logic it would also look like not healing on the Sabbath, not letting your disciples gather food on the Sabbath, not touching lepers, not wearing mixed fabrics etc... since those are also part of the law.

Not wearing mixed fabrics has nothing to do with the temple or rituals, and has nothing to do with cleanliness, so is it still a in to wear cotton/polyester tee shirts?
I could not find a reference in the NT that would cover Leviticus 19:19 which is the passages you're referring to so perhaps it still does apply. What's undeniable is that Jesus did say SOME laws are no longer necessary while others still apply and I've documented those areas. At least when it comes to the topic of the thread, sexual morality still applies as indicated by Jesus' teachings regarding adultery, fornication, and other sexual sins defined in the Law.
Sure. All morality still applies. My point is that wearing mixed fabrics isn't a morality issue, and neither is paying the bride price for girls that you sleep with.

There is a way to tell whether something is a moral issue or not. It is called the golden rule.
According to the NT, knowing what is moral or not is based on the Law, as well (Romans 3:20). You conveniently keep leaving out that point. There's no conctradiction here, just as long as you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings and also do everything (apply the Golden Rule) in NON-sinful ways.
Paradigm wrote: In the case of the diabetic emergency, taking the candy to give to the diabetic isn't stealing. Just like when David killed Goliath, he wasn't breaking the commandment not to murder. Stealing isn't the act of taking something that isn't yours any more that Murder is the act of taking a life. Similarly, adultery isn't the act of sleeping with another man's wife.
Taking what's not yours and that which belongs to someone else is stealing, by definition. If I go into a store and take a bottle of water and don't pay for it, no matter how dehydrated and exhaused I am, it would be stealing. The water would only belong to ME when I pay for it. If God is a God of miracles as the Bible indicates, especially in the NT, then I'm not sure why wouldn't someone consider the option of praying for a miracle if they are so intent at believing what the Bible says.

The Bible doesn't really speak about if David's actions in killing Goliath were right or wrong. But considering that the Phillistines were an enemy nation and were constantly at war with Israel for some time, it's likely that the killing was just parts of an act of war. And killing an enemy during a war is not murder as God commanded it throughout Moses' time.

You also say that adultery isn't the act of sleeping with another man's wife? Do you want to follow the Bible and what it says as this section of the forum rules dictates, or do you just intend on making stuff up? The Bible CLEARLY mentions adultery as being either lusting after a married woman or having sexual intercourse with a married woman.
Paradigm wrote: Sins, according to Jesus are an issue of the heart, not of the physical action. When the heart is in line with the Golden Rule, the physical action is not a sin.
Sins are an issue of BOTH the heart and PHYSICAL acts. A woman was CAUGHT (seen implies a PHYSICAL act) in adultery in John 8:3-12 and Jesus told her SIN NO MORE. So here we have an example of a physical act being seen and Jesus clearly calling it a SIN.

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

Post #37

Post by Paradigm »

According to the NT, knowing what is moral or not is based on the Law, as well (Romans 3:20). You conveniently keep leaving out that point. There's no conctradiction here, just as long as you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings and also do everything (apply the Golden Rule) in NON-sinful ways.
The Bible says that knowing what is moral or not is based on the Law, not "Angel's interpretation of the Law.'

You say that taking what isn't yours is stealing by definition. By that logic, taking a human life is murder by definition, and thus God asked His people to break His own Law numerous times.

It is closer to the truth to say that unlawfully taking a life is murder. It follows then that unlawfully taking what isn't yours is stealing. Just as taking another's life can be done lawfully, taking what doesn't belong to you can be done lawfully, sleeping with someone else's wife can be done lawfully, etc...

If you kill someone lawfully, you haven't committed the sin of murder. If you take something lawfully, you haven't committed the sin of stealing, and if you sleep with someone else's wife lawfully, you haven't committed the sin of adultery.

The only way to tell if a killing is lawful or not is to look at the LAW. What type of killing does the LAW say is lawful? What type of taking does the LAW say is lawful? what type of sleeping with other people's wives does the LAW say is lawful?
Taking what's not yours and that which belongs to someone else is stealing, by definition. If I go into a store and take a bottle of water and don't pay for it, no matter how dehydrated and exhaused I am, it would be stealing.
So when God told Joshua to plunder the city of ai, he was commanding Joshua to break His commandment not to steal?

"Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.� Joshua 8:1-2

It seems more likely that when Joshua took from the city of Ai, he was not stealing because stealing means UNLAWFULLY taking what isn't yours. And since he had been commanded to do so by God, his actions were LAWFUL and therefore not 'stealing'.

Thus, lawfully taking what isn't yours is not stealing. Unlawfully taking what isn't yours is.

Same goes for murder, adultery, false testimony, and any other law you care to mention.
The Bible doesn't really speak about if David's actions in killing Goliath were right or wrong. But considering that the Phillistines were an enemy nation and were constantly at war with Israel for some time, it's likely that the killing was just parts of an act of war. And killing an enemy during a war is not murder as God commanded it throughout Moses' time.
Right, just as God commanded Joshua to take what wasn't his. The same way that murder means UNLAWFUL killing, stealing means UNLAWFULLY taking what isn't yours, and adultery means UNLAWFULLY lusting after women.

You also say that adultery isn't the act of sleeping with another man's wife? Do you want to follow the Bible and what it says as this section of the forum rules dictates, or do you just intend on making stuff up? The Bible CLEARLY mentions adultery as being either lusting after a married woman or having sexual intercourse with a married woman.
UNLAWFULLY lusting after women, UNLAWFULLY worshiping other Gods, UNLAWFULLY having sex with another man's wife are all adultery.

A better Biblical definition would be UNLAWFULLY breaking a covenant.(including the covenant of marriage)
Sins are an issue of BOTH the heart and PHYSICAL acts. A woman was CAUGHT (seen implies a PHYSICAL act) in adultery in John 8:3-12 and Jesus told her SIN NO MORE. So here we have an example of a physical act being seen and Jesus clearly calling it a SIN.
Jesus knew the woman's heart. That is how he knew she had sinned. John 2:25

Angel

Post #38

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote:According to the NT, knowing what is moral or not is based on the Law, as well (Romans 3:20). You conveniently keep leaving out that point. There's no conctradiction here, just as long as you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings and also do everything (apply the Golden Rule) in NON-sinful ways.
The Bible says that knowing what is moral or not is based on the Law, not "Angel's interpretation of the Law.'
What interpretation is needed for Romans 3:20? All I'm doing is repeating EXACTLY what the New Testament says. All it says is that the LAW of God is the knowledge of sin. If you're going to accuse me of something, then I'd hope you can back it up with evidence rather than just with making things up out of thin air. That is per the forum rules, as well.

I'll also refer to Romans 7:7 :
7What 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.”
Paradigm wrote: You say that taking what isn't yours is stealing by definition. By that logic, taking a human life is murder by definition, and thus God asked His people to break His own Law numerous times.
Stealing and murder are in two different categories by definition. Stealing relates to taking impersonal things (property, ideas, etc) while murder involves UNJUSTIFIABLy taking the life of a PERSON. You can start by looking up the word 'stealing' here.
Paradigm wrote: It is closer to the truth to say that unlawfully taking a life is murder. It follows then that unlawfully taking what isn't yours is stealing. Just as taking another's life can be done lawfully, taking what doesn't belong to you can be done lawfully, sleeping with someone else's wife can be done lawfully, etc...
Yes, there are exceptions to killing but that doesn't mean there are exceptions for every other thing we can think about. For example, is there an exception for raping an infant?
Paradigm wrote: If you kill someone lawfully, you haven't committed the sin of murder. If you take something lawfully, you haven't committed the sin of stealing, and if you sleep with someone else's wife lawfully, you haven't committed the sin of adultery.

The only way to tell if a killing is lawful or not is to look at the LAW. What type of killing does the LAW say is lawful? What type of taking does the LAW say is lawful? what type of sleeping with other people's wives does the LAW say is lawful?
The LAW mentions that there are LAWFUL killings. The law does NOT mention that there is a lawful or a good way of stealing and committing adultery. Notice here that in both of my points I'm going by what the Bible says whereas you, I don't know what you're talking about in the slightest.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Taking what's not yours and that which belongs to someone else is stealing, by definition. If I go into a store and take a bottle of water and don't pay for it, no matter how dehydrated and exhaused I am, it would be stealing.
So when God told Joshua to plunder the city of ai, he was commanding Joshua to break His commandment not to steal?

"Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.” Joshua 8:1-2

It seems more likely that when Joshua took from the city of Ai, he was not stealing because stealing means UNLAWFULLY taking what isn't yours. And since he had been commanded to do so by God, his actions were LAWFUL and therefore not 'stealing'.

Thus, lawfully taking what isn't yours is not stealing. Unlawfully taking what isn't yours is.

Same goes for murder, adultery, false testimony, and any other law you care to mention.
According to the Book of Joshua chapter 8, God ordered Israel to destroy the land of Ai. If they're going to kill the inhabitants of a city then the property is left to belong to no one as it can not belong to a dead person. So really, there is no stealing going on here since the property owners are dead. In your example in your last post or the one before, you mentioned taking something from someone who is still alive. Your point fails here.

Don't get me wrong, there are exceptions to some rules, but I'd go by God's word to know what the exceptions are because SOME exceptions does not mean EVERYTHING will have exceptions. Your reasoning also commits the Fallacy of Composition and I just explained how it does that.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: The Bible doesn't really speak about if David's actions in killing Goliath were right or wrong. But considering that the Phillistines were an enemy nation and were constantly at war with Israel for some time, it's likely that the killing was just parts of an act of war. And killing an enemy during a war is not murder as God commanded it throughout Moses' time.
Right, just as God commanded Joshua to take what wasn't his. The same way that murder means UNLAWFUL killing, stealing means UNLAWFULLY taking what isn't yours, and adultery means UNLAWFULLY lusting after women.
I already covered this point and showed how your reasoning is fallacious.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: You also say that adultery isn't the act of sleeping with another man's wife? Do you want to follow the Bible and what it says as this section of the forum rules dictates, or do you just intend on making stuff up? The Bible CLEARLY mentions adultery as being either lusting after a married woman or having sexual intercourse with a married woman.
UNLAWFULLY lusting after women, UNLAWFULLY worshiping other Gods, UNLAWFULLY having sex with another man's wife are all adultery.

A better Biblical definition would be UNLAWFULLY breaking a covenant.(including the covenant of marriage)
All that you're saying here is a tautology. You're OVERstating the obvious. Of course, doing something unlawful is unlawful. There is no LAWFUL sleeping with another man's wife if you actually took the time to read the Bible and the laws that relate to adultery and how Jesus calls it a sin, etc, etc, etc.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Sins are an issue of BOTH the heart and PHYSICAL acts. A woman was CAUGHT (seen implies a PHYSICAL act) in adultery in John 8:3-12 and Jesus told her SIN NO MORE. So here we have an example of a physical act being seen and Jesus clearly calling it a SIN.
Jesus knew the woman's heart. That is how he knew she had sinned. John 2:25
First off, Jesus did not say that there are no PHYSICAL sins so your premise makes an ASSUMPTION and a wrong one at that. The text mentions that the woman was CAUGHT in adultery which is another way that Jesus knew she was sinning, but whether she was known about through Jesus' special knowledge or through her being CAUGHT physically, the point is adultery is still a sin.

Please read 1 Corinthians 5:1 which shows a physical act of sexual immorality..
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife.

Also read 1 Corinthians 6:18..
18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

This mentions that sexual immorality is using your own body to sin, a body is PHYSICAL.
Look at a description in 1 Corinthians 6:13, 16..
13The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 1616 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.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

User avatar
therolanpen
Student
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:33 am
Location: New Mexico USA
Contact:

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #39

Post by therolanpen »

Paradigm wrote: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?
I have a few things to say. The law of Moshe is the law of the Moshe-lims. They are the faithful keepers of this law. We see them today, still stoning harlots to death in streets, as instructed, by this law, as it is written.

The law IS sin, and it IS iniquity.

The only type of sexual immorality Jesus spoke against is adultery. Adultery is the breaking of the marriage covenant. What is the marriage covenant? Jesus reminds us, calling to our attention the words of Adam, Now she is bone of my bone, and I will cleave to her. God took one rib, and made one wife for Adam to cleave to and follow. And this is the marriage covenant. One wife for one man.

To break this covenant, is to practice polygamy. In this manner, a man who commits adultery (and divorces the covenant), by taking another wife, causes his own wife to commit adultery, because now she is sleeping with another womans husband.

If you have taken a wife, cleave to that wife. If you have made a promise, keep it.

Polygamy, according to the law of the Moshe-lims, is, in the eyes of Christ, adultery, and divorce.

Otherwise, do unto others.

Angel

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #40

Post by Angel »

therolanpen wrote:
Paradigm wrote: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?
I have a few things to say. The law of Moshe is the law of the Moshe-lims. They are the faithful keepers of this law. We see them today, still stoning harlots to death in streets, as instructed, by this law, as it is written.

The law IS sin, and it IS iniquity.

The only type of sexual immorality Jesus spoke against is adultery. Adultery is the breaking of the marriage covenant. What is the marriage covenant? Jesus reminds us, calling to our attention the words of Adam, Now she is bone of my bone, and I will cleave to her. God took one rib, and made one wife for Adam to cleave to and follow. And this is the marriage covenant. One wife for one man.
I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that sin is only what Jesus spoke about because that's incorrect. Jesus spoke about some things that are sin but he did not cover everything nor did he have to since its already laid out in the Law (Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7). Also, contrary to your claim that the Law is sin, the Bible says the Law is NOT sin if you read Romans 7:7.

Romans 7:7
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.�
therolanpen wrote: To break this covenant, is to practice polygamy. In this manner, a man who commits adultery (and divorces the covenant), by taking another wife, causes his own wife to commit adultery, because now she is sleeping with another womans husband.

If you have taken a wife, cleave to that wife. If you have made a promise, keep it.
The only thing I can guess that you're referring to is Mark chapter 10:2-12. But if you notice, those verses refer to taking another wife coming from a DIVORCE. It does not mention taking another wife when it does not involve a divorce which fits with polygamy. If a man wants 2 wives, all he has to do is stay married to his 1st wife and start another marriage with his 2nd wife ((i.e. Plural ( or multiple) marriage)).
therolanpen wrote: Polygamy, according to the law of the Moshe-lims, is, in the eyes of Christ, adultery, and divorce.
Polygamy is not adultery nor divorce. Read the Law and you'll see that adultery is only about sexual intercourse with an already MARRIED woman. So all the references/acts are dependent on if the woman is married or not and it has nothing to do with the marital status of the guy. That's why the Law mentions that a man (Bible does not make any condition of his status) can sleep with a virgin and other 'single' women just as long as he plans to marry her. It does not call that adultery especially when the guy does not get punished and all he has to do is marry the girl (Exodus 22:16-17). Going by Deuteronomy 22:28-29, a man (no condition of marital status applies) can even rape an UNBETHROTHED girl and it would still be okay, biblically-speaking, just as long as he marries her. Interestingly, rape is not wrong if it involves an UNmarried woman but it's only wrong when it involves a BETHROTHED woman. That's parallel to the laws on adultery and sex. A man of any marital status, the Bible gives no conditions, can have sex with a UNMarried woman and be okay, but it's only when he has sex with an already MARRIED woman then it's not okay.

With the exception of the rape part, God defining adultery as taking place only when it involves a MARRIED woman makes sense if he was to allow polyGYNY. Otherwise, all polygamists should've been called adulters and stoned to death. Instead we find God giving rules for polygamy (like treating wives fairly, etc) and putting them in high honor, Jacob, Abraham, King David, King Solomon, (and some say even Moses) - all polygamists.

Please show me where in the Bible that God called a married man sleeping with an UNmarried woman adultery.

Post Reply