The case for sexual abstinance

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

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

The case for sexual abstinance

Post #1

Post by Slopeshoulder »

In another thread..
His Name Is John wrote: Sexual activity should be reserved until marriage (I can explain why if you so want).
I'd be curious to see that. I can't imagine why. Every argument I've seen for abstinance falls flat IMO. Joyfully, I've never been impressed by them. But bring it on...

Assuming consent exists, puberty is in the past, and laws are upheld...
What is the case for abstinance before, outside of, or between marriage(s)?
What is the case for abstinance for any reason at all?

User avatar
SilenceInMotion
Banned
Banned
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:16 pm

Post #21

Post by SilenceInMotion »

Yahu wrote:
SilenceInMotion wrote:
Yahu wrote:
SilenceInMotion wrote:Premarital sex is immoral for many reasons.
I'm afraid you don't understand biblical sexual law. Taking a concubine (having a sexual relationship with a non virgin that isn't your wife) is NOT forbidden. It was actually common.

Basically what is condemned is 'casual sex' or a woman having multiple partners. Fornication has nothing to do with marital status. It means 'unlawful sex'. You have to go back to the Law to see what is actually forbidden. Most of the problem with 'pre-marital' sex in those days was done in the worship of the pagan gods. That is what is being condemned.

A couple living together in a sexual relationship is not condemned in scripture. It is even considered a 'common law' marriage in many states. A couple engaging in sexual activity between betrothal and the actual wedding isn't sin either. The covenant starts at the betrothal anyway.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. (NIV, Galatians 5:19-21)

Sex before marriage is a root cause cause of: impurity, debauchery, idolatry, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, factions, and envy.

And then you simply have the self-evident truth that anyone with an ounce of honesty can admit- sex before marriage is nothing but disruption for the sake of vanity. Something that God must be able to see if any humble man can, lest He not be God at all but rather someones wishful idea of God.

Therefore, I see no argument thus far that really suffices for the contrary. Just adding some irony to the OP which states that they have never seen such from my side.
Don't you see what kinds of problems Pharisees like you cause by expanding on the actual law? The Pharisees of Yeshua's day did the same thing, they expanded on the law and attacked him for healing on the Sabbath and for allowing his disciples to pick grain to eat on the Sabbath.

Go back to Leviticus and actually read the sexual law! It forbids rape, taking a girl's virginity without marrying her. It places a fine on a man that takes a girl's virginity without having the father's blessing and must take her as wife. It forbids sex with close relatives. It forbids sex with another man's wife. It forbids having sex with a woman and her daughter.

That is about all it does cover. It has NOTHING to say about sex outside of marriage but there are laws concerning a concubine. A concubine was NOT a wife. The children of the wife inherit. It was a different status for the woman because often she couldn't become a wife because she had already lost her virginity.

Now I'm going to give you a situation. I went through a non-sexual Gothard courtship. We were ready to get married. I asked her father's blessing to marry his daughter. He gave it but needed 6 months+ to sell an investment property to pay for his eldest daughters wedding. We were ready to marry then and were both on our own in the Military. He gave his permission to exchange vows and take his daughter as my wife and we would have the family wedding when he sold the property.

Do you have any idea how many Pharisees have attacked me saying we were in sin? I am tired of being slapped in the face by morons that don't understand biblical law. Is there anything wrong with waiting until a full marriage ceremony? Of course not. But it is VERY wrong to attack someone for violating the traditions of man when they are NOT part of the law of Yah!

All Yah is interested in is our temperance. That is controlling our sex drive to prevent us from doing something EVIL. What he considers evil is rape, ruining virgins, stealing other men's wives.

Now I can show you places where sex outside marriage is allowed in the law. For example a Levirate situation of a childless widow is allowed to have sex with a close relative to gain a child that could inherit the family property due her dead husband. That is part of the law. Both Tamar and Ruth fell into that situation. It did NOT require marriage, just sex with a near relative of the dead husband. Ruth is even instructed by Naomi to go uncover Boaz's penis and have intercourse with him. Of course you have to read it in the original Hebrew to see that. That was specifically covered in my Hebrew class at bible college. The english translations tries to hide it in how it is worded. Tamar even dressed up as a prostitute to have sex with Judah to get the child she was due. Judah didn't marry her.

Other places sex outside of marriage is presented in scripture is Abraham and Hagar. Jacob and both his wives handmaidens. They were concubines, not wives. A man could have multiple wives and concubines in scripture.
Who are you calling a Pharisee!?

You are being dishonest with your entire post. I never said anything of the old Law, I put direct New Covenant Scripture in plain sight and expanded thoroughly on it. Therefore, you just cut yourself out of the debate as far as I'm concerned. It's your brand of thinking that got mankind where it's at in the first place, thinking that a man shouldn't have any accountability as long as it's in 'good intentions'. We've all heard what that paves the road to, but as long as it makes God more applicable to your vanities, why not? Many Christians have done a good job of creating their own religion.

Yahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:28 am
Location: Atlanta

Post #22

Post by Yahu »

SilenceInMotion wrote: You are being dishonest with your entire post. I never said anything of the old Law, I put direct New Covenant Scripture in plain sight and expanded thoroughly on it. Therefore, you just cut yourself out of the debate as far as I'm concerned. It's your brand of thinking that got mankind where it's at in the first place, thinking that a man shouldn't have any accountability as long as it's in 'good intentions'. We've all heard what that paves the road to, but as long as it makes God more applicable to your vanities, why not? Many Christians have done a good job of creating their own religion.
All new testament scriptures are based on old testament concepts. Are you suggesting that the 10 commandments are no longer valid?

The scripture you posted had nothing to do with premarital sex. It stated sexual immorality. That immorality is defined by the law. Sin is by definition the violation of the Law. The moral law from the old testament is just as valid today. Yah doesn't change. You are right we don't follow the social or ritual law for the nation of Israel but the moral law is totally valid for everyone. In that law, the only ones required to marry a virgin were those of the high priesthood.

By the way, that sexual immorality in that verse is directly tied with the idolatry and witchcraft. Paul is condemning the pagan practices of sexual activities that were part of the pagan worship. I am very familiar with those practices. It was all about casual sex with strangers, or ritual prostitutes that were temple priestess. That passage pretty much describes what was going on at those pagan temples.

I knew a girl in the Air Force that was a high priestess of Ashtoreth and I helped get her and her coven put in prison for the evil they were doing. She was recreating that same pagan worship in modern times. Their weekend parties were orgies that they invited four new girls to each weekend. They placed curses on the new girls that fell if they talked about what happened at the parties then drugged the new girls and let the guys gang rape them as a warm up for their orgies. The women then picked their partner after watching the performance of the men raping the 'new meat' girls. They also distributed date rape drugs to the men that attended. It was all about casual sex with as many partners as you could and dominating men through lust. I did the rape counseling for many of their victims.

Now you posted a scripture out of the book of Galatians. One of the major issues in that book is over the extreme positions of two camps that battled each other. On one side were those in 'bondage to law' that were strict rule mongers, ie Pharisees. The other extreme was those living in the flesh and claiming grace for any action they did. Both extremes are error straight from the pit of hell. The correct position is dead center between those extremes. That position is be 'led by the Spirit' while using the Law to understand the nature of Yah as a teaching tool and having grace for where you fail. It is demonic error to hold either extreme. Each extreme sees the error in the opposite extreme while being blind to their own error. Then both extremes attack anyone that isn't on their extreme end including any that hold to the actual position of Yah in the center. This is a common tactic of the enemy to cause division and strife.

Sexual activity is another place this same tactic is used by the enemy. One extreme demonizes desire and any sexual activity outside their strict standards in an attempt to control people. The other opposite extreme is the position that all sex is good. Of course Yah's position is right in the middle, be responsible with your sexual activity and don't hurt people. Rape hurts women. Adultery can destroy a marriage. Taking a girl's virginity and dumping her is very hurtful. Consensual sex between adults within a relationship doesn't hurt anyone is not a problem.

You expand on the law of Yah with traditions of man based on RELIGION. That is the error of Phariseeism and shows a total lack of love. That lack of love is the 1st problem to overcome in the 7 problems listed in Rev 2&3 for spiritual maturity. Those 7 letters to the 7 churches are a spiritual maturity scale of problems to overcome and the reward to the overcomer of that error. You still haven't gotten past the 1st error.

User avatar
SilenceInMotion
Banned
Banned
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:16 pm

Post #23

Post by SilenceInMotion »

Yahu wrote:
SilenceInMotion wrote: You are being dishonest with your entire post. I never said anything of the old Law, I put direct New Covenant Scripture in plain sight and expanded thoroughly on it. Therefore, you just cut yourself out of the debate as far as I'm concerned. It's your brand of thinking that got mankind where it's at in the first place, thinking that a man shouldn't have any accountability as long as it's in 'good intentions'. We've all heard what that paves the road to, but as long as it makes God more applicable to your vanities, why not? Many Christians have done a good job of creating their own religion.
All new testament scriptures are based on old testament concepts. Are you suggesting that the 10 commandments are no longer valid?

The scripture you posted had nothing to do with premarital sex. It stated sexual immorality. That immorality is defined by the law. Sin is by definition the violation of the Law. The moral law from the old testament is just as valid today. Yah doesn't change. You are right we don't follow the social or ritual law for the nation of Israel but the moral law is totally valid for everyone. In that law, the only ones required to marry a virgin were those of the high priesthood.

By the way, that sexual immorality in that verse is directly tied with the idolatry and witchcraft. Paul is condemning the pagan practices of sexual activities that were part of the pagan worship. I am very familiar with those practices. It was all about casual sex with strangers, or ritual prostitutes that were temple priestess. That passage pretty much describes what was going on at those pagan temples.

I knew a girl in the Air Force that was a high priestess of Ashtoreth and I helped get her and her coven put in prison for the evil they were doing. She was recreating that same pagan worship in modern times. Their weekend parties were orgies that they invited four new girls to each weekend. They placed curses on the new girls that fell if they talked about what happened at the parties then drugged the new girls and let the guys gang rape them as a warm up for their orgies. The women then picked their partner after watching the performance of the men raping the 'new meat' girls. They also distributed date rape drugs to the men that attended. It was all about casual sex with as many partners as you could and dominating men through lust. I did the rape counseling for many of their victims.

Now you posted a scripture out of the book of Galatians. One of the major issues in that book is over the extreme positions of two camps that battled each other. On one side were those in 'bondage to law' that were strict rule mongers, ie Pharisees. The other extreme was those living in the flesh and claiming grace for any action they did. Both extremes are error straight from the pit of hell. The correct position is dead center between those extremes. That position is be 'led by the Spirit' while using the Law to understand the nature of Yah as a teaching tool and having grace for where you fail. It is demonic error to hold either extreme. Each extreme sees the error in the opposite extreme while being blind to their own error. Then both extremes attack anyone that isn't on their extreme end including any that hold to the actual position of Yah in the center. This is a common tactic of the enemy to cause division and strife.

Sexual activity is another place this same tactic is used by the enemy. One extreme demonizes desire and any sexual activity outside their strict standards in an attempt to control people. The other opposite extreme is the position that all sex is good. Of course Yah's position is right in the middle, be responsible with your sexual activity and don't hurt people. Rape hurts women. Adultery can destroy a marriage. Taking a girl's virginity and dumping her is very hurtful. Consensual sex between adults within a relationship doesn't hurt anyone is not a problem.

You expand on the law of Yah with traditions of man based on RELIGION. That is the error of Phariseeism and shows a total lack of love. That lack of love is the 1st problem to overcome in the 7 problems listed in Rev 2&3 for spiritual maturity. Those 7 letters to the 7 churches are a spiritual maturity scale of problems to overcome and the reward to the overcomer of that error. You still haven't gotten past the 1st error.
Sin literally means to 'miss the point'. Just because the Old Law is void doesn't mean it is no longer 'missing the point' to not abide by them. What the New Covenant is, is grace. One is justified by the NC, but not made perfect. The Bible implies this very strongly- one can either follow the OC to a tee, and never stumble, or receive God's grace and be justified by Christ.

That does not mean that 'good intentions' suddenly makes everything morally upright. Sex before marriage is morally irresponsible for self-evident reasons. It is even more irresponsible to condone it. If it was 'perfectly fine', it wouldn't have put such a crutch on humanity. You speak as if we are perfect and live in some perfect world where a 'good relationship' is immune to the potential consequences of such vanities.

You don't take into consideration of just how bad and unplanned pregnancy can destroy a relationship that was once 'good', and things of that nature. There is zero pro-activity in your moral philosophy, it's rather just a free fall, zero accountability ideology.
Think of all the people in the world who would have saved a lot of face by simply waiting until marriage.

Yahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:28 am
Location: Atlanta

Post #24

Post by Yahu »

SilenceInMotion wrote:
Sin literally means to 'miss the point'. Just because the Old Law is void doesn't mean it is no longer 'missing the point' to not abide by them. What the New Covenant is, is grace. One is justified by the NC, but not made perfect. The Bible implies this very strongly- one can either follow the OC to a tee, and never stumble, or receive God's grace and be justified by Christ.

That does not mean that 'good intentions' suddenly makes everything morally upright. Sex before marriage is morally irresponsible for self-evident reasons. It is even more irresponsible to condone it. If it was 'perfectly fine', it wouldn't have put such a crutch on humanity. You speak as if we are perfect and live in some perfect world where a 'good relationship' is immune to the potential consequences of such vanities.

You don't take into consideration of just how bad and unplanned pregnancy can destroy a relationship that was once 'good', and things of that nature. There is zero pro-activity in your moral philosophy, it's rather just a free fall, zero accountability ideology.
Think of all the people in the world who would have saved a lot of face by simply waiting until marriage.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

You said, "Sex before marriage is morally irresponsible for self-evident reasons." This is a bold faced lie based on false doctrine IMO. A legal marriage is a 'tradition of man'. The only thing Yah requires is a covenant between man and woman. Part of your problem is your definition of 'marriage'. Yah doesn't require a ceremony or a license approved by the state. It is a matter of the heart, a commitment, not of a ritual tradition of man. Many places in scripture when it says, taking someone to wife, means starting a sexual relationship, not having a ceremony.

What I don't understand is why so many so-called Christians focus on sex when they totally ignore problems like gossip and slander. They don't have any problem committing those sins when they think someone else is in sexual sin. If you feel it is sin to have premarital sex, fine don't have any. Attacking someone that does not have the same understanding is just as big a problem. Gossip is a sin against your neighbor while scripture states that sex can be a sin against your own body.

1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.

Now you have to agree that sex CAN cause problems and that there is a proper place for it. The disagreement is over what defines 'proper'. Attacking someone that has a different definition of what Yah sees is 'proper' is the problem. You can go right on slapping those individuals in the face all day for your accusation of their behavior being improper. I my case, I will just turn the other cheek and stand in defiance of that attack just as Yeshua did when accused of wrong doing when He was actually following the law.

I understand you are just a spiritually immature baby christian that thinks you have a right to go around slapping other babies. I understand you are an extremist and have fallen into that error.


Rev 22:11 let him that does unrighteously do unrighteously still; and let the filthy make himself filthy still; and let him that is righteous practise righteousness still; and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still.
12 behold, I come quickly, and my reward with me, to render to every one as his work shall be.


If you think having premarital sex is unrighteousness, let those that disagree follow their own convictions just as the verse above says. It is up to Yeshua to reward their activity as He determines is correct.

User avatar
SilenceInMotion
Banned
Banned
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:16 pm

Post #25

Post by SilenceInMotion »

Yahu wrote:
SilenceInMotion wrote:
Sin literally means to 'miss the point'. Just because the Old Law is void doesn't mean it is no longer 'missing the point' to not abide by them. What the New Covenant is, is grace. One is justified by the NC, but not made perfect. The Bible implies this very strongly- one can either follow the OC to a tee, and never stumble, or receive God's grace and be justified by Christ.

That does not mean that 'good intentions' suddenly makes everything morally upright. Sex before marriage is morally irresponsible for self-evident reasons. It is even more irresponsible to condone it. If it was 'perfectly fine', it wouldn't have put such a crutch on humanity. You speak as if we are perfect and live in some perfect world where a 'good relationship' is immune to the potential consequences of such vanities.

You don't take into consideration of just how bad and unplanned pregnancy can destroy a relationship that was once 'good', and things of that nature. There is zero pro-activity in your moral philosophy, it's rather just a free fall, zero accountability ideology.
Think of all the people in the world who would have saved a lot of face by simply waiting until marriage.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

You said, "Sex before marriage is morally irresponsible for self-evident reasons." This is a bold faced lie based on false doctrine IMO. A legal marriage is a 'tradition of man'. The only thing Yah requires is a covenant between man and woman. Part of your problem is your definition of 'marriage'. Yah doesn't require a ceremony or a license approved by the state. It is a matter of the heart, a commitment, not of a ritual tradition of man. Many places in scripture when it says, taking someone to wife, means starting a sexual relationship, not having a ceremony.

What I don't understand is why so many so-called Christians focus on sex when they totally ignore problems like gossip and slander. They don't have any problem committing those sins when they think someone else is in sexual sin. If you feel it is sin to have premarital sex, fine don't have any. Attacking someone that does not have the same understanding is just as big a problem. Gossip is a sin against your neighbor while scripture states that sex can be a sin against your own body.

1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.

Now you have to agree that sex CAN cause problems and that there is a proper place for it. The disagreement is over what defines 'proper'. Attacking someone that has a different definition of what Yah sees is 'proper' is the problem. You can go right on slapping those individuals in the face all day for your accusation of their behavior being improper. I my case, I will just turn the other cheek and stand in defiance of that attack just as Yeshua did when accused of wrong doing when He was actually following the law.

I understand you are just a spiritually immature baby christian that thinks you have a right to go around slapping other babies. I understand you are an extremist and have fallen into that error.


Rev 22:11 let him that does unrighteously do unrighteously still; and let the filthy make himself filthy still; and let him that is righteous practise righteousness still; and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still.
12 behold, I come quickly, and my reward with me, to render to every one as his work shall be.


If you think having premarital sex is unrighteousness, let those that disagree follow their own convictions just as the verse above says. It is up to Yeshua to reward their activity as He determines is correct.
You have, thus far, called me a Pharisee and an extremist for noting that sex before marriage is not morally righteous.

Sex before marriage has always been asserted as something to try and avoid in Christendom, and so it is clear who the real extremist is. Sex before marriage has caused nothing but complications in society. It is indefensible by biblical standards.

The National Post stated that the average female has six sexual partners by the time of graduating high school. Unplanned pregnancies, social dilemmas, and STD's galore. Venereal worts pass right through condoms, and is a potential precursor for ovarian cancer.

All this for the satisfaction of 'getting laid'. It is not holy. So I would suggest that you would refrain from coming at me with such vulgar statements. You are being incredibly asinine and irresponsible of your own religion, and you do it by poorly examining the wisdom in Scripture which is quite frankly absurd. It's a sure sign that you know you are wrong and just don't have any humility to acknowledge it.

Yahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:28 am
Location: Atlanta

Post #26

Post by Yahu »

SilenceInMotion wrote:
You have, thus far, called me a Pharisee (if the shoe fits ...) and an extremist for noting that sex before marriage is not morally righteous.

You have provided NO proof that premarital sex is wrong. None. Remember fornication has nothing to do with marital status. It is 'unlawful sex' as defined by the old testament law.

Sex before marriage has always been asserted as something to try and avoid in Christendom, (as a tradition of man since the puritan times yes)
and so it is clear who the real extremist is. (Wrong again. I'm not an extremist. I hold the middle ground that we should be responsible with our sexual activity while I oppose rape, adultery, casual sex, prostitution, homosexuality or even joining with a woman that has had lots of partners. How is that being extreme? I guess I'm extreme because I don't hold the same extreme as you do. In my life I have turned down 6 girls that offered me their virginity because I wasn't planning to marry them. I do have a moral standard but it just differs from yours.)

Sex before marriage has caused nothing but complications in society. (I would agree if you changed that to 'casual sex') It is indefensible by biblical standards. Nonsense. Do you know that Yah gave David all of Saul's wives? Do you think he married them? No he had wives, concubines and many virgins. What was David's sin? He took another man's wife when he had plenty of women of his own.

All this for the satisfaction of 'getting laid'. It is not holy. So I would suggest that you would refrain from coming at me with such vulgar statements. (What vulgar statements? You do EXPAND on the definitions and twist scripture just like the Pharisees). You are being incredibly asinine and irresponsible of your own religion, and you do it by poorly examining the wisdom in Scripture which is quite frankly absurd. It's a sure sign that you know you are wrong and just don't have any humility to acknowledge it.
Got a few questions for you. Do you actually read Hebrew? Do you have any idea how much of the sexual references in scripture are hidden by the translation into English? Have you attended any bible colleges? I can answer Yes to all of the above. Which extremist denomination do you belong to?

You assume that all premarital sex is about just 'getting laid' or immorality. That's nonsense and just an assumption of your part. Does getting involved with your fiance before the legal wedding just have to do with 'getting laid'? Of course not. You can make love to an individual without a marriage license.

Forced celibacy doesn't work. The RCC has learned that lesson. All it gets you is priests buggering alter boys. If you think all sexual activity is sin, just go ahead and get yourself castrated.

I will leave you with the words of Yeshua:

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

User avatar
SilenceInMotion
Banned
Banned
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:16 pm

Post #27

Post by SilenceInMotion »

Yahu wrote:
SilenceInMotion wrote:
You have, thus far, called me a Pharisee (if the shoe fits ...) and an extremist for noting that sex before marriage is not morally righteous.

You have provided NO proof that premarital sex is wrong. None. Remember fornication has nothing to do with marital status. It is 'unlawful sex' as defined by the old testament law.

Sex before marriage has always been asserted as something to try and avoid in Christendom, (as a tradition of man since the puritan times yes)
and so it is clear who the real extremist is. (Wrong again. I'm not an extremist. I hold the middle ground that we should be responsible with our sexual activity while I oppose rape, adultery, casual sex, prostitution, homosexuality or even joining with a woman that has had lots of partners. How is that being extreme? I guess I'm extreme because I don't hold the same extreme as you do. In my life I have turned down 6 girls that offered me their virginity because I wasn't planning to marry them. I do have a moral standard but it just differs from yours.)

Sex before marriage has caused nothing but complications in society. (I would agree if you changed that to 'casual sex') It is indefensible by biblical standards. Nonsense. Do you know that Yah gave David all of Saul's wives? Do you think he married them? No he had wives, concubines and many virgins. What was David's sin? He took another man's wife when he had plenty of women of his own.

All this for the satisfaction of 'getting laid'. It is not holy. So I would suggest that you would refrain from coming at me with such vulgar statements. (What vulgar statements? You do EXPAND on the definitions and twist scripture just like the Pharisees). You are being incredibly asinine and irresponsible of your own religion, and you do it by poorly examining the wisdom in Scripture which is quite frankly absurd. It's a sure sign that you know you are wrong and just don't have any humility to acknowledge it.
Got a few questions for you. Do you actually read Hebrew? Do you have any idea how much of the sexual references in scripture are hidden by the translation into English? Have you attended any bible colleges? I can answer Yes to all of the above. Which extremist denomination do you belong to?

You assume that all premarital sex is about just 'getting laid' or immorality. That's nonsense and just an assumption of your part. Does getting involved with your fiance before the legal wedding just have to do with 'getting laid'? Of course not. You can make love to an individual without a marriage license.

Forced celibacy doesn't work. The RCC has learned that lesson. All it gets you is priests buggering alter boys. If you think all sexual activity is sin, just go ahead and get yourself castrated.

I will leave you with the words of Yeshua:

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
How do you propose thievery is wrong? In a world where everything is kosher, there would be nothing wrong with taking someone's belongings. But since we live in a world where taking someone's belongings results in that person's livelihood being tainted, it is wrong.
In the same way, sex before marriage would be fine in a kosher world, but this is not a kosher world. There are mighty consequences even when something is in 'good intentions'. Man is not applicable enough to take such risks. As in, nobody has sex to ruin their livelihood, they do it for pleasure. But what happens more often then not?

Your argument only works if you say that Jesus did away with morals. Your whole montage on laws and calling me everything from a hypocrite, an extremist, and a Pharisee is laughable. I need not have to deal with such nonsense. For someone who allegedly has all this education, your interpretation is shallow and conflicted beyond repair. You should just go back to the fundamental aspects of morals and rebuilt your theology.

User avatar
His Name Is John
Site Supporter
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 am
Location: London, England

Post #28

Post by His Name Is John »

I only just saw this thread, perhaps I should pay more attention in the future. Anyway, there are a whole list of reasons why you shouldn't have sex before marriage:

- Risk of unwanted pregnancy
- Increased risk in STDs
- Partners who have sex before marriage are much more likely to get divorced
- Makes sex less special
- Marriage provides a stable environment for children

I think just one or two of these alone are enough reason to wait (and indeed these are not all the different arguments, just a handful of them).

If you have questions, I am happy to explain each point in more detail.
“People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.�
- G.K. Chesterton

“A detective story generally describes six living men discussing how it is that a man is dead. A modern philosophic story generally describes six dead men discussing how any man can possibly be alive.�
- G.K. Chesterton

Yahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:28 am
Location: Atlanta

Post #29

Post by Yahu »

SilenceInMotion wrote: How do you propose thievery is wrong? In a world where everything is kosher, there would be nothing wrong with taking someone's belongings. But since we live in a world where taking someone's belongings results in that person's livelihood being tainted, it is wrong.

In the same way, sex before marriage would be fine in a kosher world, but this is not a kosher world. There are mighty consequences even when something is in 'good intentions'. Man is not applicable enough to take such risks. As in, nobody has sex to ruin their livelihood, they do it for pleasure. But what happens more often then not?

Your argument only works if you say that Jesus did away with morals. Your whole montage on laws and calling me everything from a hypocrite, an extremist, and a Pharisee is laughable. I need not have to deal with such nonsense. For someone who allegedly has all this education, your interpretation is shallow and conflicted beyond repair. You should just go back to the fundamental aspects of morals and rebuilt your theology.
Yes, I agree that stealing is wrong. When applied to sexual activity you don't steal a girl's virginity from her future husband or her father to give away. You don't steal intimacy with another man's wife. That is what makes those actions wrong. Instead of following the 'letter of the law' you need to understand WHY Yah considers something a sin. Yes, an individual operating solely in lust is also wrong but assuming that all sexual activity before a legal wedding is based solely on lust is wrong.

Here is an example. A close friend of both me and my wife went to a party. Once at the party she found out it was being thrown by the local coven of witches. They forced her into performing ritual witchcraft to bind a curse to her if she spoke about what happened at the party with anyone that had not attended. She was then drugged and gang raped by about 40 guys as her initiation into the group. After that she could attend their weekly parties and watch the next group of 4 'new meat' girls get gang raped and pick her own partner for the following orgy. She wanted NOTHING to do with them after attending once. They held her captive for 3 days afterwards. I had actually confronted the coven at that weekend party and rescued 3 of the 'new meat' girls and gave them sanctuary. I was staying at the same hotel on my 2nd honeymoon and ran into the situation. Since that friend heard that my wife and I got invited up, she hid from us out of shame for being at the party. I rescued 3 strangers from being raped at the party but left behind a close friend. She came crying to me when she got back. Her best friend was away on her honeymoon. Her roommate was working mid-shift and sound asleep so she came running to me to hold her and cry in my arms. She knew I took my wife through rape counseling as part of our courtship and asked me to help her like I had for my wife. I did. She also knew I had confronted the coven and broken off witchcraft they had sent after me. I held her and counseled her for a week. One of the problems with rape victims is they feel that no man will ever be interested in them again sexually because of their rape. She had begged me to make love to her during the counseling. I had refused. She came to me after the counseling had ended and begged me and my wife. I still refused but my wife knew what emotional issues she was facing and also begged me to prove to her she would be all right. I finally agreed. I showed her what should be shared between a man and women in love verses operating in lust.

Of course a Pharisee would claim that was adultery and fornication. It was not adultery because it was not a violation of a covenant with my wife. She not only allowed but requested that I help our friend. It was not based on lust but out of a desire to help a friend get over an emotional trauma. She was not a virgin so I was not stealing something that rightfully belonged to another. She would be classified as a concubine by biblical standards. She was helped so much that she started dating again within a few weeks and got married within the year. She wanted a relationship like what I had with my own wife. She had even begged me to marry her too, if only for a short while. I refused. She knew I wouldn't have sexual intercourse with anyone other then a wife up until that point.

To claim those actions were based on lust, a desired to just 'get laid' or sin in any way is just a misunderstanding of the spirit of the law IMO. There was only one problem with that action. She got pregnant due to missing her pill because of the trauma of events at the party. She found out after she started dating another man and married him but named her son after me. She was a faithful wife to that man for 18 years.

I just get so sick of Pharisees slapping me in the face over issues like that with their judgmental self-righteousness when they should be worrying over the beam in their own eye.

I was also a surrogate father for another friend. Her husband was told by doctors he was sterile and could never have children. He and his wife asked me and my wife if I could be the surrogate father of their child. They had their pastor's permission as well as their parents to use a surrogate and used Tamar as the biblical example for raising up a child when the husband couldn't. I left the issue for my wife to decide because scripture states that the body of the husband belongs to his wife. It required her blessing. They knew I was fertile because of the other pregnancy and this woman was the best friend of the other one I had helped. If she couldn't have her husband's child, she wanted mine and have her child be half-brother to her best friend's child. She was a virtuous woman that had saved her virginity for her wedding night. Our sexual contact was solely for the purpose of producing a child to follow Yah's commandment to be fruitful and multiply. That woman also later got her degree in Christian counseling and had a successful family counseling ministry through her church for years after.

To claim that ALL sexual activity outside of a legal marriage is WRONG. There are plenty of scriptural evidence for that. Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon are examples of that.

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

Post #30

Post by Slopeshoulder »

His Name Is John wrote:I only just saw this thread, perhaps I should pay more attention in the future. Anyway, there are a whole list of reasons why you shouldn't have sex before marriage:
These appear to be pragmatic reasons, not moral or theological reasons...
- Risk of unwanted pregnancy
With birth control, the blessing of technology, that risk is lower than getting hurt in a car or in other common human behaviors. Life is risk control, not fear and disengagement.
- Increased risk in STDs
Same answer as above.
- Partners who have sex before marriage are much more likely to get divorced
This is very questionable, but if true I think it's likely a factor of freedom and perspective driving any correlation rather than the sex.
- Makes sex less special
Only if you let it. Special by what definition, enforced scarcity? That seems like a self-validating conclusion.
I've had stupendously good sex with near-total strangers, and garbage sex with a loved one. But when love and sex are together (as it is now) it's the best, and most of us aspire to that. But I'm confident that most people who have premarital sex are fully capable of "special sex" with a loved one when the time comes, and even MORE special as a result of 1. practice, and 2. knowing the lesser alternatives.
- Marriage provides a stable environment for children
What's that got to do with premarital sex? Most people I know have sex for 15 years or so before marriage (say from 16 to 30 or so), and then a few more in marriage before having kids (say 34-40 or s0).
I think just one or two of these alone are enough reason to wait (and indeed these are not all the different arguments, just a handful of them).
Sure, if one wants to. I have no problem with that. But these are not a moral or theological case against premarital sex, and even pragmatically they seem to fall short of a compelling argument either to force celibacy on oneself for 15 or so years during the peak of one's attractiveness and drive, or to enter into a young marriage that might not have an adequete basis for union for other reasons (I guess this is where the divorce taboo comes in handy).
Plus, testing for sexual compatability ahead of committing seems as wise as testing for personal compatability.
If you have questions, I am happy to explain each point in more detail.
I'll be here.

Post Reply