• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
South Carolina
The thread is now unlocked.

Acts420--I expect you to post your answers to the following questions by midnight tonight.  

1. Quote those authorities who assert that the cultural traditions that prohibited premarital sex also said that being alone with a single woman is immoral. I want to know that you're not just making this stuff up.

2. Define in detail these "many other things through history".

Thanks, Second Chance

ADDED:

Also, please answer serb1389's request as well by the same deadline. To reiterate, the additional request is "list at least 5 fathers of the church that support your positions below, as well as at least 5 biblical sources." Thanks, Second Chance

 

W.A.Mozart

High Elder
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
524
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
109
Location
Divine liturgy
this topic is an example of how the orthodox people can make things complicated just because they r afraid to use the freedom they have and to accept the consequences... and to prove themselves that they r right
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
W.A.Mozart said:
this topic is an example of how the orthodox people can make things complicated just because they r afraid to use the freedom they have and to accept the consequences... and to prove themselves that they r right
What do you mean?
 

OtherguyLB

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
87
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Torah never prohibits premarital sex... But not only that, it doesn't prohibit selling your daughter as a sex-slave too... Also it doesn't prohibit polygamy... Old Testament is pretty different from the New Testament... Do you want those Acts420? :))))

But, St. Paul prohibited sex before marriage...

At first he says: "It's better for a man not to touch a woman at all, but because [people can't hold sexual desires] there is lot of immorality(fornication), it's better to marry..." And also he says: "It's better to marry, then to burn with passion."

Trust me, these are direct quotations...

Also, Paul says: "Let the marriage held honored among other things, because fornicators and adulterers God will judge." This is in Hebrews...
 

acts420

Elder
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
San Francisco, California
Website
www.acts420.com
Dear Second Chance, Christ is in our midst!  

Thank you for your moderation.  I posted this about 3 minutes before midnight East coast time (9pm West coast since I'm on the West coast for work).  I modified it as late as 9:30pm West coast time.  I hope it is still acceptable so this discussion can continue.

I already did answer Peter's questions to the best of my abilities at the time.  I cited a work of scholarship, I cited Scripture, and I answered his questions as best I could.  He insists that I quote more authorities to show that the cultural traditions that prohibited premarital sex also said that being alone with a single woman is immoral, etc.    However, I've already cited one specifically, one less specifically, and the 3 that one claims to have relied on.  Peter hasn't even cited a single source at all to show that my source is wrong.  He just assumes I made my source up and asks me to prove otherwise (or one could say forces me under threat of closing off my discussion).  I did offer proof; I cited a source.  He can look it up if he wants to verify it, and then he can cite another source if he wants to oppose it.  That's how discussion works.  He has refused to do so, and has implied that I'm academically lazy to boot!  

How about, in the name of fairness, we now lock the thread until Peter can at least cite a single source in response to mine if he thinks mine is not true?  Seems like that would be a fair way to go about this considering I spent my time and money, and perhaps lost a client or two, doing Peter's academic work for him.  But alas life is not always fair.

Not only has he not cited a single source against the one I provided, he won't even answer my most basic of questions!  He insisted that the Church says premarital sex is a sin against God.  That was news to me.  I've never heard the Church teach any such thing.  So I asked him, "when has the Church spoken about premarital sex?  How do you define the speaking Church?"  His response?  "I'm asking the questions here."  Nice.  Very nice.  This seems like it may be the type of situation where no matter how much Scripture and history I cite in support of my position, he will always accuse me of not answering his questions and never answer mine.  We shall see though.  I'll hope for the best.

Someone, though not Peter, did cite a source.  Specifically xariskai cited H. Reisser as saying, "In later Jewish Rab. language zenut (porneia) is to be understood as including not only prostitution and any kind of extra-marital intercourse ( Pirqe Aboth 2:8 )."  That is a citation to one late Rabbi's teachings.  So one late Jewish Rabbi believed extramarital sex was proneia.  Keep in mind that his entire argument rests on that one later Jewish Rabbi (so far).  For that is the only evidence he's given that premarital sex was considered porneia by the Jews under the Old Testament.  And since the New Testament, like the Old, never specifically says "do not have sex before marriage," all of xariskai's New Testament citations are likewise dependent on that one Rabbi (so far, since that is all he has cited).  For when he cites F. Hauck and S. Schulz saying, "the NT is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse," they are assuming "porneia" means "premarital sex."  The only reason xariskai has given me to believe they are correct is one late Rabbi.  That's not very strong support.

Well, I've already cited a Rabbi and a scholar who say many early Rabbis didn't think premarital sex was transgression, porneia.  I think the burden of proof has switched back to the other side.  But, again, life isn't fair.  So... I will now comply with this moderator request.  

Dear Peter, when I said "the same cultural traditions" I did not mean that the exact same Rabbi in history that taught that premarital sex was wrong also taught that being alone with a woman was wrong.  What I meant was that Jewish cultural traditions also taught that being alone with a single woman is wrong.  What I'm saying is that the underlying authority being relied on is the same in both cases: cultural traditions.  So I will show that it is cultural transgressions that condemned sex before marriage as wrong and many other things also (things we believe are right).  

Brothers and sisters, I understand that my beliefs are offensive to many.  Remember that even Christ offended many in the people of God when he blessed St. Photini, the "Samaritan woman at the well," and did not condemn her living situation (although he had repeatedly told adulterers to "stop sinning").  If what I'm saying is offensive to many that does not make it wrong.

I said:  Jewish researcher Ariel Scheib says, "The Bible never explicitly states a woman and man may not have sexual intercourse prior to marriage; therefore, no sanction was imposed for premarital sex, but it was considered a violation of custom (tradition)..." He cites as his sources Eisenberg, Ronald L. The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions. PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2004; Kolatch, Alfred J. The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989; Wigoder, Geoffrey , Ed. The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia. NY: Facts on File, 1992.

Scheib cites Dr. Ronald L. Eisenberg, the critically acclaimed author of Jewish Traditions: A JPS (Jewish Publication Society) Guide by Ronald L. Eisenberg (Jewish Publication Society Oct 4, 2004).  Since Peter thinks the source I cited may be lying or unreliable, and since he doesn't want to bother verifying the source himself, I've aquired Eisenberg's work.  On p 57, Eisenberg states, "according to Biale, polygamy was permissible during biblical times and a man was not forbidden from having sexual relations with an unmarried woman as long as he could theoretically marry her."  He explains that if he did not marry her, he risked being condemned by the community and sometimes even flogged.  All of that depended on the community.  This was community law; he was not considered guilty of a sexual transgression against God.  The woman was also not guilty of any sexual transgression or prohibition.   In other words, it was frowned on culturally by many, and in some areas even punished, but it was not considered sin.  He states that the halakah (a collection of cultural traditions) condemns nonmarital sex as zenut, "porneia", because it was promiscuity.  However, the Talmud uses the term zenut to describe not sex before marriage but sex "not in the pursuit of marriage." (Eisenberg's words)  In other words, the Talmud was more lienient.  All of these rules regarding sex before marriage were not considered "revealed" but rather cultural.  The "Biale" he cites is acclaimed Jewish historian Rachel Biale, Women and Jewish Law (Schocken, 1984),

Since Peter thinks the sources I cited may be lying or unreliable, and since he doesn't want to bother verifying the sources himself, I've also acquired Rachel Biale's work.  Women and Jewish Law (Schocken, 1984).  So now I'm acquiring sources 3 levels deep, verifying the sources of the sources of the sources I cited.  And Peter has not even cited one source, yet somehow has forced me to do this.  In any event, Here is what Baile has to sai
p 44 - "There is a clear conflict between the letter of the law and the requirements of family and society." (she says this in the context of saying "sex before marriage is not prohibited by the Torah (the old testament)" but was "frowned upon" by society.
p 138 - "although oral sex is [similarly] not considered a transgression, a strong aversion to such "unnatural" practices are throughout Rabbinic writings."
p 137 - "When we examine the Halakhah we find a tension between the view that any marital sexual practice is legitimate as long as the ejaculate is not outside the vagina and a common rabbinic view that prohibited any sex apart from the "missionary position."   The "ministering angels" were said to tell rabbis that other sexual positions (woman on top, oral, etc.) caused people to be born deaf, dumb, blind, etc. because of the "deviant" nature of their practices."
p 175 - "Certain sexual acts such as incest and adultery are considered transgressions [these were said to be transgressions in the Torah, the Old Testament]. Others, such as sex between unmarried persons... are restricted [by customary prohibitions] but not considered sexual transgressions."  
p 190 - In biblical law a man who has sexual relations with an unmarried woman has committed no offense. ... The Talmudic prohibition of private, intimate contact with a woman other than his wife (yihud)... considerably restricted this freedom for men.  Still, a man who had such extramarital sex, if he did not marry the woman, had not committed a sexual transgression.  He may have been flogged in some communities, and not in others, but "his offense was of much less magnitude than sexual transgression."  "[Likewise] a woman may have sexual relations outside of marriage without having committed a sexual transgression."
p 192 - "The problem of sexual relations between a man and a woman who are both free of marital ties is complicated.  The rabbis wish to discourage such relations on the one hand, but on the other hand there is no specific sexual transgression involved in such circumstances.  The biblical prohibitions which form the basis of the sexual code in the Halakhah only prohibit incestuous and adulterous relations.  The rabbis attempt to reslove this dilemma in two ways.  As a general rule they taught that such relations must not be with promiscuity (zenut) in mind (sex only for pleasure) but must have purpose towards marriage.  Secondly, the rabbis forbid a man and a woman to spend time together in privacy unless they are married or blood relatives (called yihud).  Thus they sought to prohibit the circumstances that would permit the sexual relations the law allowed."  She explains that among these are the prohibition of yihud/yichud, which in Halakha (Jewish religious law) is the prohibition of a man and a woman who are not married to each other to be alone.  Another was a prohibition on touching a person of the opposite sex, referred to as "Negiah."  

These were cultural rules developed by Jewish religious authorities to prevent couples from using the freedom God had given them in regards to premarital sex (certainly a dangerous freedom no doubt, but also one God gave for a very important reason I believe).

p 192 she says... "contrary to popular notions that sex outside of marriage is a product of the modern sexual revalution, halakhic codes and responsa indicate its presence in traditional jewish society.  ... there is no doubt that it is not a new phenomenon."  This supports my arguments from the Old Testament that premarital sex had to have been going on, since it is regulated (with bride prices paid for premarital sex with a virgin and not for a non-virgin) but not punished.

Now did one Rabbi think all sex before marriage was porneia?  Sure, I'll believe that.  I won't make xariskai prove that his source wasn't lying (though it would be more than fair if this thread were locked until Peter could prove that, since he makes me prove such things).  But the point is, there were Rabbis that believed it was sexually deviant for a woman to be on top of a man, even in marriage.... and many other things I've listed.

Since Peter think the source I cited may be lying or unreliable, and since he doesn't want to bother verifying the source himself, I've also aquired Kolatch's work, (Alfred J. Kolatch) The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989.  He states on p 147 that Jewish Scripture "never prohibited premarital sex."  He says "talmudic authorities were not quick to condemn premarital sex as long as the goal was marriage"... "recognizing how strong man's desire for sexual gratification and how powerless he sometimes is to control it."

And of course, many others including the Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach, agree. Boteach is the author of The Kosher Sutra, HarperOne Press, 2009 and Kosher Sex: A Recipe for Passion and Intimacy. New York: Broadway Books/Random House, 1999. He says, "Many people are surprised to learn that the Torah does not prohibit premarital sex. I challenge you to find any passage in the Jewish scriptures that forbids a man from having consensual sexual relations with any woman he could legally marry. It's just not there! (..) This is not to suggest that Judaism approves of pre-marital sex or promiscuity. (..) Jewish law prohibits an unmarried, unrelated man and woman from (even) being alone long enough to have sexual relations. But these laws come from the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch (custom, tradition), not from the Torah."

So to sum this up... in the people of God under the Old Testament, regardless of harsh or lenient rules in the culture or in specific communities, the authorities were generally not willing to teach that premarital sex was a "transgression" (a weighty word) before God.  Some tried to direct people towards marriage by preventing men and women from being alone together or from touching one another.  Others tried to prevent it by saying the sex was "porneia" unless the goal and intent of the relationship was to move toward marriage.

Keep in mind that the Apostles were Jews.  The church Fathers were under the Apostles.  This is why I ask where in the early Fathers premarital sex is ever condemned as sin.  Because it seems to me that it has never been understood to be "transgression" according to the Scriptures.

Marriage is encouraged in Scripture. However, the loss of virginity and sex before marriage sex are never prohibited nor called a sin by the Word of God. Christians today need to think long and hard about this approach our heavenly Father has taken towards sex and marriage, why He takes this approach, and how His approach differs from ours.  What a shame if His reasons are because He knows how best to purify the church.  Just imagine the twisted irony if when people call it a sin in an attempt to keep people from doing it they're actually pushing people toward it!  After all, the holy St. Mary, Mother of God, was a Jew.  She was not taught that it was "transgression" by her historical religious authorities nor by Scripture.  She could've had premarital sex with St. Joseph just like she could have had sex with him in marriage, if she had chosen to.  Yet in her zeal for wisdom and God's best for her life, she preserved her virginity even through marriage and unto death!  

I'll say it again:  Christians today need to think long and hard about this approach our heavenly Father has taken towards sex and marriage, why He takes this approach, and how His approach differs from ours.

Second Chance said:
PeterTheAleut said:
acts420 said:
Dear Father, Christ is Risen!

95% of the "academic points" listed in the original post of that thread had absolutely nothing to do with premarital sex.  It seems to have been a carpet bomb cut and paste job from some online textbook.  The relevant 5% of the original post (the part that could be seen to perhaps refer to sex before marriage) noted cultural traditions that claimed all extra marital sex was illicit.  However, the same cultural traditions have said being alone with a single woman was illicit and many other things through history.
In light of what I said in my previous post, here's my challenge to you:
1. Quote those authorities who assert that the cultural traditions that prohibited premarital sex also said that being alone with a single woman is immoral. I want to know that you're not just making this stuff up.
2. Define in detail these "many other things through history".
Acts420--These questions are most reasonable. Here we are on page 19 of the thread and I think it is time for you to produce the answers to PtA's questions. Please do so by Saturday this week. I am locking this thread until then so that you are not distracted by other posts. Thanks, Second Chance
 

acts420

Elder
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
San Francisco, California
Website
www.acts420.com
Dear OtherguyLB, Christ is among us!

You wrote:
OtherguyLB said:
Torah never prohibits premarital sex... But not only that, it doesn't prohibit selling your daughter as a sex-slave too...
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it wasn't common for people to sell their daughters as sex slaves.  That type of evil is still uncommon among parents.  Sex before marriage, on the other hand, was common enough for it to be regulated.   The Old Testament shows us that premarital sex had to have been going on enough to be regulated (with bride prices paid for premarital sex with a virgin and not for a non-virgin).  Ex. 22.

See also who I cited above, acclaimed Jewish historian Rachel Biale (Women and Jewish Law (Schocken, 1984).  On p 192 she says... "contrary to popular notions that sex outside of marriage is a product of the modern sexual revalution, halakhic codes and responsa indicate its presence in traditional jewish society.  ... there is no doubt that it is not a new phenomenon."  The halakihic codes and other traditional laws prohibited things like touching or even being alone with a single woman precisely because the Old Testament very obviously allowed sex before marriage, and so the community made its own rules in attempts to limit sexual freedom.

It was regulated in Scripture, but never punished.  The sexual acts that were punished, the ones that were sexual transgressions, were acts like adultery (Exodus 20:14, Proverbs 6:32, Luke 18:19), bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23), incest (Leviticus 18:6, 20:11,12), rape (Deut. 22:25,26), prostitution (1 Cor. 6:15), sex during menstruation (Leviticus 18:18), sex with a man as if the man is a woman (Leviticus 18:22), and other sexual acts.  Notice anything missing?  Oh, only one of the most common sexual practices known to mankind.

OtherguyLB said:
Also it doesn't prohibit polygamy... Old Testament is pretty different from the New Testament... Do you want those Acts420? :))))
Actually it did prohibit it for kings.  (Deut. 17:17)  The New Testament does not prohibit polygamy for the laity either, even though it specifically prohibits it for clerics. (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6) What's your point?  My point is that, among the laity, polygamy is not prohibited but one man/one woman is obviously very highly honored and encouraged.  After you read the second to last paragraph in this post, come up and read the sentence I just wrote again, and think about why that may be.

OtherguyLB said:
But, St. Paul prohibited sex before marriage...
No, that is not true.  Paul never once prohibits sex before marriage.

OtherguyLB said:
At first he says: "It's better for a man not to touch a woman at all, but because [people can't hold sexual desires] there is lot of immorality(fornication), it's better to marry..." And also he says: "It's better to marry, then to burn with passion."
The word you translate "fornication" there is actually "porneia" in the Greek.  It means "sexual immorality" not "fornication."  The difference is enormous because "sexual immorality" means "immoral sex" and "fornication" commonly means "premarital sex."  So let's stick with the original greek shall we?  Some English translations translate "porneia" as "fornication" in order to give the impression that premarital sex is a sin. However, the most accurate translations say the word means "sexual immorality". This difference is due to the fact that some translators change words in English Bible's to suit their own traditional preferences, and others do not. For instance, see Isaiah 64:6. In many English Bibles the word there is intentionally mistranslated "filthy rags" because the word actualy means, "menstrual rags". This shows that our translators can be inaccurate and unreliable when governed by their own traditional rules of etiquette and ethical beliefs instead of a desire to be faithful to the original language.

Like you, many today twist 1 Corinthians 7 to create their rule about premarital sex and put them on the shoulders of others. The beginning of the chapter says, "...since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband..." (v. 1,2)  To understand the passage, we have to understand what Paul meant by "sexual immorality."  What sex is "immoral?"  If you look just a few sentences earlier Paul tells us exactly what he meant. He says, "the body is not meant for sexual immorality... shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!..." (1 Cor. 6:13-15). With that in mind, basically the passage in question means, "since prostitution is occuring, married couples should have sex." You could probably replace "sexual immorality" with "adultery" too, and any of the other sexual acts that Scripture has called immoral. Premarital sex is simply not one of those.  

As a third nail in the coffin of the argument you're attempting to make, Paul specifically says of all of this:  "I say this as a concession, not as a command." (v 6).  He is not giving "commands" or "prohibitions" in the first part of 1 Cor. 7.  He only starts giving "commands" down in verse 10 ("Now to the married I give these commands").  

Paul was Jewish Christian, and Jews will openly admit that the Old Testament never prohbits pre-wedding sex. See my post in response to Second Chance and Peter just above this one.  Most Jews will honestly admit they rely only on cultural traditions for any rules against premarital sex, not the Old Testament.  These same cultural traditions prohibited things like touching a woman or even being in the same room alone with her.

OtherguyLB said:
Also, Paul says: "Let the marriage held honored among other things, because fornicators and adulterers God will judge." This is in Hebrews...
Ah, here we see again the other main New Testament verse the rule-makers say "clearly" teaches us that premarital sex is a sin. Heb 13:4, "keep the marriage bed pure". Many in the church tell us that means it is a sin or "impure" to have premarital sex. They say that such sex "defiles the marriage bed." However, if someone decides to follow Scripture, and not just their culture, he will see that the only reference to someone ever "defiling the marriage bed" in Scripture is adultery (1 Chr 5:1, Gen 35:22), not premarital sex. Never once is "the bed defiled" referring to premarital sex. As far as I can tell, the belief that pre-wedding sex "defiles" marriage only comes to us only from cultural traditions, not from Scripture and not from God. In fact, when Christ Himself encountered the Samaritan woman at the well (who was living with a man she was not married to), He did not tell her to stop sinning. That is because she wasn't! He encountered adulturers in Scripture on other occasions and told them to stop sinning. His telling her about her life story was no different than his telling Nathaniel "I saw you under the fig tree."  He was proving himself to her, and she went on to be a saint called "equal to the Apostles."

My joy, to tell someone that has had pre-wedding sex that they "defiled their marriage bed" is not only non-Scriptural, it is a disgustingly cruel thing to say in my opinion. Some people who had sex too early have no regrets. However, other's have a ton of regret because they may have violated their conscience or they may have hoped to be a virgin in marriage. Such people often put themselves through hell afterwards. For someone to then come along and tell them they "defiled their marriage" and sinned against God is false and damaging, even if the intent in saying so is good.

Marriage is encouraged in Scripture. However, the loss of virginity and sex before marriage sex are never prohibited nor called a sin by the Word of God. Christians today need to think long and hard about this approach our heavenly Father has taken towards sex and marriage, why He takes this approach, and how His approach differs from ours.  What a shame if His reasons are because He knows how best to purify the church.  Imagine that.  Just imagine the twisted irony if when people call it a sin in an attempt to keep people from doing it they're actually pushing people toward it.  After all, the holy St. Mary, Mother of God, was a Jew.  She was not taught that it was "transgression" by her historical religious authorities nor by Scripture.  See my post just above this one.  She could've had premarital sex with St. Joseph and not "transgressed."  She also could have had sex with him in marriage, if she had chosen to, and not "transgressed."  Yet in her zeal for wisdom and God's best for her life, she preserved her virginity even through marriage and until she fell asleep in the Lord!  

Hmm... Maybe God knows how to best purify his church.  Maybe he does so through the Way and not some sort of a new law consisting of rules and regulations that call premarital sex "sin."  Such rules are not God's.  They go even further than the old law!

In Christ,
Jason
Acts420
 

acts420

Elder
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
San Francisco, California
Website
www.acts420.com
Brothers and Sisters, Christ is Risen!

I'm going to take a break for a little while from this thread because I have an extremely busy work week ahead along with the blessed services to start off Great Lent.  Perhaps when I return, Peter, you will have finally answered my questions from so long ago and will not instead be waiting until I've purchased and verified every source cited in Rachel Biale's work too.  I at least hope discussion will still be allowed in this thread.

Second Chance, many thanks to you for your gracious moderation and service.  Whether or not I always see it as fair, I trust you are doing the best you can to encourage organized, forward moving, and honest discourse.   I sincerely appreciate the discussion here.  For reasons I've already explained at length, this is an important topic for me.  (and no, not one of those reasons is because I'm trying to justify sex outside of marriage; I'm not even in a relationship)  I honestly believe this discussion is necessary to benefit the Body of Christ. Too many "Christian" forums have given me the boot when I've discussed these topics, which I think speaks volumes about their priorities.  The fact that you've allowed me to ask difficult and sometimes offensive questions, and to speak freely here, speaks volumes to me about the Spirit that guides you and about how much you value the pursuit of Truth, even if we sometimes disagree.  

Thank you all.  Lord have mercy.  God grant us wisdom.

In Christ,
Jason
Acts420
 

W.A.Mozart

High Elder
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
524
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
109
Location
Divine liturgy
PeterTheAleut said:
W.A.Mozart said:
this topic is an example of how the orthodox people can make things complicated just because they r afraid to use the freedom they have and to accept the consequences... and to prove themselves that they r right
What do you mean?
it is between me and God and if I decide to do something I must face the consequences having in mind that sex is not the moral issue but rather the issue of gaining freedom.I know,some of u may say - yes,but that way you can have 100 girls and practice your freedom but to them I say-we cannot talk about the thing you didnt experience

Im not that good with the words but I know that there was a saint who said Love and do whatever you like (when I say LOVE I do not define the emotion but what st.Maximus the confessor calls - the perfect way of relationship between 2 resonable and free persons ( IN GOD)
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
acts420,

Considering that a couple of my colleagues on the moderator team did what I was not quite willing to do by elevating my request for corroboration to the status of formal moderatorial directive, I think I owe it to them and to you to post a public statement of how well your reply satisfies my request. So let's review what I asked of you and compare the following against my challenge. I will also offer some points of response to other things you have written in the following post.

PeterTheAleut said:
1. Quote those authorities who assert that the cultural traditions that prohibited premarital sex also said that being alone with a single woman is immoral. I want to know that you're not just making this stuff up.
2. Define in detail these "many other things through history".
acts420 said:
Dear Second Chance, Christ is in our midst!  

Thank you for your moderation.  I posted this about 3 minutes before midnight East coast time (9pm West coast since I'm on the West coast for work).  I modified it as late as 9:30pm West coast time.  I hope it is still acceptable so this discussion can continue.

I already did answer Peter's questions to the best of my abilities at the time.  I cited a work of scholarship, I cited Scripture, and I answered his questions as best I could.  He insists that I quote more authorities to show that the cultural traditions that prohibited premarital sex also said that being alone with a single woman is immoral, etc.    However, I've already cited one specifically, one less specifically, and the 3 that one claims to have relied on.  Peter hasn't even cited a single source at all to show that my source is wrong.
You are aware of the formal rules of debate? Let me quote one for you from http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Burden_of_proof:
Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.
You are the person making an assertion here, and a rather bold one at that. You are the one trying to convince us, an audience hostile to your point of view, to embrace a claim most of us find abhorrent and even heretical. I don't see how the burden of proof falls on anyone but you to offer supporting evidence in this debate. I've made no assertions. I haven't even tried to prove you wrong. Therefore, I bear no burden of proof to offer any evidence that will satisfy you.

acts420 said:
He just assumes I made my source up and asks me to prove otherwise
I never voiced that assumption, which means you're projecting that onto me.

acts420 said:
(or one could say forces me under threat of closing off my discussion).
I never threatened to lock this discussion. The two moderators who acted formally to lock this thread did so on their own initiative without any prodding from me.

acts420 said:
I did offer proof; I cited a source.
Again, merely listing a source and saying, "Go look them up and see that what I'm saying is true" does not count as a source citation, and I'm not the only one who's saying this.

acts420 said:
He can look it up if he wants to verify it, and then he can cite another source if he wants to oppose it.  That's how discussion works.  He has refused to do so, and has implied that I'm academically lazy to boot!
Back to the burden of proof rule I cited earlier.

acts420 said:
How about, in the name of fairness, we now lock the thread until Peter can at least cite a single source in response to mine if he thinks mine is not true?  Seems like that would be a fair way to go about this considering I spent my time and money, and perhaps lost a client or two, doing Peter's academic work for him.  But alas life is not always fair.
Please do not blame me for what happens to your life apart from this forum. You had every right to refuse to fulfill my request, even after it received the official backing of two moderators, and you had every right to accept the consequences of your action. You were not forced to take the time needed to defend your position, even if your decision to commit to this discussion cost you time, money, a client or two, or even your job. The decision to continue engaging this discussion was purely your own, and you could have walked away at any time with the intent to never come back. I cannot and will not be held responsible for your decisions.

acts420 said:
Not only has he not cited a single source against the one I provided, he won't even answer my most basic of questions!  He insisted that the Church says premarital sex is a sin against God.
Most everyone on this forum believes that, and many have said so on the disparate discussions that now make up this thread, so why are you singling me out as if this news came only from my fingers? Besides, I never even said that the Church calls premarital sex a sin against God.

acts420 said:
That was news to me.  I've never heard the Church teach any such thing.  So I asked him, "when has the Church spoken about premarital sex?  How do you define the speaking Church?"
The public record shows that you asked those questions only in reply to questions I asked of you, not in reply to any assertion I did or didn't make. Rather than answer my questions, you chose to dodge the questions by throwing them back at me, and now you misrepresent our conversation in an apparent attempt to justify your dodge ball questions.

acts420 said:
His response?  "I'm asking the questions here."  Nice.  Very nice.  This seems like it may be the type of situation where no matter how much Scripture and history I cite in support of my position,
I'm not sure, though, how you can cite passages of Scripture to prove Scripture's silence on the question. That seems counterintuitive to me.

acts420 said:
he will always accuse me of not answering his questions and never answer mine.  We shall see though.  I'll hope for the best.

Someone, though not Peter, did cite a source.  Specifically xariskai cited H. Reisser as saying, "In later Jewish Rab. language zenut (porneia) is to be understood as including not only prostitution and any kind of extra-marital intercourse ( Pirqe Aboth 2:8 )."  That is a citation to one late Rabbi's teachings.  So one late Jewish Rabbi believed extramarital sex was proneia.  Keep in mind that his entire argument rests on that one later Jewish Rabbi (so far).  For that is the only evidence he's given that premarital sex was considered porneia by the Jews under the Old Testament.  And since the New Testament, like the Old, never specifically says "do not have sex before marriage," all of xariskai's New Testament citations are likewise dependent on that one Rabbi (so far, since that is all he has cited).  For when he cites F. Hauck and S. Schulz saying, "the NT is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse," they are assuming "porneia" means "premarital sex."  The only reason xariskai has given me to believe they are correct is one late Rabbi.  That's not very strong support.

Well, I've already cited a Rabbi and a scholar who say many early Rabbis didn't think premarital sex was transgression, porneia.  I think the burden of proof has switched back to the other side.  But, again, life isn't fair.  So... I will now comply with this moderator request.  

Dear Peter, when I said "the same cultural traditions" I did not mean that the exact same Rabbi in history that taught that premarital sex was wrong also taught that being alone with a woman was wrong.  What I meant was that Jewish cultural traditions also taught that being alone with a single woman is wrong.  What I'm saying is that the underlying authority being relied on is the same in both cases: cultural traditions.  So I will show that it is cultural transgressions that condemned sex before marriage as wrong and many other things also (things we believe are right).  

Brothers and sisters, I understand that my beliefs are offensive to many.  Remember that even Christ offended many in the people of God when he blessed St. Photini, the "Samaritan woman at the well," and did not condemn her living situation (although he had repeatedly told adulterers to "stop sinning").
So you project onto Jesus your belief that if it was important enough to Him, He should have said something. How can you say for such certainty why He chose in this particular instance to not condemn her living situation? Maybe He who knew her heart perfectly recognized that merely revealing her sins to her would be enough to convict her of her sins and spur her to repentance, whereas others needed more explicit statements of "go and sin no more". You see now why you can't just say, "Jesus acted this way in these situations; therefore, we know how He will act in all such similar situations"?

acts420 said:
If what I'm saying is offensive to many that does not make it wrong.

I said:  Jewish researcher Ariel Scheib says, "The Bible never explicitly states a woman and man may not have sexual intercourse prior to marriage; therefore, no sanction was imposed for premarital sex, but it was considered a violation of custom (tradition)..." He cites as his sources Eisenberg, Ronald L. The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions. PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2004; Kolatch, Alfred J. The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989; Wigoder, Geoffrey , Ed. The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia. NY: Facts on File, 1992.

Scheib cites Dr. Ronald L. Eisenberg, the critically acclaimed author of Jewish Traditions: A JPS (Jewish Publication Society) Guide by Ronald L. Eisenberg (Jewish Publication Society Oct 4, 2004).  Since Peter thinks the source I cited may be lying or unreliable,
I never said that I think the sources you cite may be lying or unreliable.

acts420 said:
and since he doesn't want to bother verifying the source himself,
It's not my burden to verify your sources.

acts420 said:
I've aquired Eisenberg's work.  On p 57, Eisenberg states, "according to Biale, polygamy was permissible during biblical times and a man was not forbidden from having sexual relations with an unmarried woman as long as he could theoretically marry her."  He explains that if he did not marry her, he risked being condemned by the community and sometimes even flogged.  All of that depended on the community.  This was community law; he was not considered guilty of a sexual transgression against God.  The woman was also not guilty of any sexual transgression or prohibition.   In other words, it was frowned on culturally by many, and in some areas even punished, but it was not considered sin.  He states that the halakah (a collection of cultural traditions) condemns nonmarital sex as zenut, "porneia", because it was promiscuity.  However, the Talmud uses the term zenut to describe not sex before marriage but sex "not in the pursuit of marriage." (Eisenberg's words)  In other words, the Talmud was more lienient.  All of these rules regarding sex before marriage were not considered "revealed" but rather cultural.  The "Biale" he cites is acclaimed Jewish historian Rachel Biale, Women and Jewish Law (Schocken, 1984),

Since Peter thinks the sources I cited may be lying or unreliable, and since he doesn't want to bother verifying the sources himself, I've also acquired Rachel Biale's work.  Women and Jewish Law (Schocken, 1984).  So now I'm acquiring sources 3 levels deep, verifying the sources of the sources of the sources I cited.  And Peter has not even cited one source, yet somehow has forced me to do this.  In any event, Here is what Baile has to sai
p 44 - "There is a clear conflict between the letter of the law and the requirements of family and society." (she says this in the context of saying "sex before marriage is not prohibited by the Torah (the old testament)" but was "frowned upon" by society.
p 138 - "although oral sex is [similarly] not considered a transgression, a strong aversion to such "unnatural" practices are throughout Rabbinic writings."
p 137 - "When we examine the Halakhah we find a tension between the view that any marital sexual practice is legitimate as long as the ejaculate is not outside the vagina and a common rabbinic view that prohibited any sex apart from the "missionary position."   The "ministering angels" were said to tell rabbis that other sexual positions (woman on top, oral, etc.) caused people to be born deaf, dumb, blind, etc. because of the "deviant" nature of their practices."
p 175 - "Certain sexual acts such as incest and adultery are considered transgressions [these were said to be transgressions in the Torah, the Old Testament]. Others, such as sex between unmarried persons... are restricted [by customary prohibitions] but not considered sexual transgressions."  
p 190 - In biblical law a man who has sexual relations with an unmarried woman has committed no offense. ... The Talmudic prohibition of private, intimate contact with a woman other than his wife (yihud)... considerably restricted this freedom for men.  Still, a man who had such extramarital sex, if he did not marry the woman, had not committed a sexual transgression.  He may have been flogged in some communities, and not in others, but "his offense was of much less magnitude than sexual transgression."  "[Likewise] a woman may have sexual relations outside of marriage without having committed a sexual transgression."
p 192 - "The problem of sexual relations between a man and a woman who are both free of marital ties is complicated.  The rabbis wish to discourage such relations on the one hand, but on the other hand there is no specific sexual transgression involved in such circumstances.  The biblical prohibitions which form the basis of the sexual code in the Halakhah only prohibit incestuous and adulterous relations.  The rabbis attempt to reslove this dilemma in two ways.  As a general rule they taught that such relations must not be with promiscuity (zenut) in mind (sex only for pleasure) but must have purpose towards marriage.  Secondly, the rabbis forbid a man and a woman to spend time together in privacy unless they are married or blood relatives (called yihud).  Thus they sought to prohibit the circumstances that would permit the sexual relations the law allowed."  She explains that among these are the prohibition of yihud/yichud, which in Halakha (Jewish religious law) is the prohibition of a man and a woman who are not married to each other to be alone.  Another was a prohibition on touching a person of the opposite sex, referred to as "Negiah."
Okay, here's an attempt to answer Point 1 of my challenge: "Quote those authorities who assert that the cultural traditions that prohibited premarital sex also said that being alone with a single woman is immoral. I want to know that you're not just making this stuff up." However, this fails my test. You quote Rachel Biale to the point where she says, "Thus they sought to prohibit the circumstances that would permit the sexual relations the law allowed." However, your quote ends there and is followed by your paraphrase of what she says. Rather than quote her statement that among the prohibited circumstances were situations where a man and a woman who are not married to each other would be alone together, you chose to tell us in your own words that that's what she said. That's not the quote I requested; rather, that's your own paraphrase. I deem this therefore not an acceptable response to my challenge.

Additionally, I asked you to quote authorities who support your assertion that cultural norms once considered it immoral for a man to be alone with an unmarried woman. It may be true that some rabbis forbade such situations, as you say, but that isn't the same as an assertion that the situations were immoral in and of themselves. This is another failure to answer the challenge I posed to you in Point 1.

acts420 said:
These were cultural rules developed by Jewish religious authorities to prevent couples from using the freedom God had given them in regards to premarital sex (certainly a dangerous freedom no doubt, but also one God gave for a very important reason I believe).

p 192 she says... "contrary to popular notions that sex outside of marriage is a product of the modern sexual revalution, halakhic codes and responsa indicate its presence in traditional jewish society.  ... there is no doubt that it is not a new phenomenon."  This supports my arguments from the Old Testament that premarital sex had to have been going on, since it is regulated (with bride prices paid for premarital sex with a virgin and not for a non-virgin) but not punished.

Now did one Rabbi think all sex before marriage was porneia?  Sure, I'll believe that.  I won't make xariskai prove that his source wasn't lying (though it would be more than fair if this thread were locked until Peter could prove that, since he makes me prove such things).
Again, I never made you do anything.

acts420 said:
But the point is, there were Rabbis that believed it was sexually deviant for a woman to be on top of a man, even in marriage.... and many other things I've listed.
If this is another one of those "many other things in history", you are once again telling us in your own words what others have said. Additionally, this is the only "other thing" I've seen you cite in this post. Unless English usage has changed since I started drafting this post, one does not equal many. You still have "many other things in history" to detail. Therefore, Point 2 of my challenge is still unsatisfied.

acts420 said:
Since Peter think the source I cited may be lying or unreliable, and since he doesn't want to bother verifying the source himself, I've also aquired Kolatch's work, (Alfred J. Kolatch) The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989.  He states on p 147 that Jewish Scripture "never prohibited premarital sex."  He says "talmudic authorities were not quick to condemn premarital sex as long as the goal was marriage"... "recognizing how strong man's desire for sexual gratification and how powerless he sometimes is to control it."

And of course, many others including the Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach, agree. Boteach is the author of The Kosher Sutra, HarperOne Press, 2009 and Kosher Sex: A Recipe for Passion and Intimacy. New York: Broadway Books/Random House, 1999. He says, "Many people are surprised to learn that the Torah does not prohibit premarital sex. I challenge you to find any passage in the Jewish scriptures that forbids a man from having consensual sexual relations with any woman he could legally marry. It's just not there! (..) This is not to suggest that Judaism approves of pre-marital sex or promiscuity. (..) Jewish law prohibits an unmarried, unrelated man and woman from (even) being alone long enough to have sexual relations. But these laws come from the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch (custom, tradition), not from the Torah."
I'll concede that this may be a good substantiation of your argument that cultural norms once considered it illicit, to use your own word, for a man and a woman to be alone together if they were not married to each other.

acts420 said:
So to sum this up... in the people of God under the Old Testament, regardless of harsh or lenient rules in the culture or in specific communities, the authorities were generally not willing to teach that premarital sex was a "transgression" (a weighty word) before God.  Some tried to direct people towards marriage by preventing men and women from being alone together or from touching one another.  Others tried to prevent it by saying the sex was "porneia" unless the goal and intent of the relationship was to move toward marriage.

Keep in mind that the Apostles were Jews.  The church Fathers were under the Apostles.  This is why I ask where in the early Fathers premarital sex is ever condemned as sin.  Because it seems to me that it has never been understood to be "transgression" according to the Scriptures.
Jesus taught and did a lot of things that flew right in the face of the rabbinical Judaism of His day. For instance, He taught that merely looking at a woman with lust in your heart counts as adultery and that merely hating your brother counts as murder. He also scandalized a great number of Jewish teachers by healing on the Sabbath. Considering the many instances where Jesus confronted the Jewish culture of His day, why do you think the Apostles would hold so much more strongly to Jewish cultural norms? Can you imagine how scandalous it must have been for an arch-Pharisee named Saul to assert that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised to have God's favor as among His chosen people? Jesus and the Apostles often contradicted Jewish traditions, sometimes by enforcing even more strictness, sometimes by enforcing less. So why do you think it necessary that the Apostles would have preserved Jewish culture's view of premarital sex?

acts420 said:
Marriage is encouraged in Scripture. However, the loss of virginity and sex before marriage sex are never prohibited nor called a sin by the Word of God.
And neither is slavery ever prohibited or called a sin by the Word of God, yet even you condemn the practice. Why the inconsistency?

acts420 said:
Christians today need to think long and hard about this approach our heavenly Father has taken towards sex and marriage, why He takes this approach, and how His approach differs from ours.  What a shame if His reasons are because He knows how best to purify the church.  Just imagine the twisted irony if when people call it a sin in an attempt to keep people from doing it they're actually pushing people toward it!  After all, the holy St. Mary, Mother of God, was a Jew.  She was not taught that it was "transgression" by her historical religious authorities nor by Scripture.  She could've had premarital sex with St. Joseph just like she could have had sex with him in marriage, if she had chosen to.  Yet in her zeal for wisdom and God's best for her life, she preserved her virginity even through marriage and unto death!  

I'll say it again:  Christians today need to think long and hard about this approach our heavenly Father has taken towards sex and marriage, why He takes this approach, and how His approach differs from ours.

Second Chance said:
PeterTheAleut said:
acts420 said:
Dear Father, Christ is Risen!

95% of the "academic points" listed in the original post of that thread had absolutely nothing to do with premarital sex.  It seems to have been a carpet bomb cut and paste job from some online textbook.  The relevant 5% of the original post (the part that could be seen to perhaps refer to sex before marriage) noted cultural traditions that claimed all extra marital sex was illicit.  However, the same cultural traditions have said being alone with a single woman was illicit and many other things through history.
In light of what I said in my previous post, here's my challenge to you:
1. Quote those authorities who assert that the cultural traditions that prohibited premarital sex also said that being alone with a single woman is immoral. I want to know that you're not just making this stuff up.
2. Define in detail these "many other things through history".
Acts420--These questions are most reasonable. Here we are on page 19 of the thread and I think it is time for you to produce the answers to PtA's questions. Please do so by Saturday this week. I am locking this thread until then so that you are not distracted by other posts. Thanks, Second Chance
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
His minimal claim is true and the burden off proof asked for him hasn't been met cause it can't be.

Premarital sex ain't proscribed against explicitly in Scripture.

Sorry it ain't.

And we are talking about people who wrote rules about not mixing various fabrics for clothing and not to drink milk with meat, lest it be the milk of the mother of the animal you are eating or something.

There is a lot here to be elaborated on where in this case an argument from silence is actually quite deafening.

It is Tradition of the Church. OK.

It is not spelled out in Scripture amongst so many other forms of behavior sexual or otherwise which are explicitly forbidden.

If the Hebrews found such behavior such a prevailing and disruptive problem, it would have been so explicitly forbidden. 

Without getting into the long windedness of things, I have a feeling it happened a lot given this behavior is pretty much everywhere throughout human place and time. It just wasn't that big of a deal. You got married, as mentioned above not via shotgun as it goes, but a stoning wedding. (Again we have laws allowing rapists to pay off the father of the rape victim and then having to marry her. So it ain't they didn't think this through or were embarrassed to write about sexual immorality.)

Certainly there is much "extra Scriptural" discussion of it.

But I think Acts minimal argument is sound and more than a few Orthodox posters have made some rather poorly formed arguments from Scripture (not knowing the woman was being stoned for adultery not fornication for example).

Again, who cares what I think, but Acts has consistently responded and replied and not been uncharitable once or just pontificating like another certain poster he has been compared to.

Folks might not like his arguments, but they are there nonetheless. And well, some of the arguments put forth against him in this thread just ain't.

Beyond his minimal argument, that is another question. Still though an argument earnestly put forth IMHO and criticism seriously taken.






 

jaroslavkourakin

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
173
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sin is to not live in communion with God.

I ate cauliflower baked in cheese/cream some days ago. It felt like a sin. Maybe it was bad. And if you ask why I ate it, even though it felt like I shouldn't, well, I'm rebellious. It was sensuous.

So why is this thread 20 pages?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
jaroslavkourakin said:
Sin is to not live in communion with God.

I ate cauliflower baked in cheese/cream some days ago. It felt like a sin. Maybe it was bad. And if you ask why I ate it, even though it felt like I shouldn't, well, I'm rebellious. It was sensuous.

So why is this thread 20 pages?
It started out as two or three threads.
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
jaroslavkourakin said:
Sin is to not live in communion with God.

I ate cauliflower baked in cheese/cream some days ago. It felt like a sin. Maybe it was bad. And if you ask why I ate it, even though it felt like I shouldn't, well, I'm rebellious. It was sensuous.

So why is this thread 20 pages?
I've asked myself the same question. It may be for the same reason legal documents are so lengthy. But God will cut through them and those who seek to justify themselves. That is how His justice works.
 

cizinec

High Elder
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
943
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houstonia
So after a year and 20 pages, nobody's convinced anybody of anything.

Well, Acts guy, I've posted the sex rules I give my soldiers before and I'll provide them for you although after 20 pages I'm pretty sure you won't listen.  I mean, if the Church Fathers mean nothing to you, what does some stupid redleg know.  BTW, there is a warrant out for the arrest of one of my soldiers right now because PFC Retard didn't listen to my rules.

There is a reason why sex is no good outside of marriage, and the Good Lord saw fit to warn us.

Sex Rule 1.  If you ain't married, it ain't worth it.
Sex is way better . . . and safer when married. See marriage rules below.  The Good Lord taught us so we didn't end up needing Sex Rules 2-5, which carry serious penalties.  IGNORE THIS RULE AND YOU WILL SUFFER.

Sex Rule 2.  Chicks carry weirder things than tiny, useless purses.
Sure, she seems nice (or naughty, whatever you're into) and she's hot.  That don't mean that in 3 weeks your dingle dangle won't be covered in warts, turning black or fixing to fall off.  There are a lot weirder things out there than what you hear about on the news, and young, "nice" girls pass them around all the time. 

Sex Rule 3. You aren't special.
Just because she tells you that you're "special" and "the one" she "waited" for doesn't mean Rule 2 does not apply.  See Rule 4 for an explanation of why.  You don't know me, so I'll tell you now that I can offend people.  I always tell my soldiers, "If she tells you you're special, trust me, it's not a complement.  There's only one way you're special."  I also say, "If she says you're the first, she means your the first dumb enough to believe her."

Sex Rule 4.  If she is is crazy in love with you, 75% or better chance she's just plain freaking crazy.
After Rule 1, this is THE most important rule, as it covers all relationship rules.  These ones are willing to do crazy stuff to "keep" you (things like "accidentally" getting pregnant) or to punish you (like accusing you of all kinds of crimes and using various other forms of deception).  By the time you figure out she's a crazy liar, you'll find her crying at the police station accusing you of stuff that isn't true.  Is there physical evidence?  You bet, thanks to your hormones and the fact that her folks were out of town.  Now you get to spend the rest of your life living under a bridge in Florida because you're on a public registry.  Hope it was worth it.

Sex Rule 5.  You don't have to hit a home run to be subject to the penalties of forgetting Rules 3 and, most importantly, 4.

Sex Rule 6.  Removed out of respect for the board. 
It's an important item as a fail safe to evade Rules 2-5, but I'm removing it anyway.  I guess I'll replace it with "Talk with Your Priest."

So, Acts, you won't be convinced by Scripture, since you have that all figured out.  You won't be convinced by the Church Fathers. You probably won't be convinced by me.  So, knock yourself out (and your girlfriends up -  child support rocks), but own the consequences and don't complain when the collector comes.

I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared.  When sudden calamity shall fall on you, and destruction, as a tempest, shall be at hand: when tribulation and distress shall come upon you: Then shall they call upon me, and I will not hear: they shall rise in the morning, and shall not find me:  Because they have hated instruction, and received not the fear of the Lord, Nor consented to my counsel, but despised all my reproof.

Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and shall be filled with their own devices.


Book Of Proverbs 1:26-31
 

serb1389

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
9,123
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Vallejo, CA (current); Gurnee, IL (greater Chicag
Website
www.greekorthodoxvallejo.org
acts420 said:
Not only has he not cited a single source against the one I provided, he won't even answer my most basic of questions!  He insisted that the Church says premarital sex is a sin against God.  That was news to me.  I've never heard the Church teach any such thing.  So I asked him, "when has the Church spoken about premarital sex?  How do you define the speaking Church?"  His response?  "I'm asking the questions here."  Nice.  Very nice.  This seems like it may be the type of situation where no matter how much Scripture and history I cite in support of my position, he will always accuse me of not answering his questions and never answer mine.  We shall see though.  I'll hope for the best.
Even though I am not Peter, I thought i would entertain your question.  I just did a simple google search with the words "Holy Fathers on premarital sex" and followed one of the first links & got this site, which was very informative.  Especially some of the quotes.  http://www.christianforums.com/t6365173/ 

Not only has he not cited a single source against the one I provided, he won't even answer my most basic of questions!  He insisted that the Church says premarital sex is a sin against God.  That was news to me.  I've never heard the Church teach any such thing.  So I asked him, "when has the Church spoken about premarital sex?  How do you define the speaking Church?"  His response?  "I'm asking the questions here."  Nice.  Very nice.  This seems like it may be the type of situation where no matter how much Scripture and history I cite in support of my position, he will always accuse me of not answering his questions and never answer mine.  We shall see though.  I'll hope for the best.
“neither fornicators nor male prostitutes nor homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God,” nor those who do perverse things. Therefore one must keep away from all these things and be obedient... (Poly to phil 5:3)
Continuing on with your presentation:

And since the New Testament, like the Old, never specifically says "do not have sex before marriage,"
While you may be right in exactness here, it surely does say a lot about fornication.  But that brings us to your basic question of the word porneia.  (as an aside, i would LOVE to see how you exegete the story of the woman who was almost stoned for being a prostitute & christ saves her, but tells her to sin no more.  guess he was saying premarital sex was ok huh...?  Let me know.) 

Brothers and sisters, I understand that my beliefs are offensive to many.  Remember that even Christ offended many in the people of God when he blessed St. Photini, the "Samaritan woman at the well," and did not condemn her living situation (although he had repeatedly told adulterers to "stop sinning").  If what I'm saying is offensive to many that does not make it wrong.
He told prostitutes to stop sinning too.  see my comment above.  p.s.  Christ lived as the most perfect human being, completely sinless.  how does that fit into your "premarital sex was not condemned in the NT" bit?  Jesus Christ's entire life is an admonishment of premarital sex.  How does that fit in? 

I said:  Jewish researcher Ariel Scheib says, "The Bible never explicitly states a woman and man may not have sexual intercourse prior to marriage; therefore, no sanction was imposed for premarital sex, but it was considered a violation of custom (tradition)..." He cites as his sources Eisenberg, Ronald L. The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions. PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2004; Kolatch, Alfred J. The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989; Wigoder, Geoffrey , Ed. The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia. NY: Facts on File, 1992.
Well he would be wrong if we see every act of Christ as being salvific, taking the Incarnation to its complete & final conclusions...which a Jewish researcher would not do, but an Orthodox Christian would.  just an important thought to be considered in all this. 

Keep in mind that the Apostles were Jews.  The church Fathers were under the Apostles.  This is why I ask where in the early Fathers premarital sex is ever condemned as sin.  Because it seems to me that it has never been understood to be "transgression" according to the Scriptures.
I gave you a couple of quotes above.  i will research some more tomorrow, but for now, if you could respond to those, I think we would have sufficient room for conversation. 

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 & 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
  http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=152

1 Thessalonians 5:22-23:

"Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Ibid

also some other things to consider:

Matthew 15:19 - For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_are_the_bible_references_not_to_fornicate#ixzz1njMe4G3a
Mark 7:21 - For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_are_the_bible_references_not_to_fornicate#ixzz1njMkAbXg
Acts 15:20 - But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_are_the_bible_references_not_to_fornicate#ixzz1njMoVu7c
Acts 15:29 - That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_are_the_bible_references_not_to_fornicate#ixzz1njMrfn5E
1 Corinthians 5:1 - It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.



1 Corinthians 6:13 - Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.



1 Corinthians 6:18 - Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.



1 Corinthians 7:2 - Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.



1 Corinthians 10:8 - Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_are_the_bible_references_not_to_fornicate#ixzz1njN01xtR
2 Corinthians 12:21 - And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.




Galatians 5:19 - Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,



Ephesians 5:3 - But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;



Colossians 3:5 - Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:



1 Thessalonians 4:3 - For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_are_the_bible_references_not_to_fornicate#ixzz1njN5FhCw
 

just_some_guy

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey everyone  :D
remember me ???


for those who don't I will give you a quick catch up:

some time ago I started a thread asking about why Premarital sex is a sin, or more specificly,  why does the Church teach it as a sin even though others (from elsewhere on the internet) can give good reasoning why it isn't.

the thread progressed and a few points where raised. Ultimately this was what was agreed upon:

1) the Orthodox Church is the most purest form of Christianity ever
2) the Orthodox Church follows the teachings of the Apostles perfectly
3) the Orthodox Church says that Premarital sex is a sin.... thus it is a sin (see point 1)
4) the fact that no such evidence for point 3 is recorded in the Bible does not counteract points 3. (see point 1)

5) the scriptures are True, however they are not the whole truth (see point 2 and 3)
6) sola scripture beliefs are out dated and inaccurate. (see point 5)

7) Roman Catholics are EVIL !!


and then, to appease my lowly sola scripture belief system,  on June 13, 2011, 03:58:54 AM, xariskai posted a very long quote from “”Gerhard Kittel, ed., TDNT (10 Volumes), Colin Brown, ed., DNTT (4 Volumes including index), and the like””

this post forced me to concede a temporary defeat. Although I did promise that I would follow up on his (long winded) post.

And here I am, back at last with my rebuttal to xariskai’s post.
Sorry for the wait.

Also, I will be very busy in the coming months so am unlikely to post again anytime soon. Kind of the reason I made the time to cross this of my todo list.

To summarise: for proving that premarital sex is a sin; you are now back to using the “Because the Orthodox Church says so” argument

Signed Shane Rooney
 

just_some_guy

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
this Post is in responce to xariskai's post on June 13, 2011, 03:58:54 AM

the following Passage quotes are from the "Contemporary English Version"
simply because thats the Bible I had on hand.

Genesis 2:24
That's why a man will leave his own father and mother. He marries a woman, and the two of them become like one person.”
In the midst of the story of how God made Eve from Adams ribs, this passage comes out. Often used as ‘proof’ that premarital sex is evil. Even though Premarital sex is not mentioned in the capter.

Leviticus 18:6-24
Don't have sex with any of your close relatives, 7especially your own mother. This would disgrace your father. 8And don't disgrace him by having sex with any of his other wives. 9Don't have sex with your sister or stepsister, whether you grew up together or not. 10Don't disgrace yourself by having sex with your granddaughter 11or half-sister 12-13or a sister of your father or mother. 14Don't disgrace your uncle by having sex with his wife. 15Don't have sex with your daughter-in-law 16or sister-in-law. 17And don't have sex with the daughter or granddaughter of any woman that you have earlier had sex with. You may be having sex with a relative, and that would make you unclean. 18As long as your wife is alive, don't cause trouble for her by taking one of her sisters as a second wife.
19When a woman is having her monthly period, she is unclean, so don't have sex with her.
20Don't have sex with another man's wife--that would make you unclean.
21Don't sacrifice your children on the altar fires to the god Molech. I am the LORD your God, and that would disgrace me.
22It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man.
23Anyone who has sex with an animal is unclean.
24Don't make yourselves unclean by any of these disgusting practices of those nations that I am forcing out of the land for you“

A very thorough list of Do-Nots concerning sex. Premarital sex is not one of them.
Although it is interesting to note that this passage talks of Polygamy as if it is an accepted practice…. Another area where the teachings of the church has got it wrong?

Leviticus 21:9
9If any of you priests has a daughter who disgraces you by serving as a temple prostitute, she must be burned to death.”
Talk of prostitution, not premarital sex. The fact that if says ‘Temple’ prostitute helps to indicate that references to prostitution in the Bible are in regards to the use of prostitution as a form of Idol worship.

Numbers 25:1
1While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men had sex with Moabite women.”
By itself, this passage means nothing. It is a simple statement of fact.
But if you add in Numbers 25:2 
2These women then invited the men to ceremonies where sacrifices were offered to their gods. The men ate the meat from the sacrifices and worshiped the Moabite gods.”
Then you see that the issue is not that the men had sex with Moabite women. But that they then proceeded to partake in ceremonies where sacrifices were offered to false gods.

Numbers 31:16
16They are the ones who followed Balaam's advice and invited our people to worship the god Baal Peor. That's why the LORD punished us by killing so many of our people.”
A later description of how the action of worshiping the God Baal Peor caused the Lord to punish the offenders.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14
This passage talks about laws concerning marring foreign captured women. No mention of Premarital sex.

Deuteronomy 22:20
20But if the man was right and there is no proof that his bride was a virgin, 21the men of the town will take the woman to the door of her father's house and stone her to death.
This woman brought evil into your community by sleeping with someone before she got married, and you must get rid of that evil by killing her.

Out of context, this could be considered proof that premarital sex is considered evil.
However further examination into other passages concerning selling ones daughter for marriage shows that the act of falsifying her virginity is the wrong doing that is being presented here.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, 29they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her. 30A man must not marry a woman who was married to his father. This would be a disgrace to his father.”
Once again, this passage can be taken the wrong way due to translations.
The ‘New King James Version” reads like this:
If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her,”
The key point being that he seizes her. Aka rapes her. Hence the added punishment in verse 29.

Deuteronomy 23:18
18The LORD your God is disgusted with men and women who are prostitutes of any kind, and he will not accept a gift from them, even if it had been promised to him.”
More talk of prostitution, not of premarital sex.

Book of Wisdom 14:17
Whom men could not honour in presence, because they dwelt far off, they took the counterfeit of his visage from far, and made an express image of a king whom they honoured, to the end that by this their forwardness they might flatter him that was absent, as if he were present.”
This passage goes on to  further explain the worshiping of this “image of the king” as an Idol.
No premarital sex mentioned
¬
Mathew 10:1
Jesus called together his twelve disciples. He gave them the power to force out evil spirits and to heal every kind of disease and sickness.”
no reference to premarital sex

Mark 10:11-12
Talk of marriage and divorce. No reference to sex at all.

Romans 1: 24-32
Talks of “women no longer wanted to have sec in a natural way” and of men having “strong desires for other men”. Goes on to say these people are: greedy, wicked, mean in every possible way, argue, murder, cheat, conceited, boastful, proud….

Romans 13:13
behave properly, as people do in the day
Still no reference to sex.

1Chor 5:1
Paul said there is a Corinthian who has married his stepmother. Then goes on to say this man is going to hell.

IChor 5:9-10,13
Do not have anything to do with immoral people”. “yet you would have to leave this world to get away from everyone who is evil”. “the scriptures say chase away any of your own people who are evil.”

1Chor 6:9
noone who … is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God’s kingdom.”

1Chor 6:13,15-20
You also say “food is meant for our bodies, and our bodies are meant for food”, but I tell you that God will destroy them both. We are not supposed to do indecent things with our bodies

1Chor 7:1-10
1Now I will answer the questions that you asked in your letter. You asked, "Is it best for people not to marry?" [a]2Well, having your own husband or wife should keep you from doing something immoral. 3Husbands and wives should be fair with each other about having sex. 4A wife belongs to her husband instead of to herself, and a husband belongs to his wife instead of to himself. 5So don't refuse sex to each other, unless you agree not to have sex for a little while, in order to spend time in prayer. Then Satan won't be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6In my opinion that is what should be done, though I don't know of anything the Lord said about this matter. 7I wish that all of you were like me, but God has given different gifts to each of us. 8Here is my advice for people who have never been married and for widows. You should stay single, just as I am. 9But if you don't have enough self-control, then go ahead and get married. After all, it is better to marry than to burn with desire. I instruct married couples to stay together, and this is exactly what the Lord himself taught
A much quoted section of the bible when concerning this topic.
It is best to note 1Chor 7:6 in particular. What Paul is saying here is HIS thoughts on what should be done. And then in 1Chor 7:7 he says “I wish all men were like me, but God has given different gifts to each of us”.
So in other words, Paul gives His opinion, admits it is not based on anything God has told him, and then further admits that it is not the be-all-and-end-all of how one should live their life because “God has given different gifts to each of us

1Chor 29-35
In versus 29-33 Paul talks of the Benefits of being unmarried at the end of the world. Taking even more credit from the much quoted 1Chor 7
In versus 34 Paul says “Unmarried women and women who have never been married [Virgins] worry only about pleasing the Lord, and they keep their bodies and minds pure.”
My guess is that you will label premarital sex as ‘impure’ and use this as “proof”.  Even though this verse does Not talk about premarital sex.

1Chor 10:8
Verse 8 says that “Some of those people did shameful things, and in a single day about twenty-three thousand of them died.”
What were these ‘shameful things’?
Verses 6 and 7 say that these people were worshiping Idols. So, another of the verses provided to argue against premarital sex has nothing to do with the subject.


1Chor10:14
My friends, you must keep away from idols”.
Read description given for 1Chor 10:8

1Chor 11:11
"As far as the Lord is concerned, men and woman need each other.”
This neither supports nor counters our arguments for premarital sex… although it could be twisted to either side of the argument.

2Chor 11:2
I am as concerned about you as God is. You were like a virgin bride I had chosen only for Christ.”
At first I was not sure what to make of this passage. Then I read through to verse 16.
Basically Paul is talking about how he is as good as any of the other Apostles that charge money (the false apostles). And this first verse is a metaphor and has nothing to do with virgins or premarital sex.

2Chor 12:19-21
Paul is telling the Corinthians that when he comes to visit he is worried that the Corinthians will be “arguing or jealous or angry or selfish or gossiping or insulting each other. [Paul] even fears that you may be proud and acting like a mob”

2Chor 13:1
Paul quotes that “any charges must be proved true by at least two or three witnesses”.
No direct relevance to Premarital sex

Galatians 5:19-21
People's desires make them give in to immoral ways, filthy thoughts, and shameful deeds. 20They worship idols, practice witchcraft, hate others, and are hard to get along with. People become jealous, angry, and selfish. They not only argue and cause trouble, but they are 21envious. They get drunk, carry on at wild parties, and do other evil things as well. I told you before, and I am telling you again: No one who does these things will share in the blessings of God's kingdom.
A nice long list of ‘immoral things to do’. And Premarital sex is Not listed there.
But I suppose you will say it is listed under “other evil things” in verse 21

Galatians 5:19-21
God's Spirit makes us loving, happy, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful
I would wager you consider premarital sex to be ‘unfaithful”. If so, then unfaithful to whom may I ask?

Ephesians 3:5
Noone knew about this mystery until God’s Spirit told it to his holy apostles and prophets.”
More proof that we should follow the words of the Apostles, and therefore the Church?
If you continue reading Ephesians 3:6, you will see that this is Particular mystery is the knowledge that the Gentiles have an equal share as the Jews in the Holy kingdom. Nothing to do with premarital sex

Ephesians 4:25-31
Here Paul says a few things like “if you steal, stop stealing and work hard”.
But he does not say anything along the lines of premarital sex.

Ephesians 5:3
You are God’s people, so don’t let it be said that any of you are immoral or indecent or greedy.”
This is the same as previous entries. It says nothing about Premarital sex being immoral or indecent.

Ephesians 5:4-5
Don't use dirty or foolish or filthy words. Instead, say how thankful you are. 5Being greedy, indecent, or immoral is just another way of worshiping idols. You can be sure that people who behave in this way will never be part of the kingdom that belongs to Christ and to God.”
Expanding on what was said in verse 3. Still nothing about premarital sex.

Colossians 2:21-23
21"Don't handle this. Don't taste that. Don't touch this."?
22After these things are used, they are no longer good for anything. So why be bothered with the rules that humans have made up?
23Obeying these rules may seem to be the smart thing to do. They appear to make you love God more and to be very humble and to have control over your body. But they don't really have any power over our desires.

Although I could talk about how the reference of “rules that humans have made up” supports the argument for premarital sex… I think it best that someone else gives a more in depth description of what is going on in this passage.

Colossians 3:1-3
You have been raised to life with Christ. Now set your heart on what is in heaven, where Christ rules at God's right side. [a]
2Think about what is up there, not about what is here on earth.
3You died, which means that your life is hidden with Christ, who sits beside God
.”
Again, no reference to do with Premarital sex.


Colossians 3:5
Don’t be controlled by your body. Kill every desire for the wrong kind of sex. Don’t be immoral or indecent or have evil thoughts. Don’t be greedy which is the same as worshiping idols.”
Is Premarital sex the “wrong kind of sex”? This verse does not say so.

Colossians 3:8
But now you must stop doing such things. You must quit being angry, hateful, and evil. You must no longer say insulting or cruel things about others.
Again, nothing to do with Premarital sex.

1 Thessalonians 4:3
Gods wants you to be holy. So don’t be immoral in matters of sex.”
No to repeat what has been said several times previously: this passage has no reference to premarital sex.

1 Thessalonians 4:4-5
"respect and honour your wife. Don’t be a slave of your desires or live like people who don’t know God.”
And Again… no direct reference to Premarital sex. Although I’m sure you could twist this to mean what you want it to mean

1 Timothy 1:9
9We also understand that it wasn't given to control people who please God, but to control lawbreakers, criminals, godless people, and sinners. It is for wicked and evil people, and for murderers, who would even kill their own parents.”
Paul is talking about the Law, and why it is here. Premarital sex was not listed as one of the examples

1 Timothy 4:1-6
God's Spirit clearly says that in the last days many people will turn from their faith. They will be fooled by evil spirits and by teachings that come from demons. 2They will also be fooled by the false claims of liars whose consciences have lost all feeling. These liars 3will forbid people to marry or to eat certain foods. But God created these foods to be eaten with thankful hearts by his followers who know the truth. 4Everything God created is good. And if you give thanks, you may eat anything. 5What God has said and your prayer will make it fit to eat.
6If you teach these things to other followers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus. You will show that you have grown up on the teachings about our faith and on the good instructions you have obeyed
.”
Versus 4-5 are all about food, so I am not sure why it was listed on a Premarital sex forum. As for the rest of the passage, it could be used in a supporting role for your argument (I suppose). However, by itself it has no evidence that goes against premarital sex.

2 Timothy 3:2-5
2People will love only themselves and money. They will be proud, stuck-up, rude, and disobedient to their parents. They will also be ungrateful, godless, 3heartless, and hateful. Their words will be cruel, and they will have no self-control or pity. These people will hate everything that is good. 4They will be sneaky, reckless, and puffed up with pride. Instead of loving God, they will love pleasure. 5Even though they will make a show of being religious, their religion won't be real. Don't have anything to do with such people.”
Another passage with a list of bad doings. And Premarital sex is not on that list.

Hebrews 11:31
Rahab had been a prostitute, but she had faith and welcomed the spies. So she wasn’t killed with the people who disobeyed.”
This passage uses Rahab’s prostitution as a measure of evilness (for lack of a better word).
Prostitution runs along different lines to premarital sex, and was considered a form of Idol worship.

Hebrews  12:16
Watch out for immoral and ungodly people like Esau, who sold his future blessing for only one meal.”
No mention of Premarital sex being one such “immoral and ungodly” act

James 2:14
what good does it do you to say you have faith, when you don’t do anything to show that you really do have faith? Can that kind of faith save you?”
I do not consider Premarital sex to be proof of my faith, but this passage does not say that it goes against my faith either.

James 2:25
Paul uses Rahab as an example of proving ones faith through actions.
Still no mention of Premarital sex.

Jude 5-13
Jude talks about the Evil people and what has happened to them in the past as well as what will happen to them in the future.
Premarital sex is not mentioned.

Revelations 9:20-21
This passages says that in the end times, those who “lived through these terrible troubles did not turn away from the idols they had made… No one stopped murdering or practicing witchcraft or being immoral or stealing.”
Once again, no reference to premarital sex
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
2
Points
38
This is simply asinine. Back in those days if you had sex before marriage, you were to pay the father the bride price for the virginity of his daughter, which you took, and then you were to marry her. God may not have said much, but the expectation was that you would receive a virgin for your bride, such that an unmarried woman was useless once deflowered. So was it allowed? I guess you could say so, but only in a very twisted way.

If you wish to go make yourself one flesh with a woman who may not end up committing to you for life, nobody here is stopping you. The Church, however, in her wisdom has told us that it is a sin consistently from the beginning of Christianity, and that is simply the end of the line, as far as Orthodox Christians are concerned.
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
just_some_guy said:
Hey everyone  :D
remember me ???


for those who don't I will give you a quick catch up:

some time ago I started a thread asking about why Premarital sex is a sin, or more specificly,  why does the Church teach it as a sin even though others (from elsewhere on the internet) can give good reasoning why it isn't.

the thread progressed and a few points where raised. Ultimately this was what was agreed upon:

1) the Orthodox Church is the most purest form of Christianity ever
2) the Orthodox Church follows the teachings of the Apostles perfectly
3) the Orthodox Church says that Premarital sex is a sin.... thus it is a sin (see point 1)
4) the fact that no such evidence for point 3 is recorded in the Bible does not counteract points 3. (see point 1)

5) the scriptures are True, however they are not the whole truth (see point 2 and 3)
6) sola scripture beliefs are out dated and inaccurate. (see point 5)

7) Roman Catholics are EVIL !!


and then, to appease my lowly sola scripture belief system,  on June 13, 2011, 03:58:54 AM, xariskai posted a very long quote from “”Gerhard Kittel, ed., TDNT (10 Volumes), Colin Brown, ed., DNTT (4 Volumes including index), and the like””

this post forced me to concede a temporary defeat. Although I did promise that I would follow up on his (long winded) post.

And here I am, back at last with my rebuttal to xariskai’s post.
Sorry for the wait.

Also, I will be very busy in the coming months so am unlikely to post again anytime soon. Kind of the reason I made the time to cross this of my todo list.

To summarise: for proving that premarital sex is a sin; you are now back to using the “Because the Orthodox Church says so” argument

Signed Shane Rooney
LOL. FAIL for writing it as "Revelations."

Pre-marital sex and adultery and whatever other forms of sexual deviance do not have to mentioned explicitly to be condemned, hence the many references to the catch-all "immorality." Kicking poodles for pleasure is never explicitly condemned in Scripture, but it is still wrong.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,922
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Shanghaiski said:
Kicking poodles for pleasure is never explicitly condemned in Scripture, but it is still wrong.
We might need to split thread on this! Kicking poodles is NOT wrong, and probably sanctioned by God.
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,504
Reaction score
266
Points
83
Age
41
Aindriú said:
Shanghaiski said:
Kicking poodles for pleasure is never explicitly condemned in Scripture, but it is still wrong.
We might need to split thread on this! Kicking poodles is NOT wrong, and probably sanctioned by God.
Exactly.

Has kicking poodles been condemned in the Bible? No.
Has kicking poodles been condemned at a Council? No.
Has kicking poodles been condemned by a Church Father? No.
Has any respected modern theologian wrote a treatise or book--or even an article in a popular level magazine--condemning kicking poodles? No.

So where does this idea that kicking poodles is wrong come from? Liberals. That's who. Ever hear Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity condemn it? No. It's bleeding heart, politically correct liberals.
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
South Carolina
As I happen to think that dogs are one of God's greatest gifts to humans, I cannot abide the direction this thread is taking. I realize why you are doing this and I do not blame you. Nonetheless, it is the final nail on the coffin of this thread. All the previous nails having been driven onto the lid by the endless loop of unproductive argumentation, I hereby proclaim that the subject is exhausted and this thread closed until after the Bright Week. I will entertain unlocking it if someone PMs me and gives a good reason to to reopen it. Thanks, Second Chance
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
South Carolina
This topic is unlocked as the OP desires the opportunity to reply to couple of posters. However, please be forewarned that I think the topic has been exhausted and will be locked permanently if old arguments are rehashed. Second Chance
 

Apples

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
4,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think that premarital sex is sinful because it divorces the spiritual and physical aspects of human union and love.
 

jewish voice

High Elder
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
905
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
I don't think it is but I'm not Orthodox yet to give their point of view on the subject.
 

amartin

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In the true religion, you can have sex but keep in mind that too much physical pleasures separates the psyche from God.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,389
Reaction score
114
Points
63
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
amartin said:
In the true religion, you can have sex but keep in mind that too much physical pleasures separates the psyche from God.
The 'true religion' being a cult in Oregon.  ???
 

amartin

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Points
0
biro said:
amartin said:
In the true religion, you can have sex but keep in mind that too much physical pleasures separates the psyche from God.
The 'true religion' being a cult in Oregon.   ???
Oregon? I wouldn't know. But the true religion is universal in scope and comprises the members of any religion that are on the spiritual path.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,389
Reaction score
114
Points
63
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
amartin said:
biro said:
amartin said:
In the true religion, you can have sex but keep in mind that too much physical pleasures separates the psyche from God.
The 'true religion' being a cult in Oregon.   ???
Oregon? I wouldn't know. But the true religion is universal in scope and comprises the members of any religion that are on the spiritual path.
Uh, no, it doesn't.
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,832
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
amartin said:
In the true religion, you can have sex but keep in mind that too much physical pleasures separates the psyche from God.
Would that include riding roller coasters?  How would the physical thrill of riding a roller coaster separate the psyche from God?  ???
 

just_some_guy

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi all, Im back (again)
been offline for a while now (not just this forum) and have had plenty of time to think.

Judging from what I have read on this forum I have come to the following conclutions:

the Bible does NOT forbid premarital sex.
this is based on no bible verse being brought forward that directly speaks against premarital sex (and vauge grouping references like illicit/sinful/immoral have in turn been rejected due to the fact that every other form of illicit sexual activity is spelled out, word for word, somewhere else in the bible. even as far as having sex with your Father's sibling's spouse [Leviticus 18])

the Orthodox Church DOES forbid premarital sex.
the Orthodox Church is very clear on their stance here. Premarital sex is a sin. Period.

Conclution:
if you follow the Orthodox Church, and do what it says because what is says is the right thing to do (or so they say). then clearly premarital sex is a sin and should not be conducted.
However, if instead you follow what the Bible says, as a guide and reference to the root of all Christian denominations. then premarital sex is still allowed.

so personally, I know what Im going with. but for everyone else, if you believe the Church has it right... then who am I to say you have to follow the Bible just because I do?

for the last time (really this time)
signed
Just_Some_Guy
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,922
Reaction score
1
Points
38
"When Jesus said "sexual immorality" in regard to acts other than a married man and woman, he didn't include premarital sex. 'Cause that would seriously cut down on my pr0n time."
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In the end, we will face God and answer for what we have done.

That includes self-indulgence via purposeful misinterpretation.

There's a world of difference between "I want to do this even though I know it is wrong" and "I want to do this and it isn't wrong".  Only one can be easily repented of.  The other requires a great deal more work...
 
Top