Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?

FormerReformer

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,759
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Website
mcommini2.blogspot.com
Aindriú said:
FormerReformer said:
Aindriú said:
Didn't mention Alfred.
Hopefully you mean "within the context of the most current discussion on this thread" and not "ever in this thread".
You made me search the thread.
Heh, that's okay, because apparently (from the context of your Persson reference, my Persson reference, and your claiming credit for the first Persson reference) neither one of us made our original Persson references in a thread that was this thread at the time.
Aindriú said:
Aindriú said:
Heorhij said:
Too bad the OP will hardly even listen, because he says he wants us to make counter-arguments only to HIS arguments "from Scripture."
Alfred Persson 20 years ago?
Sure enough. Four months ago, back in October I said this.
Here's a question- if I call myself "Alfred Persson" after recognizing certain Alfred traits, does that make it an instance of insult in the "first Persson"?
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
if I call myself "Alfred Persson" after recognizing certain Alfred traits, does that make it an instance of insult in the "first Persson"?
You have redeemed yourself, young Grasshopper.  :laugh:
 

primuspilus

Taxiarches
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Location
A displaced Southerner in the Godless North
Website
www.saintgregorythetheologian.org
orthonorm said:
primuspilus said:
Aindriú said:
Yet another thread of Protestants vs Orthodox has devolved to the sola scriptura argument "does is spell it out in le Bible? Not perfectly/not really/nope? Then my opinion is true.".
QFT
Not really.

Actually the Orthodox response is rather underwhelming and rude.

Just the absolute errors in proof texting are embarrassing. As is the circle the wagon mentality. Where did the typical "rules" policing and the accompanying Latin phrases everyone here with their The Top 50 Fallacies: How to Spot Them and Name Them in Latin! love to spout off with, usually incorrectly, go?

Really, if you think Act420 is even in the same sport as Alfred, you are probably the one smoking something, not Acts420.

Will get back to the circle the wagon stuff. I love when folks take recourse to the "they", in this case, the "we".

For the record, I ain't in your non-personal collective.
I understand what you're saying orthonorm. I guess that folks (insert they or we as appropriate) get irritated about the scripture argument yet their beliefs are just as "unscriptural" as ours (if you'll forgive the comparison).

As for acts420 being alfred, no he's not because at least acts420 addresses something that someone else says.

PP
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,830
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
FountainPen said:
Fr. George said:
Btw: You don't need to defend those who argue poorly; the dismissal of his posting has nothing to do with his theological predisposition.  There are others who do a good job of directly addressing points directed at them (i.e. the aforementioned David Young, Keble, Ebor, etc.), who have survived and thrived for quite awhile on this forum (longer than most folks here).  He should take notes from them and their posting style before he continues here.  (Maybe you should, too.)
I better had take notes or shiver-my-British-timbers, i might become one of the growing number of 'muted' posters for not falling into line.
No one gets muted for "not falling into line."  If that were the case, we would have banned our atheists, agnostics, "Mathematicians," (not "practitioners of math," but "those who subscribe to math as a religion") and non-Orthodox long ago.

What will get you muted is complaining about moderation in public. Don't do it again.

- Fr. George, Global Moderator
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
orthonorm said:
The Top 50 Fallacies: How to Spot Them and Name Them in Latin!
Are you referring to the ad hominem, or perssonal attack?
 

vamrat

Merarches
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
9,471
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Omaha
Riddikulus said:
This thread has gone from the ridiculous to the cor blimey!  :laugh:
Please define "has gone from".
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
74
Location
South Carolina
Folks, this thread is all over the place and has produced heated and unnecessary exchanges. With your kind indulgence, I am giving it a recess for a while. Let's reconvene Monday, February 20,2012. Have a great weekend. second Chance
 

acts420

Elder
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
San Francisco, California
Website
www.acts420.com
Thank you, serb1389.  Christ is among us! 

Please allow me to add a quick Post Script to my above reply to the philological argument (Reply #4).

P.S.
I can give more citations to relevant old testament authorities if necessary.  However, if this turns into a battle of the experts that will be a waste of time and will just serve to prove that premarital sex in the confines of courtship is never *clearly* punished nor called immoral or sinful in Scripture.  So it would be more efficient to agree on that point and stop now. 

There is no doubt among any of the "experts" regarding adultery, incest, prostitution, forced rape, man having sex with man as if man is a woman, sex during menstration, and others.  If I cannot point to a single passage that says "thou shalt wait until marriage to have sex" or anything close to its equivalent unless I point to an extremely debatable word with so many cultural traditions that could be used to define it over the last 5,000 years that not one single living person would agree with them all, then that says plenty for us to chew on.

Let me finish with this:  virginity is highly honored on the way and sex before marriage also.  Just because something is allowed does not make it smart spiritually nor physically.  God have mercy on us.

In Christ,
Acts420.com
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Hmm.

So either Acts420 has outdone every scholar ever, every interpretation ever made,

Or he is wrong.

I'm not saying the former is impossible. It just ain't very likely.

The reason why the phrase "premarital sex" is not spelled out is because it was *taken for granted* by *every culture* of the time (it was also contained in adultery and porneia, for those who have ears to hear). There was no way that the folks making the rules wanted their women devalued (I mean commodity-wise) by having them lose their virginity before marriage. When a culture of that time wanted to insult another culture, they made up rumors that the other culture had temple prostitution or something. It was the ultimate diss, you guys can't keep your women in check. Greeks did it to the Babylonians, just read Herodotus.

It is the ad-hoc arguement of ad-hoc arguments from silence that there is some secret alternate interpretation that the r34l jews and r34l fathers had that nobody recorded. It is insane, and only the people who believe that freemason reptiles rule the world would even consider, for a moment, that it might possibly have the slightest merit.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,164
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
NicholasMyra said:
Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Hmm.

So either Acts420 has outdone every scholar ever, every interpretation ever made,

Or he is wrong.

I'm not saying the former is impossible. It just ain't very likely.

The reason why the phrase "premarital sex" is not spelled out is because it was *taken for granted* by *every culture* of the time (it was also contained in adultery and porneia, for those who have ears to hear). There was no way that the folks making the rules wanted their women devalued (I mean commodity-wise) by having them lose their virginity before marriage. When a culture of that time wanted to insult another culture, they made up rumors that the other culture had temple prostitution or something. It was the ultimate diss, you guys can't keep your women in check. Greeks did it to the Babylonians, just read Herodotus.

It is the ad-hoc arguement of ad-hoc arguments from silence that there is some secret alternate interpretation that the r34l jews and r34l fathers had that nobody recorded. It is insane, and only the people who believe that freemason reptiles rule the world would even consider, for a moment, that it might possibly have the slightest merit.
Of course. I doubt it'll matter to someone with his agenda, though.
 

acts420

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

Not every scholar in the known universe agrees with you.  Indeed many disagree with you.  However, when you ignore them (and all the evidence to the contrary of your position) it allows you to feel secure in your weak position.  Those who do disagree with you don't typically try to correct the likes of you.  I care for you.  That is the difference between I and them. I'm not trying to justify promiscuous behavior on my part nor anything of the sort, eve though many here accuse of it.  I'm not promiscuous.  Many accused Christ of being a drunkard and a glutton too because he brought the new Way, freedom from commandments and life in the Spirit.

I'm trying to get you to stop being a Pharisee because I love you, and I'm trying to get the church to be filled with less Pharisees because I love her.  I cited many sources above.  You ignored them all and repeated three times "every scholar in the known universe [disagrees]."  I'm sure that made you feel more confident.  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.  Besides those I cited, many others including the Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach agree with them.  As if I even need to cite another (and as if you won't just deny its existence anyway).... Boteach is the author of The Kosher Sutra, HarperOne Press, 2009. 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 obviously  zenut (porneia) does not mean premarital sex according to him either.  If it did, then he would have to say the Torah prohibits sex before marriage since it prohibits zenut (porneia).  What's more, if premarital sex is a sin because cultural traditions frowned upon it, then it is also a sin to be alone with an unmarried woman for more then 60 seconds.  Is it? 

Remember the Pharisees?  That is the road you're heading down.  You wrote, "The reason why the phrase premarital sex is not spelled out is because it was taken for granted by every culture of the time".  Right.  So the culture needed it spelled out that adultery is a sin, and bestiality too, because 'who would've guessed that?'  However, sex with an unmarried woman... that is so obviously wrong no commandment was needed.  Yeah.  Listen to yourself deny both facts and common sense together.  It's incredible. 

It comes down to this:  cultures make all sorts of rules to pile them onto God's.  It is a human trait.  It has been this way since the beginning of time.  God's Word never condemns sex before marriage for an important reason.  He takes the approach of honoring virginity and sex in marriage instead.  To say premarital sex is immoral because virginity and marriage are honored would be like arguing oral sex between heterosexuals is immoral because God has only honored vaginal sex.  We're here to shine Christ's light, the Word, not our own rules. When we add our rules to God's we warp the light of Christ such that the world looks to us for the light but starts to see us instead. The goal should be perfect reflection of the Word in us, even if that reflection sometimes makes us uncomfortable. 

To say premarital sex is a sin puts you in a similar light as those Baptists who say it is a sin to drink alcohol.  God has never said sex it.  The Father has good reasons for doing things this way.  I'm sure you have good intentions for piling commands onto God's children.  God has better intentions for leaving them free.  If the Word says we're right but our culture or even our family says we're wrong, then we must listen to Christ say, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters... he cannot be my disciple."  Even if they or we have good intentions for making up our own rules, He has better intentions that we know nothing about. He must become more; we must become less. 

NicholasMyra said:
Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Hmm.

So either Acts420 has outdone every scholar ever, every interpretation ever made,

Or he is wrong.

I'm not saying the former is impossible. It just ain't very likely.

The reason why the phrase "premarital sex" is not spelled out is because it was *taken for granted* by *every culture* of the time (it was also contained in adultery and porneia, for those who have ears to hear). There was no way that the folks making the rules wanted their women devalued (I mean commodity-wise) by having them lose their virginity before marriage. When a culture of that time wanted to insult another culture, they made up rumors that the other culture had temple prostitution or something. It was the ultimate diss, you guys can't keep your women in check. Greeks did it to the Babylonians, just read Herodotus.

It is the ad-hoc arguement of ad-hoc arguments from silence that there is some secret alternate interpretation that the r34l jews and r34l fathers had that nobody recorded. It is insane, and only the people who believe that freemason reptiles rule the world would even consider, for a moment, that it might possibly have the slightest merit.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
acts420, I notice you've really done nothing to address the textual arguments xariskai actually made in the OP of this thread with any arguments from equally authoritative scholarship. The only real arguments I've seen from you is "cultural norms change" and your continued argument from silence. Sorry, but those aren't the kinds of answers xariskai's arguments demand.
 

acts420

Elder
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
San Francisco, California
Website
www.acts420.com
Saying the 6 works of scholarship I cited (in response to his 3) are not "equally authoritative" is just a cop out.  The plainly obvious fact is that Scripture clearly condemns many sexual acts ranging from obvious ones like adultery and bestiality to sex during menstruation.  It never condemns sex before marriage as a sin, no one is ever punished in Scripture for it, and the "authorities" that say porneia includes premarital sex rely on cultural traditions that also say being alone with a single woman is porneia.

That doesn't mean virginity and sex in marriage are not highly honored in Scripture.  Of course they are.  The Way the Father instills values in His children is what is different between the Pharisaical approach and the Word's approach.

PeterTheAleut said:
acts420, I notice you've really done nothing to address the textual arguments xariskai actually made in the OP of this thread with any arguments from equally authoritative scholarship. The only real arguments I've seen from you is "cultural norms change" and your continued argument from silence. Sorry, but those aren't the kinds of answers xariskai's arguments demand.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
acts420 said:
It comes down to this:  cultures make all sorts of rules to pile them onto God's.  
You do realize that you're preaching your message of sexpentance to Orthodox Christians, right?

acts420 said:
I'm trying to get you to stop being a Pharisee because I love you
Pharisees usurped the Law of honoring their parents, by dedicating their goods as Qurban.

You usurp the Law of Mercy instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, offering pre-marital sex as Qurban.

acts420 said:
"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 about as Pharisaical as one can get... Don't you see the irony?

Satan and the demons love me too, in their own way. I'll stick with Jesus Christ's.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
3,125
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sydney, Australia
Acts, I don't mean this to sound callous, as I actually am quite in your corner as I say it ...

Relying on the Apostle Paul, I contend that your ex should not have refused her body to you, for her body did not belong to her, but to you (as yours did to her). The scriptures are already explicitly on your side in respect of your negative experience with your ex. Why do you feel the need to justify pre-marital sexual "compatability testing" when the real issue is the mutual duty of spouses to share their bodies with each other?

This probably belongs in the other thread but I just happened to be here as the thought occurred to me ...
 
Top