PDA

View Full Version : Extra marital s*x



Pages : [1] 2

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 06:55 PM
OK guys, here's a thread to discuss extra marital s*x. Some folks say it's OK but I do not believe that it is. We'll start small and go from there.

1 Thess 4:1-8

4 Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that, as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you may excel still more. 2 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. 8 Consequently, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.
NASB

I highlighted several verses above that begin speaking to the issue. Don't overlook the ones that are not in bold print though for they are just as important (esp. vs 8).

Ok, moving on. Let's look at a key word first... sexual immorality.

NT:4201

NT:4202 porneia (por-ni'-ah); from NT:4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:

KJV - fornication.

Here's the root word so we can understand it even better.

NT:4203

NT:4203 porneuo (porn-yoo'-o); from NT:4204; to act the harlot, i.e. (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry:

KJV - commit (fornication).

Basically, God is saying that we should refrain from unlawful lust/sex. As we go forward, we can discuss, with some wisdom and discretion, what is or is not lawful.

The scripture quoted above also mentions keeping our body/vessel in honor. What does this mean? Well, he gives us the answer in another passage.

Heb 13:4
4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
NASB

The marriage bed is undefiled. But those that commit fornication and adultery, God will judge them. Also, notice how the marriage is held in honor! It is the way to keep your vessel/body honorable and keep it within the bounds of the sanctification process.

We can look deeper into the Greek words if you like, but they simply refer to lust and such. It is no accident that you notice the similarity in the Greek words with our English word porn.

I suppose this is a decent start.

threebigrocks
Feb 28th 2008, 07:01 PM
OK guys, here's a thread to discuss extra marital s*x. Some folks say it's OK but I do not believe that it is.

Okay, you got me from here. How some can believe that being married, and having sex with someone that is not your spouse is okay - is beyond me.

And indeed Mark it is a descent start, IMHO enough to make the case that 1 man and 1 woman for all their days on this earth will honor each other in the marriage covenant.

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 07:07 PM
Okay, you got me from here. How some can believe that being married, and having sex with someone that is not your spouse is okay - is beyond me.

Well, on another thread, some were saying one didn't have to be married to engage in sex with another person without sinning. When I say "extra-marital sex" I mean sex outside of marriage. In other words, it can include but is not limited to adultery. It can also mean a single person engaging in sex with another single person as they are doing it outside of marriage.


And indeed Mark it is a descent start, IMHO enough to make the case that 1 man and 1 woman for all their days on this earth will honor each other in the marriage covenant.

Thanks! Well, it's enough for you and me. But we will find out if it's enough for others. ;)

aliveinchrist
Feb 28th 2008, 07:11 PM
Yeah I saw that, too, and wondered about it.

1 Cor 6:18

Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.

1 Cor 6:19-20

Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit WHO IS in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
For you were bought at a price: therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.

How is having sex before marriage glorifying God with your body and your spirit?

Looking at all the problems sex before marriage causes, it's kinda common sense anyways NOT to have sex before marriage.

threebigrocks
Feb 28th 2008, 07:16 PM
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Extra as in any relations outside of the marriage bed AND with your spouse, married or not. Gotcha.

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 07:24 PM
Looking at all the problems sex before marriage causes, it's kinda common sense anyways NOT to have sex before marriage.

True. Many diseases would be eliminated were it not for extra marital relations.

aliveinchrist
Feb 28th 2008, 07:30 PM
True. Many diseases would be eliminated were it not for extra marital relations.

plus:

children having two different homes, and FOUR different parents
all the hurt that's caused from these situations
kids having kids
child support
men/women having connections with men/women they are not married to/never was married to

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:15 PM
I still do not see where it specifically says that sex within a committed relationship is wrong. And by a committed relationship I mean two people who have committed their lives to one another and they put God first. A piece of paper does not a marriage make. Did Adam and Eve have a piece of paper?

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 08:16 PM
I still do not see where it specifically says that sex within a committed relationship is wrong. And by a committed relationship I mean two people who have committed their lives toward one another and they put God first. A piece of paper does not a marriage make.

Do you mean by committed relationship that two people are married? Or do you mean something else?

Amazedgrace21
Feb 28th 2008, 08:18 PM
I certainly hope this will be a constructive thread where folks who take the position that an engagement equates with a marraige in term's of the level of commitment will reconsider.

Obviously an engagement does not equate with the formality of a "marriaige" being brought to it's highest level of mutual agreement and particpation on many levels...and it makes me wonder in the case of those who argue that they do equate it as such are often making 'wedding plans' and are not oblivious to the legal aspects of what a marraige decree entail's as it presents a public image and new legal status when it is present.

As a parent, I am struggling with my youngest child's considerations and very strong emotional reactions to my objection that she would consider moving in with her boyfriend of three years to "play house" and see if things workout, taking their commitment to the next level so to speak.., until they get married. ..this is just at the theoretical stage for now..but I see her rationalizing this and very defensive..:cry: She's 25 yrs old..not a child so there is nothing I can do but offer her all the reasons why I think this would be a terrible choice as well "a sin" in respect to what marraige represents even being equated as the same as this arrangement..

IMHO, for Christians .. there is no such thing as premarital 'sex'..there is marraige and there is sex that God sets apart exclusively for marraige, and only for marraige, the rest is 'sin'..thats not negotiable..regardless if its abided by because God set "that bar..":hmm:

the very fact that anyone can site that the formality of a legal Christian marraige does indeed raise the level of the standing of the relationship in term's of an entity with very specific status acknowledged by the standards God originated and apply today..

Having made and having been given the intellectual commitment to remain exclusive and committed to another person in respect to determing "this is the last person I am ever going to be with for the balance of my life" before God is a very wonderful blessing...that is indeed the heart of what a marraige is in spirit..but until that commitment has been sealed "legally and formally" to the fullest extent it can be before God, before our family and community..its not a marraige..

One can rent and live in a home but one can only buy to 'own it'..and that's how I look at premarital sex during the engagement period and especially when fols say I don't need "that piece of paper" it make it real..

That piece of paper does not make the marraige a marraige at all but it sure makes the reality , very real...as real as it gets..there is only way out and its called "divorce"...and that word translate into what God has put together in the very real, tangible evidence of the "oneness"...

An example I offered my daughter was the difference between the status God provided Mary when she conceived Jesus..she was Josephs "wife" albeit there had been no marital sex..the spirit of the law was consistent with the letter in terms of of that 'commitment', Joseph would have had to divorce her to break it..which thankfully he abided by God's will in this matter..

God ordained abiding by the strictest and highest legal commitments to seal this marraige as well as the spiritual 'letter of the law'..in other words no cohabitating and having the benefits of the honeymoon and marital bed until after the "wedding" and legal commitment followed the spiritual one.

It was a very serious and grave matter in terms of this "standard" being taught by Christ Himself as the one we as Christians abide by..and even if the world argues otherwise..they will always be "wrong", as will we if we go with their standards and definition of what a commitment is and that there is such a thing as "pre-marital sex"..its called fornification..period end..and this is always a "sin"..it can't be prettied up by calling it love either..any more than denial is a river in Egypt..

I also asked my daughter if I went out and had drastic plastic surgery that changed my body, would it do anything else except simply change the appearance of things..it wouldn't create something now would it that was not there to begin with?:) So how does calling premarital sex something it is not by simply changing the appearance of it by saying we are gonna get married in 3 years make some one "married"?

If it's official in order to justify the sex..make the marraige official before God and by God's standards and then have marital sex..but don't insult God or kid yourself here..it is what it is..:cry: it's called 'sin'. Calling yourself a Christian will not change this either..

My daughter is struggling with my response because she "knows" better and it's not what she want's to hear and she perceives this council as 'judgemental and legalistic"..obviously it feels this way to her..but there are many other things to offer her along with this reason that are sound reasons for her welfare that I have in as loving way as I can..ultimately it is between her and God, but I won't humor her on this matter because I do care so much.:cry:

Buck shot
Feb 28th 2008, 08:21 PM
1 Cor 6:18

Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.

.


:D Not much to add to these posts! Good job guys! :rolleyes:

Sex outside of marriage, BAD, I GOT IT! :hmm:

ravi4u2
Feb 28th 2008, 08:30 PM
I still do not see where it specifically says that sex within a committed relationship is wrong. And by a committed relationship I mean two people who have committed their lives to one another and they put God first. A piece of paper does not a marriage make. Did Adam and Eve have a piece of paper?You said elsewhere:
A committed, one on one relationship, filled with love, where God comes first, is marriage.Does that mean that two people decide to move in together and shag; and bingo! they are married? That would be sin, because there were no witnessing and consenting to this 'marriage'. Biblically, the witnesses and the consenters, should be more than the the couplers.

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:32 PM
Do you mean by committed relationship that two people are married? Or do you mean something else?

I mean there is no formal piece of paper that says they are married, but they made a commitment to one another before God and asked God to bless their union.

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:33 PM
You said elsewhere:Does that mean that two people decide to move in together and shag; and bingo! they are married? That would be sin, because there were no witnessing and consenting to this 'marriage'. Biblically, the witnesses and the consenters, should be more than the the couplers.

Really, so other than God who witnessed Adam and Eve's "marriage?"

ddmor
Feb 28th 2008, 08:34 PM
I'd like you to point to a committed relationship in the Bible, where the people weren't husband and wife. I can't think of one.

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:36 PM
I'd like you to point to a committed relationship in the Bible, where the people weren't husband and wife. I can't think of one.

Well please explain to me how Adam and Eve were married in terms of what marriage is supposed to be today because that is what you are telling me that is the ONLY legitimate way to commit yourself mind, heart and soul to someone.

aliveinchrist
Feb 28th 2008, 08:36 PM
I still do not see where it specifically says that sex within a committed relationship is wrong. And by a committed relationship I mean two people who have committed their lives to one another and they put God first. A piece of paper does not a marriage make. Did Adam and Eve have a piece of paper?

God said no sex before marriage. MARRIAGE. Not engagement. Marriage. Where two people are tied together before God. A piece of paper does not matter. I could care less about a piece of paper. But I got up in the front of that church, coming before GOD, and promising TO God (and my husband, of course), my marriage vows. I wasn't promising them to my pastor. I made those vows to God. Yes. My husband and I had sex before we were married. I loved him dearly then, just like I do now. Does that make it right that we had sex before we were married? Absolutely not. Had I committed myself to him before we were married? yes. Does that MAKE us married? no.

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 08:37 PM
I mean there is no formal piece of paper that says they are married, but they made a commitment to one another before God and asked God to bless their union.

Would you call their union marriage?

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:41 PM
Would you call their union marriage?

It doesn't matter what I call it, but yes. Just because two people haven't stood up in front of a church of people does not mean that they have not committed themselves to one another before God.

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:43 PM
God said no sex before marriage. MARRIAGE. Not engagement. Marriage. Where two people are tied together before God. A piece of paper does not matter. I could care less about a piece of paper. But I got up in the front of that church, coming before GOD, and promising TO God (and my husband, of course), my marriage vows. I wasn't promising them to my pastor. I made those vows to God. Yes. My husband and I had sex before we were married. I loved him dearly then, just like I do now. Does that make it right that we had sex before we were married? Absolutely not. Had I committed myself to him before we were married? yes. Does that MAKE us married? no.

Where did he say it? I want to see where it specifically says in the Bible in those exact words and I want to see where the Bible says verbatim what it entails to become married. I also want to know how it is possible for Adam and Eve to be married since someone mentioned that in order to truly be married you need witnesses. Unless of course live stock count ;)

obeytheword
Feb 28th 2008, 08:44 PM
I still do not see where it specifically says that sex within a committed relationship is wrong. And by a committed relationship I mean two people who have committed their lives to one another and they put God first. A piece of paper does not a marriage make. Did Adam and Eve have a piece of paper?

I agree it is not the piece of paper, but just having two people "committed" is simply not marriage. To say so is to counter several thousand years of history.

The problem I believe is in how you define "committed relationship".

1 Cor 1:7:1-9
1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

It looks pretty clear that you are not to engage in sex prior to marriage.

Verse 8 - It is good for the UNMARRIED and the widows to remain as I am (not engaging in sex) - but if they cannot control themselves - then marry, rather than burn with passion. It does not say you should not engage in sex prior to being committed to someone. It used the word marriage for a reason.


God ordained marriage as the outlet for sexuality. He ordained it as between a man and a woman. To say 2 people are "committed" but choose to not marry is the same as being actually married is not accurate. If they ARE GOING to marry, and they cannot wait, then move the date up a bit :)

Be Blessed!

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 08:44 PM
It doesn't matter what I call it, but yes. Just because two people haven't stood up in front of a church of people does not mean that they have not committed themselves to one another before God.

It matters greatly what it is called. For we are speaking of extra marital sex. If what you are calling marriage is true, then we are in agreement on extra marital sex. Right? Perhaps we will disagree on marriage but that is something to discuss later.

Just so I understand, you believe that two people who are married before the Lord can engage in sex. But do you believe if they are not married in the eyes of God that they can engage in sex?

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:46 PM
Just so I understand, you believe that two people who are married before the Lord can engage in sex. But do you believe if they are not married in the eyes of God that they can engage in sex?

Correcto mundo, sorry I am channeling the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ;)

ravi4u2
Feb 28th 2008, 08:47 PM
Really, so other than God who witnessed Adam and Eve's "marriage?"So now, you claim to be Adam and Eve?:lol: Adam and Eve were a prototype, and infact, the early descendants of Adam and Eve were prototypes. For example, they married their siblings. Would you use that to justify marrying your sibling? Jesus speaks about "a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding". Now, this is a true Biblical standard of a marriage, that has consenters and witnesses.

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 08:49 PM
Correcto mundo, sorry I am channeling the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ;)

OK. Please clarify the answer though. I had two questions. Sorry for being dense. You agreed that what you are saying is marriage is a committed relationship before the Lord. OK. I will get into that later.

But what about the second question. If they are not married in the eyes of God, is it OK for them to engage in sex?

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:50 PM
So now, you claim to be Adam and Eve?:lol: Adam and Eve were a prototype, and infact, the early descendants of Adam and Eve were prototypes. For example, they married their siblings. Would you use that to justify marrying your sibling? Jesus speaks about "a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding". Now, this is a true Biblical standard of a marriage, that has consenters and witnesses.

How is asking a valid question equate to claiming to be Adam and Eve? Nope, I am not. Heck, I am not even engaging in premarital sex, but I find a lot of your arguments are full of holes. I am just saying if you cannot pick and chose what you believe about the Bible. Your definition of marriage is flawed if you believe that you must have witnesses. That means Adam and Eve were the first adulterers.

aliveinchrist
Feb 28th 2008, 08:51 PM
Where did he say it? I want to see where it specifically says in the Bible in those exact words and I want to see where the Bible says verbatim what it entails to become married. I also want to know how it is possible for Adam and Eve to be married since someone mentioned that in order to truly be married you need witnesses. Unless of course live stock count ;)

I believe ObeytheWord posted the verses that spell it for ya.

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:52 PM
But what about the second question. If they are not married in the eyes of God, is it OK for them to engage in sex?

Correct, but now try to find a Biblical definition of marriage that does not contradict itself. I believe that two people can say vows to themselves in the presence of God (not necessarily in the church) and be married. Everyone else is saying that is not marriage.

aliveinchrist
Feb 28th 2008, 08:53 PM
Don't forget, we are living in the New Testament times now, if I am thinking correctly. The New Testament, when Jesus came, abolishes? the Old Testament.

ravi4u2
Feb 28th 2008, 08:53 PM
How is asking a valid question equate to claiming to be Adam and Eve? Nope, I am not. Heck, I am not even engaging in premarital sex, but I find a lot of your arguments are full of holes. I am just saying if you cannot pick and chose what you believe about the Bible. Your definition of marriage is flawed if you believe that you must have witnesses. That means Adam and Eve were the first adulterers.On the contrary, it seems to me that your argument is the one that has full of holes. For scripture has to be interpreted with scripture. if I buy your point of view, then we should be able to marry our siblings, for there were instances in the Bible for that. And they were not committing adultery when they did that either.

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:54 PM
I believe ObeytheWord posted the verses that spell it for ya.

I never said sex before marriage was acceptable. I am just disagreeing with the consensus as to what qualifies as a marriage ;)

aliveinchrist
Feb 28th 2008, 08:55 PM
I never said sex before marriage was acceptable. I am just disagreeing with the consensus as to what qualifies as a marriage ;)

oh so basically to cause an argument. :D ;)

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:55 PM
On the contrary, it seems to me that your argument is the one that has full of holes. For scripture has to be interpreted with scripture. if I buy your point of view, then we should be able to marry our siblings, for there were instances in the Bible for that. And they were not committing adultery when they did that either.

I'm not arguing anything. I just said I have a different perspective as to what I think a marriage is and you started ranting about having sex with your siblings. Whatever floats (or sinks) your boat.

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 08:56 PM
oh so basically to cause an argument. :D ;)

Nope, because a bunch of people here think that simply because they have a slip of paper that says they are married they know more than those who do not. They also think their relationships are more valid. I just think that is utter bull.

aliveinchrist
Feb 28th 2008, 08:58 PM
Nope, because a bunch of people here think that simply because they have a slip of paper that says they are married they know more than those who do not. They also think their relationships are more valid. I just think that is utter bull.

Hmmm. :hmm: I see. I was picking on you. :)

For me, the piece of paper doesn't matter. What mattered to me, was that for me to come before God, I wanted to do it in a Godly church. I wanted to come before God with my vows in a church that followed God's word. That's what mattered to me. The piece of paper just happened to come along with it. :rolleyes:

obeytheword
Feb 28th 2008, 09:07 PM
Correct, but now try to find a Biblical definition of marriage that does not contradict itself. I believe that two people can say vows to themselves in the presence of God (not necessarily in the church) and be married. Everyone else is saying that is not marriage.

When Jesus walked the Earth it was both custom and law for marriage to involve a "piece of paper". I would imagine if we all had it wrong, he would have countered the false notion. But he did not.

Matt 19
3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=50&context=chapter#fen-NKJV-23761a)]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=50&context=chapter#fen-NKJV-23762c)] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to [B]give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=50&context=chapter#fen-NKJV-23766d)] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

The spirit of the Word is RATHER clear. Why is it that you WANT to test God in this?

Be Blessed!

ddmor
Feb 28th 2008, 09:11 PM
Okay - I see your point - I 3> Jesus ...

Let me point you to: 1PT 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, 2:14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men- 2:16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.

What makes marriage today, is what the law of the land says. Promising before someone who is licenced to preform the marriage - and before other witnesses - to be man and wife. IF the law of the land goes against the Bible, we Christians aren't honor bound to follow it - but the marriage laws doesn't. So we obey the law of the land - and get married their way.

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 09:30 PM
Correct, but now try to find a Biblical definition of marriage that does not contradict itself. I believe that two people can say vows to themselves in the presence of God (not necessarily in the church) and be married. Everyone else is saying that is not marriage.

Alright. Now we are getting somewhere. This whole thread is about extra marital sex. We can move into what constitutes a marriage.

So, just for the sake of clarity, and before moving on, all extra marital sex is sinful according to scripture? Correct?

ravi4u2
Feb 28th 2008, 09:38 PM
I'm not arguing anything. I just said I have a different perspective as to what I think a marriage is and you started ranting about having sex with your siblings. Whatever floats (or sinks) your boat.No, ranting here. You said Adam and Eve only had God as their witness. I said Adam and Eve and even their early descendants were prototypes. You cannot take something that happened in the Bible in random and say that that is the norm. Simple logics in play here, absolutely no ranting. And you cannot claim Adam and Eve's example here as well. For God physically brought Eve to Adam (Genesis 2:22). If this happens again,then, perhaps we need no other witnesses and consenters, for a marriage ;). Marriage is perhaps the ultimate covenant relationship, for which we need witnesses and consenters. The Lord Himself being the chief Witness and Consenter. Any other kind of living together is sin called fornication.

doppelganger
Feb 28th 2008, 10:14 PM
I<3Jesus,

Do you consider yourself married?

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 10:28 PM
Sorry, I babysit during the day and it was craft time for the kiddos. I will have to read this thread and get back to y'all later.

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 11:02 PM
When Jesus walked the Earth it was both custom and law for marriage to involve a "piece of paper". I would imagine if we all had it wrong, he would have countered the false notion. But he did not.

Matt 19
3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=50&context=chapter#fen-NKJV-23761a)]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=50&context=chapter#fen-NKJV-23762c)] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to [B]give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=50&context=chapter#fen-NKJV-23766d)] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

The spirit of the Word is RATHER clear. Why is it that you WANT to test God in this?

Be Blessed!

Not to be a pain, but the passage you highlighted is about a certificate of divorce, not of marriage. Oh and I am not testing God on this, I know better. I am merely trying to figure out what marriage means Biblically. I do not want someone's interpretation of the text or the language of the text, I want cold, hard facts.

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 11:03 PM
Okay - I see your point - I 3> Jesus ...

Let me point you to: 1PT 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, 2:14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men- 2:16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.

What makes marriage today, is what the law of the land says. Promising before someone who is licenced to preform the marriage - and before other witnesses - to be man and wife. IF the law of the land goes against the Bible, we Christians aren't honor bound to follow it - but the marriage laws doesn't. So we obey the law of the land - and get married their way.

Great post! See, now that makes sense and there was no tude with it ;)

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 11:06 PM
No, ranting here. You said Adam and Eve only had God as their witness. I said Adam and Eve and even their early descendants were prototypes. You cannot take something that happened in the Bible in random and say that that is the norm.

I was going to the beginning, it is a very good place to start.[/Maria Von Trapp]


Simple logics in play here, absolutely no ranting. And you cannot claim Adam and Eve's example here as well. For God physically brought Eve to Adam (Genesis 2:22). If this happens again,then, perhaps we need no other witnesses and consenters, for a marriage ;).

Ah, I see. So we are allowed to pick and chose what parts of the Bible we acknowledge based on whether or not it supports our argument. Noted ;)


Marriage is perhaps the ultimate covenant relationship, for which we need witnesses and consenters. The Lord Himself being the chief Witness and Consenter. Any other kind of living together is sin called fornication.

Show me in the Bible where it says this.

I<3Jesus
Feb 28th 2008, 11:07 PM
I<3Jesus,

Do you consider yourself married?

I do not because I was raised to believe that a marriage presided over by a pastor is the way to go, but I am not going to rip someone apart or tell they they are wrong if they happen to believe they are. There are a few people on this board who have expressed that they do feel they are.

ravi4u2
Feb 29th 2008, 12:34 AM
I was going to the beginning, it is a very good place to start.[/Maria Von Trapp]

Ah, I see. So we are allowed to pick and chose what parts of the Bible we acknowledge based on whether or not it supports our argument. Noted ;)

Show me in the Bible where it says this.It is alright to go to the beginning or elsewhere, if you can make scripture to interpret scripture. I already gave you one example in post #23:
Jesus speaks about "a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding". Now, this is a true Biblical standard of a marriage, that has consenters and witnesses.And I see you side-stepping the issue with you choosing to go to the 'beginning' and yet not being able to have an appropriate response for:
you cannot claim Adam and Eve's example here as well. For God physically brought Eve to Adam (Genesis 2:22). If this happens again,then, perhaps we need no other witnesses and consenters, for a marriage ;).

obeytheword
Feb 29th 2008, 12:41 AM
Not to be a pain, but the passage you highlighted is about a certificate of divorce, not of marriage. Oh and I am not testing God on this, I know better. I am merely trying to figure out what marriage means Biblically. I do not want someone's interpretation of the text or the language of the text, I want cold, hard facts.

Marriage is not spelled out specifically in the bible as needing a written contract, etc - but the only reason I pointed to this is it would stand to reason if a divorce needed one, then a marriage would need one too :-)

ddmor has given the most direct answer for sure. :)

Glad to know you are not testing God in it!!:pp

Testing him usually leads to bad things like :B or :eek: and ultimately :( and :cry:

Be Blessed!

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 12:53 AM
I'm getting married in May, so what does that tell you? LOL! I read the other thread on marriage in the mean time. There were plenty of interesting posts in there.

Ravi - I am not side stepping anything. How am I going to combat that Adam and Eve were the first and she was created from him? It seems to me you are a very combative person from your posts in this thread and the marriage thread ;) How does "winning" an argument glorify God? It doesn't, it is a vain attempt to glorify one's self.

ravi4u2
Feb 29th 2008, 01:02 AM
Ravi - I am not side stepping anything. How am I going to combat that Adam and Eve were the first and she was created from him? It seems to me you are a very combative person from your posts in this thread and the marriage thread ;) How does "winning" an argument glorify God? It doesn't, it is a vain attempt to glorify one's self.Hey...those that know me here, know that I not combative...but just highly passionate in my convictions. But I also have always agreed that everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how far from the truth it gets. I have never 'combated' you for your opinions. Just have asked you to back up your opinions biblically. After all it is Bible Chat.

Athanasius
Feb 29th 2008, 01:08 AM
I do not because I was raised to believe that a marriage presided over by a pastor is the way to go, but I am not going to rip someone apart or tell they they are wrong if they happen to believe they are. There are a few people on this board who have expressed that they do feel they are.



Ravi - I am not side stepping anything. How am I going to combat that Adam and Eve were the first and she was created from him? It seems to me you are a very combative person from your posts in this thread and the marriage thread ;) How does "winning" an argument glorify God? It doesn't, it is a vain attempt to glorify one's self.

Well no, I think Ravi is onto something. I think it's a very weak thing to say that the reason we believe marriage has to be presided over by a pastor was because that's how we are raised. Then at the same time want to avoid discussion where someone claims to be married, even though their marriage wasn't presided over by a pastor.

Marriage is a prevalent theme in the Bible, I should hardly think that we should be split over it. Now, just to clarify, I have no problem acknowledging that a pastor may not be necessary to confirm a marriage, but what I am most definitely against is the view that sex is equal to marriage. I think that to take Adam and Even (not saying that you have, did or are) and apply their situation to ours is quite incredible; I think it's vastly out of context.

Both of these views can't be true (marriage by pastor or some other figure compared to 'sex is equal to marriage'), and while we can respect each other's views, I don't believe we should sit around and agree to disagree.

I think the appeal to the nature of argument glorifying (rather, not) God is rather callous.

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 01:11 AM
Hi I3. I am still hoping to get an answer...

Since we are now discussing marriage, are we in agreement that scripture forbids sex outside of marriage?

Thanks.

bjones
Feb 29th 2008, 02:08 AM
It is rare, in the history of mankind for people to choose whom to marry. The daughter was given by the the father.

This resolves the Adam and Eve issue. It was an arranged marriage by the Father.

To further shock our politically correct sensibilities:
Ex 22:16 ¶ And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

So if a woman has her father's permission to live with a man, then she's married, with or without a marriage certificate and ceremony.

The father testifies that his daughter has 'loved, honored and obeyed' him as he gives her to the groom.

Now I'll go hide again. ;)

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 02:09 AM
Well no, I think Ravi is onto something. I think it's a very weak thing to say that the reason we believe marriage has to be presided over by a pastor was because that's how we are raised. Then at the same time want to avoid discussion where someone claims to be married, even though their marriage wasn't presided over by a pastor.

Have you read the thread that sparked this thread and the entire thread? I was raised to believe that marriage means getting married in church, but I do not believe that is the only option. I think it is perfectly acceptable for two people to go before God and make the commitment to spend the rest of their lives together sans witnesses (hence the Adam and Eve tie in). I'm sure the phrase "God as my witness" is valid in this case.


Marriage is a prevalent theme in the Bible, I should hardly think that we should be split over it. Now, just to clarify, I have no problem acknowledging that a pastor may not be necessary to confirm a marriage, but what I am most definitely against is the view that sex is equal to marriage. I think that to take Adam and Even (not saying that you have, did or are) and apply their situation to ours is quite incredible; I think it's vastly out of context.

Where did I say that sex is equal to marriage? The only thing I asked for in this thread, that people kept skipping over, is a Biblical definition of marriage and what becoming married entails. I want to know exactly what they did and what God deemed proper. No one can seem to give me that info.


Both of these views can't be true (marriage by pastor or some other figure compared to 'sex is equal to marriage'), and while we can respect each other's views, I don't believe we should sit around and agree to disagree.

See above, I never once said sex is equal to marriage.


I think the appeal to the nature of argument glorifying (rather, not) God is rather callous.

I have no clue what you mean by this. My point is that a lot of people on this site sit around all day and "argue" or "debate" or "beat the dead horse into a chalk outline." How is that glorifying God? It isn't. I am not saying that I am not guilty of it at times too, but there are people here who seem to do nothing else but post on the board. Arguing or debating until you beat someone into agreeing with your line of thought glorifies you (not you specifically), not God.

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 02:10 AM
It is rare, in the history of mankind for people to choose whom to marry. The daughter was given by the the father.

This resolves the Adam and Eve issue. It was an arranged marriage by the Father.

To further shock our politically correct sensibilities:
Ex 22:16 ¶ And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

So if a woman has her father's permission to live with a man, then she's married, with or without a marriage certificate and ceremony.

The father testifies that his daughter has 'loved, honored and obeyed' him as he gives her to the groom.

Now I'll go hide again. ;)

Good post, thanks for that info.

Athanasius
Feb 29th 2008, 02:27 AM
Have you read the thread that sparked this thread and the entire thread? I was raised to believe that marriage means getting married in church, but I do not believe that is the only option. I think it is perfectly acceptable for two people to go before God and make the commitment to spend the rest of their lives together sans witnesses (hence the Adam and Eve tie in). I'm sure the phrase "God as my witness" is valid in this case.

Adam and Eve walked with God; so what should we presume? That Adam and Eve were married without any witnesses, or that they were married with God, physically, as a witness? The circumstances are too different, special, for it to be compared to our day and age. In the very least, the woman I marry isn't, to the best of my knowledge, going to be formed out of a rid from my side. Perhaps their model of marriage can be exemplary; but not the circumstances leading up to their marriage.



Where did I say that sex is equal to marriage? The only thing I asked for in this thread, that people kept skipping over, is a Biblical definition of marriage and what becoming married entails. I want to know exactly what they did and what God deemed proper. No one can seem to give me that info.

I did not say you said it, I used it to make clearer what exactly I was saying.



I have no clue what you mean by this. My point is that a lot of people on this site sit around all day and "argue" or "debate" or "beat the dead horse into a chalk outline." How is that glorifying God? It isn't. I am not saying that I am not guilty of it at times too, but there are people here who seem to do nothing else but post on the board. Arguing or debating until you beat someone into agreeing with your line of thought glorifies you (not you specifically), not God.

As I said, callous. If only because of the severe generalization, "a lot of people. . . "

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 02:48 AM
It is rare, in the history of mankind for people to choose whom to marry. The daughter was given by the the father.

This resolves the Adam and Eve issue. It was an arranged marriage by the Father.

To further shock our politically correct sensibilities:
Ex 22:16 ¶ And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

So if a woman has her father's permission to live with a man, then she's married, with or without a marriage certificate and ceremony.

The father testifies that his daughter has 'loved, honored and obeyed' him as he gives her to the groom.

Now I'll go hide again. ;)

Problem....

The man wasn't married to the woman when the slept together. So, we know it was a sin. ;)

Also, he had to pay the dowry. Why? Because she couldn't get married later if the father didn't agree.

Finally, scripture doesn't say no ceremony wasn't performed. It simply says he must give her to him. If we go back far enough, we see that even before the law was given, cultures had ceremonies (see Jacob's marriage). The laws of the land do come into play.

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 02:48 AM
Good post, thanks for that info.

Still waiting for an answer...

Is it sin to have sex outside of marriage?

aliveinchrist
Feb 29th 2008, 02:49 AM
Testing him usually leads to bad things like :B or :eek: and ultimately :( and :cry:

lol! :lol: I love how you used the emoticons. Very visual. lol!

Don't forget:

:mad: and :confused or :help:. AND :giveup:.

And for the FINAL one:
:monkeyd:

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 02:51 AM
Where did I say that sex is equal to marriage? The only thing I asked for in this thread, that people kept skipping over, is a Biblical definition of marriage and what becoming married entails. I want to know exactly what they did and what God deemed proper. No one can seem to give me that info.

I will move into answering that once we reach some kind of conclusion to sex outside of marriage. Is sex outside of marriage sin?

Amazedgrace21
Feb 29th 2008, 03:00 AM
Still waiting for an answer...

Is it sin to have sex outside of marriage?

Well if it matter's , my vote is "yes", it is a sin to have sex outside of marraige.

:2cents:

ravi4u2
Feb 29th 2008, 03:30 AM
It is rare, in the history of mankind for people to choose whom to marry. The daughter was given by the the father.

This resolves the Adam and Eve issue. It was an arranged marriage by the Father.

To further shock our politically correct sensibilities:
Ex 22:16 ¶ And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

So if a woman has her father's permission to live with a man, then she's married, with or without a marriage certificate and ceremony.

The father testifies that his daughter has 'loved, honored and obeyed' him as he gives her to the groom.

Now I'll go hide again. ;)Of course you will go into hiding, as you cannot prove that just because the passage is silent on ceremony and certificate, it does not necessarily mean that it was not required. While it is a bad passage to prove that certificate and ceremonies were not required, it is a good passage to illustrate the point that you need consenters to a marriage and that someone just does not become somebody else's wife because she was seduced to sleep with him.

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 04:12 AM
I'm not answering you Mark because I already answered the same question two or three times in the beginning of the thread. How many times do you want me to answer the same question? I think I will go count between the two threads how many times I answered it. I do not enjoy being toyed with.

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 04:13 AM
I'm not answering you Mark because I already answered the same question two or three times in the beginning of the thread. How many times do you want me to answer the same question? I think I will go count between the two threads how many times I answered it. I do not enjoy being toyed with.

Sorry. I missed your answer. Please answer it one more time for me.

Is sex outside of marriage sin?

Thanks.

Mark

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 04:16 AM
Sorry. I missed your answer. Please answer it one more time for me.

Is sex outside of marriage sin?

Thanks.

Mark

I refuse, I go back and reread the posts. You do this all the time, hence why I usually try to skip discussions you are in. You selective read and then you bully someone (with repetitive posts) when you are not getting the attention you seek. It is not a person attack, but an observation.

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 04:20 AM
I refuse, I go back and reread the posts. You do this all the time, hence why I usually try to skip discussions you are in. You selective read and then you bully someone (with repetitive posts) when you are not getting the attention you seek. It is not a person attack, but an observation.

Hmmm. I didn't ask you to reread the post. Just to answer a simple question. Why don't you wish to answer it? I don't understand. I don't see where you answered me. Perhaps you answered someone else and I missed it.

aliveinchrist
Feb 29th 2008, 04:25 AM
Hmmm. I didn't ask you to reread the post. Just to answer a simple question. Why don't you wish to answer it? I don't understand. I don't see where you answered me. Perhaps you answered someone else and I missed it.

Brother Mark, I believe she answered your question. look on page 3. This is what she said


"I never said sex before marriage was acceptable."

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 04:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Mark http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1555582#post1555582)
But what about the second question. If they are not married in the eyes of God, is it OK for them to engage in sex?



Correct, but now try to find a Biblical definition of marriage that does not contradict itself. I believe that two people can say vows to themselves in the presence of God (not necessarily in the church) and be married. Everyone else is saying that is not marriage.

Sorry I<3. This is the closest thing I could find where you answered my question and it confused me. If they are not married in the eyes of God, is it OK for them to have sex? You answered correct and I didn't understand. That's why I keep asking. I don't mean to be difficult or anything. I just didn't understand if you meant "no it is not OK for people who are not married in the eyes of God to have sex".

bjones
Feb 29th 2008, 05:09 AM
Of course you will go into hiding, as you cannot prove that just because the passage is silent on ceremony and certificate, it does not necessarily mean that it was not required. While it is a bad passage to prove that certificate and ceremonies were not required, it is a good passage to illustrate the point that you need consenters to a marriage and that someone just does not become somebody else's wife because she was seduced to sleep with him.

You are obviously more focussed on the legalisms of marriage than the symbolism. Marriage is a symbol of Christ and the church. The church was Chosen by the father as Rebekah was chosen by Abraham for Isaac. She was called or wooed by the son as Jacob kissed Rachel. She is gathered by the Holy Spirit as the woman at Sichem was gathered into the kingdom.
None of them had 'papers'. The will of the father was accomplished.

Adam and Eve did not have papers or witnesses, the will of the Father was accomplished.

Even a modern day Pharisee would have to acknowledge that in our modern society, papers are not required. Check out common law marriages. They are as legal as others. Papers is just one option for legal marriage.

In the Bible you will find that bracelets are the token of marriage. Bracelets indicate that the union is not unclean. Papers were not required until governments required registry. Papers were given for divorce so that there was a witness to the divorce freeing the woman for remarriage. There was no need for a man to get divorce papers since he could take multiple wives anyway.

As for speaking from silence, it is MORE justified to say that there were no papers from silence on the subject than it is to claim that papers were required without any evidence. It is anachronistic to argue that since we require papers today, that has always been the case.

I usually don't get too involved in knit picking the law until I am dragged kicking and screaming into it. ;)

In the case mentioned previously, if it were 'sin' by the Pharisaical judgment of the law, then there would have been some mention of uncleanness or stoning, or 'outside the camp'. It was considered a case of property.

There is in fact a double entendre in the law. It suggests that as it is the son who woos the church, that he must pay the price for her... 30 shekels of silver, the price to redeem a woman, the price of His life.

The law is so rich in shadows of Christ, that the legalisms are quite boring.

All of that being said, most people who choose not to get married and simply live together are in sin. But that is no surprise to any of us. We are in sin too. We just choose sin that is more palatable to our own taste, and sin that is more palatable to the particular church we find ourselves in.

If you want a marriage that truly symbolizes Christ and the church, then get her father's blessing and do it right. So even a bunch of people with papers do not honor God by following his example.

Amazedgrace21
Feb 29th 2008, 07:17 AM
In John 2, Christ blessed the official wedding ceremony when He performed His first public miracle by changing the water into the wine IMHO :) This wedding was a legal custom, it was subject to governing authorities that recognized this couple as a new single entity as legally married right?

We know that marriage is honorable and the Bible commands us to render it honor properly.

"Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled..." (Heb. 13:4).

In Romans 13, Paul tells us that we are to be in subjection to governing authorities and as mentioned before ,we are to obey the laws of the land because God has placed those people in power.

Then, in verse 7, he writes, "Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

Living together may be a type of union, but it does not join the participants into a single entity. Our laws recognize that spouses cannot testify against one another; precisely because they are joined in the union of marraige which, living together in a commited relationship is not the equivalent of right?

Commitment is a cival agreement, but God says a covenent is so much more..

Because marriage is a covenant to be entered freely by two individuals, is must be witnessed by at least two or three people. My understanding is idea is confirmed in Matthew 18:16, where Jesus quotes Leviticus, "Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed."

Doesn't Ruth 4:9-12 shows this applies specifically to marriage when Boaz seeks out witnesses to secure his right to marry Ruth, the Moabitess?:hmm:

In order to give marriage proper honor and to render the proper respect to the governing authorities, legal marriage is both required and appropriate.If two Christians are truly is serious in vowing "until death do us part", then why would they be resistant to making that vow legal?

And if they are not resistent to making that vow "legal", then why is it a problem to simply wait until after they have for consumating their relationship in the marital bed as God has set forth sex "for"..and exclusively for?

I have heard on more than one occasion from a Christian argue that God would not want them to be 'stuck' in a marraige if there was no sexual compatibility..so therefore a "test drive" is not a sin..better to know before they are married ...'If they are not compatible' since this a huge part ofwhy they are getting married in the first place..:rolleyes:

Much could be said here about the effect of strong families on the whole of society. Ever wonder why many avoid the wedding ceremony? By their own testimony, they say that marriage makes them feel tied down. To feel tied down shows that they realize that marriage is more binding than simply living together.:confused

Furthermore, a marriage ceremony produces an indisputable recprd.Whether one agree's or not, the Bible condemns fornication and adultery. That is what we mean by living in sin - fornication and adultery.

How can one determine if a man and woman's union is fornication and adultery or acceptable? Sin or sanctioned? What is the indisputable criteria?

To simply offer a self-administered oath would not be an absolute criteria. The only absolute measure of whether or not it is adultery/fornication or sanctioned sex is to answer the question, are the man and woman married?

The only way to confirm whether or not they are married is to answer the question, Did they get married? Did they make vows to God? Were there witnesses? Where is the record?

Perhaps this is why Christ chose a "public" official wedding ceremomy perform His first miracle,To acknowledge marriage is God's institute and design, to realize that it is He that puts us together, to make our vows of commitment to Him, to declare our intention of fidelity publicly so all may know, and then to let God be the controlling helper and authority of a marriage.

An official public Christian marraige sends a powerful message to the world as to who is in authority and is part as well as the creator of this covenent by putting it on the record..it turns water into wine when it comes to much..including the nature of the "sex" and what creates two into one flesh, per God!:)

Follow_Me_Infantry
Feb 29th 2008, 07:29 AM
Well, since I was the one that got this whole ball rolling with my comments in the other thread, I reckon I had better jump in. I would have yesterday, but yesterday turned into a mess...

I am in Florida (I live in AZ) with my "wife," Laurie. We are not LEGALLY married in any sense of the word. However, we both wear a ring, we have both informed our family and friends, and we have both publicly acknowledged our marriage before God (look here). We sought his blessing for what we consider our "marriage," and we both feel His blessing. There has been much prayer, each of us in our own way, and neither of us feel any conviction of condemnation for an active, physical love life - with each other, only, of course. We both completely agree that adultury is a sin against God, against each other, against those that blessed our union, and against self.

Anyway, I was scheduled to fly out yesterday at 1500. I-75 had a really bad accident on it - 3 trucks, and they all caught fire. Because this happened on the bridge that spans the main enterance into Ft Myers, they closed the bridge until inspectors could check the integrity of the bridge (they felt the fire was so hot that it might have weakened the steel).

This backed up EVERYTHING at the Ft Myers airport. People were running late for all the flights, and it was like a zoo.

When I finally get to check in, there's a problem: If I take my flight, delayed for 2.5 hours until 1730, I will make my connecting flight in Carolina, but my check-in baggage will NOT.

I'm flying with a .45 pistol in my check-in.

I felt it was my responsibility as a gun owner and as a good Christian steward of the responsibility a gun entails that I NOT become separated from it. If it was lost or stolen, I would be accountable if it was put to wrong use and hurt someone.

So I have changed my flight and will fly back to AZ Saturday.

But traffic coming home was a nightmare. There are only 2 ways to get from Ft Myers to where Laurie (and now we) live in Punta Gorda: I-75 and State Route 41. And like I-75, SR-41 funnels all traffic into 2 lanes to get... over the bridge. Yeesh. With SR-41 taking its load AND all the traffic of the main I-75, and it now rush hour, it took us almost 2 hours to get home (it's a 1/2 hour drive, 40 minutes tops).

So, to all who were expecting me to pop in to this thread, I offer my sincere apologies. After 5 hours of traffic and airports, I just wanted to lie down. I thanked God for a safe trip, ate a little, and was out like a light before 1900.

It'll take me a while to reply to those posts I feel I need to, so be patient with me as I break up everything for reading ease. I will get to them.

Thanks for the understanding,

YBIC,

Richard

Follow_Me_Infantry
Feb 29th 2008, 08:16 AM
OK, so to get my end of things rolling, I want to preface my following statements with a few initial thoughts pertinent to this discussion:

1. This is Bible Chat. I am at an extreme disadvantage here: Most of you have many, many years in the Word and can recall scripture that I cannot. You can example exerpts from the Word that I may never have read, especially those pertaining to the OT. While I accepted Christ some 20 years ago, it has been less than 6 months since I truly and honestly turned my life and my will over to Him, and my biblical knowledge is milk while y'all are eating scriptural meat. Please try and be detailed in your posts - don't assume I know or understand the context, as I probably don't; and I want to understand, not just read. Your patience is extremely appreciated!

2. While I stand straight and true to my convictions, I am not above reproach, nor am I closed-minded. If you offer correction, I will listen and counter. Please don't accept this as stubbornness or as an affront to what you are trying to tell/teach me. It is simply me trying to weigh the arguments on both sides of the table. If I am wrong, I will admit it - but not before we have discussed it and I, not you, have decided I am incorrect. A debate should be a learning tool, which is how I intend to view this thread. You'll teach me, and perhaps I can even teach you a bit here and there.



Okay, with those precursors completed...

Do I feel that sexual relations outside of marriage (as in BEFORE marriage) is a sin?

The answer is both yes and no.

Yes, if I am going to a bar and picking up the Friday night fling, my spirit tells me that is sin. It is being "loose," "slutty," satisfying the flesh, spreads disease, results in unwanted pregnancies, and hurts feelings. And, to be candid, I lived that lifestyle for some time and the sex sucks. I guess I am built different than most men, because without love, honest, true, passionate burn-for-each-other-in-the-heart love, sex is simply release and I honestly don't enjoy it. Meh. Call me effiminate, but I wouldn't suggest saying it in the same room ;)

However...

(Stay in context, here)

No, it is NOT a sin if two people are in a committed, one-on-one, monagamous relationship expected to last forever. Only God knows if it WILL last forever, but if you're dedicated to each other in the spirit of forever, then enjoying each other through making love is just enjoying one more blessing God has chosen to bless the relationship with.

"Everything is permissable for me; but not everything is good for me..."

(I need help where that's found in the Word, please)

As I stated in an earlier post, Laurie and I both made a committment to each other before God. I promised God, I promised Laurie, I promised myself, I promised my friends and family and her friends and family, and I publicly promise here on this board that Laurie is my forever. There will never be another woman in my life. Period. And she has done the very same thing, stated the very same promises.

Is this not marriage without das papers, bitte?

We both have rather extensive past "prowesness" that we are not proud of. She was celibate for four years before offering herself to me. I cannot state the same (another fling, another lesson).

These bad lessons have given both of us a much deeper respect for ourselves and for the act of making love itself. It was not an easy decision for either of us to decide to allow that particular part of our relationship to manifest into something tangible. It was discussed between us, and we each brought it before God before we ever even held hands.

Neither of us feel any conviction of sin because we do not meet the church's or the world's definition of "marriage." I converse constantly with the Holy Spirit, and I know His proddings well, especially when I am about to get smacked upside the head for my stubborn petulance. I welcome God's admonishment, for I know that His punishment is my edification. God is good!

I'm not going to get into the whole "married because we couldn't control the flesh" thing, because, frankly, I think Paul was off his rocker when he wrote that. If you get married just because you want s*x, to make it right in the eyes of the church, you're fooling yourself of what marriage unabridged really means - and what God intended it to be. The church is not my God, and while they so often proclaim themselves as a channel to God, all I feel is judgment and resentment at the attitude of most churches with their condemnation of all things and matters they feel privy to.

My relationship with Jesus is as He told us it would be: A personal relationship. I seek Him in all things, and I go with what He says over any spoken words on this planet. Do I get His intent wrong, His words, misunderstand what He is saying because I want it my way? Of course I do! But I have found that if I earnestly and honestly seek Him before anything else, He makes it pretty clear the path I should take.

Laurie and I are pledged to each other in our hearts. She wears my ring on her left finger, as do I. I introduce her as my wife, and she introduces me as her husband. We share financial obligations and every decision. We respect that each has to have self without the other, but that self is a part of the US that makes us complete. She is the final piece of the puzzle in my heart, and I hers. We respect each other, and we purpose ourselves to the other. We understand that each action we take as an individual will, if even slightly, afect the other. We share a bed. And we give all that WE are to God, making Him first in our relationship. We have proclaimed this before God, to each other, to friends and family, and in public. A judge or a pastor do not need to bless and license us to freely give this commitment. And I do not think it is in any way fair to take away from what we have simply because we have no paperwork.

I cannot make a more compelling argument than that.

Folks, THIS IS marriage.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Feb 29th 2008, 08:58 AM
OK guys, here's a thread to discuss extra marital s*x. Some folks say it's OK but I do not believe that it is. We'll start small and go from there.

1 Thess 4:1-8

4 Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that, as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you may excel still more. 2 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. 8 Consequently, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.
NASB

I highlighted several verses above that begin speaking to the issue. Don't overlook the ones that are not in bold print though for they are just as important (esp. vs 8).

Ok, moving on. Let's look at a key word first... sexual immorality.

NT:4201

NT:4202 porneia (por-ni'-ah); from NT:4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:

KJV - fornication.

Here's the root word so we can understand it even better.

NT:4203

NT:4203 porneuo (porn-yoo'-o); from NT:4204; to act the harlot, i.e. (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry:

KJV - commit (fornication).

Basically, God is saying that we should refrain from unlawful lust/sex. As we go forward, we can discuss, with some wisdom and discretion, what is or is not lawful.

The scripture quoted above also mentions keeping our body/vessel in honor. What does this mean? Well, he gives us the answer in another passage.

Heb 13:4
4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
NASB

The marriage bed is undefiled. But those that commit fornication and adultery, God will judge them. Also, notice how the marriage is held in honor! It is the way to keep your vessel/body honorable and keep it within the bounds of the sanctification process.

We can look deeper into the Greek words if you like, but they simply refer to lust and such. It is no accident that you notice the similarity in the Greek words with our English word porn.

I suppose this is a decent start.

My brother Mark,

Sir, I adore your posts. I read every word you post on these forums regardless of the section it is in, regardless of whether I happen to agree with you or not. You, my friend, have a true gift from God to lovingly correct and to discern and explain in a manner that does not reek of condemnation and sanctimony. I respect you, which is the highest compliment this old soldier has to offer.

I've been wanting to say that for some time now, and this seemed as good a place as any. Forgive me for straying off topic, please. But I did want to render (what I would consider) that compliment unto you. God bless you, my brother, and thank you for being here on these boards where I am blessed to be privy to your posts.



In regards to your post, and since this is Bible Chat and not "Idle Opinion Chat," I need to address your use of scripture, here. I feel like a bit of a fool for questioning someone obviously 100 times my spiritual superior, but I do disagree and I do feel I have the right and the privilige to address and discuss these disagreements. Bear with me.

Please look at the adjectives used in these verses, RE: Sexual relations:

Immoral, lustful, impurity, idolatry...

These were written to the church at Thessalonia(?) and to the church in Corinth. Both "dens of iniquity."

I may not know a whole bunch about the Bible, but I am fairly well versed in history, especially that of the Roman Empire's dual fall from power.

Hom*sexuality was rampant in those days. The council, the senate, and basically all aristocrats (as all leaders were then) were known to indulge in same-sex fornication as a privilige of their status - commoners, 90% of the population not serving, accepted these practices as a sign of luxury and status. Like you and I might covet that new BMW or big screen TV the Jones' have with their affluence.

I believe this has a great deal to do with context. "...Defraud his brother..." Why did he use "brother" rather than "defraud his wife?"

At that time, harlots, another very specific definition used in these same scriptural passages to the Corinth Church (in other words, these same words but as quoted elsewhere than you did), abounded in those time. Hookers, we'd call them today. They stood under the arches and sold themselves for lust and money - lust and money... Two of the biggest things we are warned against throughout the Bible, yes?

So I think we lose quite a bit of context by applying these verses to a loving, committed, monogomous relationship between a man and a woman in love. I'm not outright saying they don't apply to a man/woman relationship set in forever, but I do think we need to view what the author was viewing at that time - which would be akin to today's San Fransisco, in my opinion (and for what it's worth).

I don't think we do the context justice by comparing it to Hebrews: The city proper in Corinth and Ephesus and Thessalonia(?) was not the place loving, committed relationships took place. A man, a commoner, was basically unable to afford to raise a family within the city proper. They did, but they coveted the affluence those in seats of power (the rich elite) held. Conversely, in Hebrews, we are addressing a completely different class of people. These people married for rights to land between families and, generally, practiced predisposed marriages and were spread out all over the land where courting a woman took days just to travel to see her.

So, in essence, I think Paul is telling the churches that amongst all this sexual sin they are surrounded by, they are to stand straight and tall and not succumb to the temptation to act as all those around them were acting.

They were to set the example.

And, to bring us full circle, I feel that Laurie and I do set an example of a pure, pristine, undefiled (read: Dirty) marriage. While we are "unwed," we ARE married in every sense of the word sans legalistic mumbo jumbo to make feel gooders feel good with politically correct public paperwork trails.

Thus, I contend that, in its context, relations before marriage are NOT a sin if they are conducted in the same spirit and purity that a secular "marriage" "licenses" someone to claim.

It's not bucking the system, my friend, it's simply apathy to conform TO a system and, instead, turning to God for HIS blessing - which is the only blessing I personally feel any two, loving, committed, Godly people require to consumate their relationship.

Your thoughts, please?

ddmor
Feb 29th 2008, 09:30 AM
I find it curious, brother, that you contend that you're rightfully married, sans the paper work - yet you still call her your gf, and admit to pre-marital sex.

If you're married then you're not committing pre-marital sex.

The question is - why would you admit to pre-marital sex and at the same time claim the sanctity of marriage? It just doesn't make sense in my mind.

The next time you drag your gf, er wife's name through the mud - by telling the world that you sleep with your gf ... remember that you are a Christian first. Honoring God is about staying pure - if you are in a pure relationship - it's either marriage or celibacy. There are no in-betweens.

(I think you should marry the woman, just to make sure you are crossing all your t's ... if you marry her legally then you know you're right in God's eyes, there are no doubts - no getting mixed up whether she's a gf or wife. You'll know.)

Follow_Me_Infantry
Feb 29th 2008, 10:10 AM
Another of my favorite posters... Always selling truth with love and conviction. I love you, sister :hug:


I certainly hope this will be a constructive thread where folks who take the position that an engagement equates with a marraige in term's of the level of commitment will reconsider.

I have no problems reconsidering whether my convictions are truly of Him. Many times we will set conviction so deeply in our personal desires that, yes, and sadly, we turn a deaf ear to the Spirit's leadings and promptings. His is not the booming voice from the clouds giving us directions for each step, His is the soft, still voice that provides loving suggestion, allowing us to screw up if we want to and allowing us to learn from it when we return from our forray into the self.

I am open to any and all correction, even though it may not always appear that way as I construct my retorts. I assure you that by doing so I am only seeking more truth, not an escape from truth to justify myself.


Obviously an engagement does not equate with the formality of a "marriaige" being brought to it's highest level of mutual agreement and particpation on many levels...and it makes me wonder in the case of those who argue that they do equate it as such are often making 'wedding plans' and are not oblivious to the legal aspects of what a marraige decree entail's as it presents a public image and new legal status when it is present.

Formality... The perfect word here. "Public image..." "Legal status..."

Do you realize that you just bracketed my argument for me?

What are these things to a follower of Christ? Did Jesus concern Himself over formalities, public images and legal statuses? He told us to "render unto Ceaser" what was Ceaser's. Fair enough. But in the United States of America, there is no legal precedent forbidding people from living together and loving each other, including the act of making love, without the state license to do so.

How is it sin to mimic Jesus? He obeyed the law, yet He was never influenced by the public perception. He spoke in parables so us dummies could understand and so we'd have to contemplate His words as they would apply to our personal lives and specific circumstances. He overturned tables in the tabernacle of the money whores. He refused to not preach the Word. He didn't conform.

So, today's version of marriage comes down to one thing: Perception. As Christians, we fear that we set a poor example "living in sin" up to and including living with another that is not our spouse. Did Jesus care what others thought when He ate with sinners, even washed their feet?

That's a huge part of why I struggle to share your view: Jesus didn't.


As a parent, I am struggling with my youngest child's considerations and very strong emotional reactions to my objection that she would consider moving in with her boyfriend of three years to "play house" and see if things workout, taking their commitment to the next level so to speak.., until they get married. ..this is just at the theoretical stage for now..but I see her rationalizing this and very defensive..:cry: She's 25 yrs old..not a child so there is nothing I can do but offer her all the reasons why I think this would be a terrible choice as well "a sin" in respect to what marraige represents even being equated as the same as this arrangement..

As a parent myself, I fully empathize with your concerns. Regardless of age, they are always our little ones, and we always want what is best for them, to hold them, to protect them.

But how is this a sin for her?

She's 25 with a boyfriend of 3 years. That makes her a very mature, very intelligent 25. Most girls at that age know committment as a thing they have glanced upon in the Internet sites they visit and have no real true idea of what it means to work things out and make a relationshp last.

I applaud both your daughter for her values and you as a parent for instilling those values. Try and cut her some slack, my friend. It may not be sin for her, and no one here can judge that - only God and her know. We must allow God and her to explore their own relationship and not attempt to influence that by way of what we feel would be sin for us.


IMHO, for Christians .. there is no such thing as premarital 'sex'..there is marraige and there is sex that God sets apart exclusively for marraige, and only for marraige, the rest is 'sin'..thats not negotiable..regardless if its abided by because God set "that bar..":hmm:

Agreed!

But who are WE, you and I, to judge if two people in a relationship are practicing "marriage sex" or just satisfying fleshly desires?

Would you agree that two people who marry just because they are hot to get into each other's pants are likely not viewing the intent of true marriage? If so, then you must agree that two people who are sharing a bed may be, in their hearts, way more married than any couple out there. In that, marriage is a license, a permission of the church, and NOT what God calls us to do to be closer to Him.

If having sex before a piece of paper changes anything between two Godly, Christ-centered people, then they are doing something wrong. God exthols us to give Him the glory in everything. The Holy Spirit is infused into every believer. By sharing ourselves with each other in "that" way (sexual contact), and by giving God the glory for the love and closeness that accompanies that final vestibule of self, aren't we actually releasing each others Holy Spirit to be shared between the two, rather than kept for self?

I can find no sin in this if done in a committed, loving, monogomous, Godly relationship between a man and a woman promised to each other forever. A piece of paper or a pastor blessing the act has nothing to do with whether or not the INTENT is to become closer to being ONE or if satisfaction is the underlying motive. The more I share with Laurie, the closer to both her AND God I feel - and the same with her.

That is somehow cheapened because no paper trail exists?


the very fact that anyone can site that the formality of a legal Christian marraige does indeed raise the level of the standing of the relationship in term's of an entity with very specific status acknowledged by the standards God originated and apply today..

Respectfully, I disagree. "The two shall become one..."

If either the man or the woman is saying that they refuse to open themselves fully to the other, that they will hold back, then they are not fully and Godly committed. A piece of paper and a blessing will NOT change that. It's being selfish, wanting to hold on to a sense of self, refusing to allow your soon-to-be betrothed to know the FULL you.

To be one entity, nothing can be hidden. Everything must be known. Waiting until marriage vows are exchanged is a way of entrapment if you're holding anything back. It promises one to the other without having fully given of self - being selfish and withholding self pieces.

That's no way to start a life commitment bound by legal statutes.


Having made and having been given the intellectual commitment to remain exclusive and committed to another person in respect to determing "this is the last person I am ever going to be with for the balance of my life" before God is a very wonderful blessing...that is indeed the heart of what a marraige is in spirit..but until that commitment has been sealed "legally and formally" to the fullest extent it can be before God, before our family and community..its not a marraige..

Why? If I marry legally without that heart intent of forever, why am I now somehow indemnified from sin? Likewise, why I am sinning if I have that commitment but do not have the paper?

My sister, you're seeing this as black and white, and it isn't. Stop putting limitations on God. God doesn't care if family and community accept what He has blessed. "Let no man tear apart what God has ordained." "The two shall become one." "His will be done." "God is no respector of persons..."

Do these really sound like God demands a marriage be right in the eyes of family and community? If that's what the people want, then awesome! I fully support it! But it doesn't make the rest of us wretched sinners for not taking that route when God Himself tells us that it isn't HIS route.


One can rent and live in a home but one can only buy to 'own it'..and that's how I look at premarital sex during the engagement period and especially when fols say I don't need "that piece of paper" it make it real..

That piece of paper does not make the marraige a marraige at all but it sure makes the reality , very real...as real as it gets..there is only way out and its called "divorce"...and that word translate into what God has put together in the very real, tangible evidence of the "oneness"...

You are contradicting yourself, my dear, dear sister :hug:

In one breath, you state that the piece of paper doesn't make the marriage a reality. In the very next breath you say that marriage can't be real without it.

Why can it not be "as real as it gets" without a license from man to make it so?


An example I offered my daughter was the difference between the status God provided Mary when she conceived Jesus..she was Josephs "wife" albeit there had been no marital sex..the spirit of the law was consistent with the letter in terms of of that 'commitment', Joseph would have had to divorce her to break it..which thankfully he abided by God's will in this matter..

God ordained abiding by the strictest and highest legal commitments to seal this marraige as well as the spiritual 'letter of the law'..in other words no cohabitating and having the benefits of the honeymoon and marital bed until after the "wedding" and legal commitment followed the spiritual one.

And yet He did NOT do this with Adam and Eve and all those after them that populated this planet through procreation of one man and one woman committed.

And Mary and Joseph were a ONE TIME thing for the birth of Christ to protect the David lineage as prophesied. Certainly this is NOT what He expects of marriage if he have 50 billion examples of X and one example of Y?

Jesus is a special situation, and while we model our lives after Christ, there is no way we can possibly expect ourselves to mimic the life of Mary and Joseph. We might as well throw the Bible in the trash and give up, as none of us are ordained by God in that manner.


It was a very serious and grave matter in terms of this "standard" being taught by Christ Himself as the one we as Christians abide by..and even if the world argues otherwise..they will always be "wrong", as will we if we go with their standards and definition of what a commitment is and that there is such a thing as "pre-marital sex"..its called fornification..period end..and this is always a "sin"..it can't be prettied up by calling it love either..any more than denial is a river in Egypt..

This surprises me coming from you. It is a closed mind. Here's what you just said:

"It doesn't matter what you say, if you do this you're 100% wrong and not saved."

Stop for a minute and consider "fornication" and don't judge "love" by it. I don't use "love" as an excuse to have sex with Laurie, and I resent the implication.

Fornication has NOTHING to do with pre-marital sex. NOTHING. Read my post to Mark for a glimpse of the contextual history surrounding the use of the verbiage, and we'll discuss it further after that if you're willing.


I also asked my daughter if I went out and had drastic plastic surgery that changed my body, would it do anything else except simply change the appearance of things..it wouldn't create something now would it that was not there to begin with?:) So how does calling premarital sex something it is not by simply changing the appearance of it by saying we are gonna get married in 3 years make some one "married"?

How does a piece of paper issued by a judge who may not even believe in Jesus Christ and beats his wife in a drunken rage every night make one "married?" The finger points both ways, my friend. If one is an absolute, than the other must be a negative. Or, perhaps, and I am trying to relate to you, it isn't about negatives and absolutes because there is gray area in there because we serve a God without parameters?


If it's official in order to justify the sex..make the marraige official before God and by God's standards and then have marital sex..but don't insult God or kid yourself here..it is what it is..:cry: it's called 'sin'. Calling yourself a Christian will not change this either..

So, I can marry anyone I want for the sheer purpose of sexual gratification?

And again, I do not "justify" my sharing myself with Laurie, nor her me. And the more I read, the more I am glad we don't meet this version and description of marriage so many propose, as it would cheapen what we have. Like a Lemming to the sea, I conform because I have to have permission to love my wife fully, with all of myself?

Do you realize the insult and condemnation you just slapped many faces with in this statement? I'm not jumping on you, my sister. I reiterate: You are one of my favorite posters. But this is SO unlike you. I think you're grasping for straws and playing off emotions here, rather than accepting that perhaps, as Jesus Himself said about love, that "This is the greatest."


My daughter is struggling with my response because she "knows" better and it's not what she want's to hear and she perceives this council as 'judgemental and legalistic"..obviously it feels this way to her..but there are many other things to offer her along with this reason that are sound reasons for her welfare that I have in as loving way as I can..ultimately it is between her and God, but I won't humor her on this matter because I do care so much.:cry:

Your daughter is struggling because YOU, not God, are putting her in a situation where no matter what she does, she lets someone down. In the end, someone gets their way, but SHE gets hurt. Think about it.

But I know your concern is Godly love and you're wanting Godly correction. I SOOOOOOOOOOOOO respect you for that: Too many parents these days just don't give a care. And that's why this world is going to heck! You are the minority, the involved and active parent.

I love you for that more than anything :hug::hug::hug:

I'll pray over the situation with your daughter, that HIS will be done. Be blessed, my friend!

Follow_Me_Infantry
Feb 29th 2008, 10:40 AM
I find it curious, brother, that you contend that you're rightfully married, sans the paper work - yet you still call her your gf, and admit to pre-marital sex.

If you're married then you're not committing pre-marital sex.

The question is - why would you admit to pre-marital sex and at the same time claim the sanctity of marriage? It just doesn't make sense in my mind.

The next time you drag your gf, er wife's name through the mud - by telling the world that you sleep with your gf ... remember that you are a Christian first. Honoring God is about staying pure - if you are in a pure relationship - it's either marriage or celibacy. There are no in-betweens.

(I think you should marry the woman, just to make sure you are crossing all your t's ... if you marry her legally then you know you're right in God's eyes, there are no doubts - no getting mixed up whether she's a gf or wife. You'll know.)

It's a matter of vernacular semantics, my brother:

I refer to Laurie as my wife, but have been told HERE that we aren't really married and she is my GF.

I simply don't want to add a disclaimer to every post I make on this subject: "Married in our hearts, but not legally, so not really married by your definition, but married by our definition..."

It's easier to call Laurie all of these things because, in all reality, she IS all of these things: She is my fiancee (fiance?). I suppose that would be the more correct verbiage to describe her. But I refer to her, and she refers to herself, as my wife.

As for "dragging [her] name through the mud..." that's not the way she sees it. It's not the way I see it.

You must have skip-read my initial posts, or just ignored them altogether. This is a debate, meaning edification for ALL - not just your correction of ME. I am trying to both learn from all of you AND to teach you all to stop thinking in a box, stop thinking you know it all, everything there is to know about this thing we call Christianity. You don't know it all, even though you likely know more than me. So you can learn from me, and I can learn from you.

In the context of this (and other) subjects, it has to be known that Laurie and I share that part of each other, lest my argument has no personal conviction and my words become shallow arguing, versus the loving thought invoking statements I intend them to be.

Most of this thread centers around what you, yourself brought up:

Is marriage confined to a piece of paper, or are people that are married in their hearts only sinners for not finalizing the deal in the eyes of the secular, and thus Christian, law? That's what we are discussing.

And, not that I need to state this in our defense, but I am marrying Laurie legally. Wedding, preacher, family, cake, boquet, the works. It just can't happen now - it needs to wait. Since I know that makes zero sense as a stand alone statement, I'll explain:

I've been in a bad spot for the last many years because of this leg. It's ruined my credit, my finances, everything. Laurie, on the other hand, has her ducks in a row, excellent credit, etc. I do not want to saddle her with my burdens or to affect her status in the community by *legally* being her spouse and, as such, diminishing her credit and subjecting her to any possible ramification I may face for my past. I don't see that as a responsible decision to do to her. Instead, I'll get ends tied up and THEN we'll marry, where her husband is good on both paper and in her heart.

I think I am doing the right thing, brother. If she was your daughter, I think you'd feel I was making the responsible decision, as well.

Be blessed, my friend! But, hey, can we please try and avoid personal attacks like "dragging [her] name through the mud?" I wouldn't do that to you, neither of us feel I am doing it to her, but your statement makes it sound as if you look at her with disdain for this one thing. She deserves better than that. She reads everything posted here, and that's just something she doesn't need to be exposed to from a Christian "friend" of mine.

I'm asking as nicely as I can that we keep this respectful, brother. Let's example Christians to her.

karenoka27
Feb 29th 2008, 10:54 AM
I've been reading the posts in this thread and I have to tell you that I find the whole thing disturbing.
So much of what is happening today is that we justify sin. So now we say, "what's a piece of paper?" let's be serious. That piece of paper means a commitment, or at least it used to mean that.
I think the world has so infiltrated the Christian that we have become much like the Pharisees and we are making up our own rules, laws and commandments.

If you are having sexual relations outside of marriage, it is wrong, and I believe it is sin. I think if you truly searched your hearts and were honest before our living God you would admit it as well.
Without the piece of paper, you can get out of the relationship, no strings attached and become "married" to someone else.
Sadly, in this day and age, even the paper isn't stopping many from having relations outside of marriage. So sad.

Psalm 139-23-24-"Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."

ddmor
Feb 29th 2008, 11:15 AM
I apologize, FMI - I didn't mean it as a personal attack, but can see how it can be taken as one. I'm sorry, truly. I shouldn't have said that.

If she were my daughter (as I have told my own sons and daughter), I would tell her to abstain until marriage, and if you can't get your ducks all in a row; and if the two of you find you can't abstain, then she should marry you and take on the finacial consequences. Marriage - the full meaning of the word is for better or for worse, and in this instance for the worse financially. And btw - my husband (I am your sister :) ) was hit by a car 3 years ago - so I do understand how injuries can really make things bad financially - I can no longer go to college because we can't afford me to. Before the accident - I didn't have to take out loans to go - we were able to pay as we went - now we can't even take out loans because our credit is so bad. We (read, me - the SAHM) also had to give up one of our cars because we could no longer afford 2, but that is all part of being married - going through the bad times together. While you think you're being honorable, by not shackling her with your problems - you're missing the whole meaning of 'being one'.

I point back to 1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme,
2:14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men-
2:16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.


I underline the parts of that pertain. We obey the laws ... because that's what God wants us to. Period. Why does He want us to obey the laws? In this case so you can put to silence the ignorance of foolish men (me).

Follow_Me_Infantry
Feb 29th 2008, 01:26 PM
I apologize, FMI - I didn't mean it as a personal attack, but can see how it can be taken as one. I'm sorry, truly. I shouldn't have said that.

No problem, hun. I'm sorry I took it as an affront, but it takes on a whole different meaning knowing you're female: To you, if you were my significant other, you might see my posts as bragging, living up a sexual victory, or some other thing. I can understand that - I've been married twice, raised five kids, and I do have just a bit of insight into the female emotions and, in this example, how it might appear that I was indeed dragging your name through the mud just to brag that we "did it." Be assured, that type of "bar talk" isn't my intent at all.

Now, when a GUY says that, as I originally thought was happening because, honestly, I don't keep track of who is male and female with either/or screen names here, it takes on a completely different meaning. If a male says that to another man, it's fighting words - you're calling my wife, basically, a slut with the mud statement... or at least making it sound like I am trying to project her as one. If a guy said that to me in real life, it would be tough to not react. And believe me, it took a LOT of restraint not to react very negatively to what you said (again, thinking you were male). I actually had to leave her (Laurie's) office for a bit and come back after cooling down lest I got my account banned. I prayed over it, asked for peace, asked for forgiveness for getting mad before I dared hit the quote button.

I am very glad, and especially very thankful, that the misunderstanding is cleared up and that we did not enter this discussion on the note I thought we were heading towards. Thank you for that.


If she were my daughter (as I have told my own sons and daughter), I would tell her to abstain until marriage, and if you can't get your ducks all in a row; and if the two of you find you can't abstain, then she should marry you and take on the finacial consequences. Marriage - the full meaning of the word is for better or for worse, and in this instance for the worse financially.

I also have raised my children that abstinence before marriage is the very best, most Godly, most HOLY and self-respecting option - both daughters and all three sons, all old enough to have *gulp* an intimate relationship with another. However, even with my proddings and guidance, I would not judge them or dare declare it a "sin" if they failed to heed my advice and had relations with a man or woman they honestly thought they loved in a relationship they were convinced God had personally blessed. That has to be left between them and God. I can only guide, not set the path, and not lecture about THEIR personal relationship with God and their path He allows/disallows for their lives. I will correct them as I honestly believe mistakes are being incurred, but I will not judge them.

90% of growing into one's maturity is making those mistakes, when they come running back to daddy with a broken heart.

As for the financial aspects and the reason I refuse to marry her (legally) at this point in time, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I can get things cleaned up, given time, and not risk her reputation from the bad decisions I have made in the past. She deserves better than that. She understands my reasons and agrees with them. If she were pushing for marriage now, I wouldn't protest. But she's not, and the cushion I have while we save funds for a "real" marriage (this is her first marriage (she is 45) and she wants it done with all the bells and whistles. I love her, and that's what she'll get: All the bells and whistles, friends, family, big ceremony, honeymoon, etc. Doesn't mean jack to me, but the fact it matters to her DOES mean something to me) affords me an opportunity to not screw this one up.


And btw - my husband (I am your sister :) ) was hit by a car 3 years ago - so I do understand how injuries can really make things bad financially - I can no longer go to college because we can't afford me to. Before the accident - I didn't have to take out loans to go - we were able to pay as we went - now we can't even take out loans because our credit is so bad. We (read, me - the SAHM) also had to give up one of our cars because we could no longer afford 2, but that is all part of being married - going through the bad times together. While you think you're being honorable, by not shackling her with your problems - you're missing the whole meaning of 'being one'.

I'm sorry :cry:

I am truly sorry for assuming you were male.

I am sorry for what happened to your husband and the challenges you are facing (and will face) because of his injury. I am 37 and starting life all over again because of an injury, and I completely understand and empathize how something can be so dramatically life changing. I know the struggles all too well.

Please forgive my assumption AND my insensitivity.

But that's kind of my point, sister: Laurie and I aren't legally married yet. Why subject her to that if I don't have to? Why not hold off on marriage until I am in a better place and won't "drag her down?" Why should we have to build up TWO when, right now, all I have to build up is just the ONE - me?

Again, I agree to disagree. But to me, I am doing the honorable thing. I am being the man, doing what I feel in my heart is the right thing to do by HER and by GOD. I do not have any choice but to follow my convictions, be a real man, admit my failures, and clean up what I can so I do not subject her to lesser of "the one" than I have to. I'll never have her credit and etc, and she knows that and loves me in spite of it. But as a man, I should, without question, always have my wife's interests first in my heart. That's just the way I was raised and who I am.

I'm sorry we cannot come to terms on that, but hey: Hands and feet, eh, sister? :)


I point back to 1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme,
2:14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men-
2:16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.


I underline the parts of that pertain. We obey the laws ... because that's what God wants us to. Period. Why does He want us to obey the laws? In this case so you can put to silence the ignorance of foolish men (me).

You are not foolish. FAR from it!

If it was a law, secular or not, that I MUST marry her or abstain, I would indeed do one or the other. It isn't. Therefore, it is subjective to perception - yours and others. After serving this country honorably and working the vast majority of my life, and now returning to an honorable profession, I do not feel like I am a sinner just because Laurie and I choose to allow each other what we do in "that" manner - as long as God doesn't put His foot down and say no, and neither of us feel that conviction. If either of us did, we would abandon our current actions in search of God's plan and under HIS law.

But without conviction to the contrary, why is it wrong for us to wish to share everything with each other, giving God the glory for every moment we are blessed to spend with each other, regardless of what we happen to be doing at the time?

Again, thank you for your patience with me, my most ardent apologies, and my most sincere appreciation for your understanding with my misunderstanding and willingness to remain "friends" by taking the time to work this through.

I honestly do appreciate it!

:hug::hug::hug:

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 01:28 PM
I'm not going to get into the whole "married because we couldn't control the flesh" thing, because, frankly, I think Paul was off his rocker when he wrote that. If you get married just because you want s*x, to make it right in the eyes of the church, you're fooling yourself of what marriage unabridged really means - and what God intended it to be.

That really bothers me too and I cannot believe that people would cite that passage in defense of their argument. What a way to taint the institution of marriage.

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 01:34 PM
Edit: I didn't get to the apology yet. Now that I have I am editing.

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 01:45 PM
I've been reading the posts in this thread and I have to tell you that I find the whole thing disturbing.
So much of what is happening today is that we justify sin. So now we say, "what's a piece of paper?" let's be serious. That piece of paper means a commitment, or at least it used to mean that.
I think the world has so infiltrated the Christian that we have become much like the Pharisees and we are making up our own rules, laws and commandments.

No one is making up their own rules, but they are challenging the idea that you have to have a piece of paper to get married because the Bible doesn't say that you have to. It is not a Biblical requirement. I believe that two people can come before God and make a commitment to one another with him as their witness.


If you are having sexual relations outside of marriage, it is wrong, and I believe it is sin. I think if you truly searched your hearts and were honest before our living God you would admit it as well.
Without the piece of paper, you can get out of the relationship, no strings attached and become "married" to someone else.
Sadly, in this day and age, even the paper isn't stopping many from having relations outside of marriage. So sad.That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I do not think you or anyone else has the right to tell someone that they are living in sin. You do not know the context of their relationship or the level of commitment. Too many Christians become preoccupied with correcting others and they forget that they too are sinners. It is incredibly hypocritical and sadly it is the biggest problem with Christianity.

karenoka27
Feb 29th 2008, 02:03 PM
I am so grieved by the attitude of this "casual sex"...in an uncommitted relationship...we all know that. Call it what you will, paper or no paper..but if you are honest with yourself you would admit that if things just didn't work out..you could leave, no courts, no "papers" no more commitment. I feel like this attitude is such a slap in the face of our God and I am beyond saddened at the worldly view that Christians have taken on.

if you go back to Adam and Eve and they were cleaved together..
cleave-"dabaq" HebrewOutline of Biblical Usage
1) to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to,

to me this word indicates a commitment...a life long one...perhaps I'm wrong...before God..and if God tells us to obey the law then the law recognizes marriage, not living together, or sleepovers...that is not recognized as a commitment...

p.s. - I had premarital sex...so I am not writing as one who thinks more highly of them self as they ought to think...just being honest enough to keeping it real, keeping it honest...


follow me infantry- were you ever married before? just curious.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Feb 29th 2008, 02:39 PM
I've been reading the posts in this thread and I have to tell you that I find the whole thing disturbing.
So much of what is happening today is that we justify sin.

The same could be said about Christians: That we look for any and every instance of sin in order to proclaim our own spiritual superiority and righteousness to tout in the name of "correction." Careful with the stereotypes.

You (we) may be right, or we may be wrong. When all of our efforts are purposed to finding ourselves as "right," which so many do, we lose opportunity to accept correction. Once we stop learning, we stand to risk stagnation and self-righteousness.

I can't cite the verse, but I KNOW that we are specifically warned about failing to learn and to accept correction. We must tread lightly and always be willing to listen with discernment: It's not enough to speak with discernment, we have to listen (and I'd appreciate it if you could cite that for me, as I can't seem to find it).


So now we say, "what's a piece of paper?" let's be serious. That piece of paper means a commitment, or at least it used to mean that.

I am every bit as committed to Laurie as you are to your husband - maybe even more so. We've overcome a LOT to be together. I don't judge the quality or committment of your marriage, and neither should you judge anyone that may or may not have that same piece of paper - issued by a legal system that allows a judge to sue for $65 MILLION for a pair of PANTS and ruin lives.

If that's what YOU need to commit to your spouse, I respect that. But it's not what I need, and many others like me feel the same. The "system" is screwed, and I find it insulting that such a system wants to comment on and even approve my dedication to my wife simply because they have a computer printer that spits out license after license for some judge that I don't know to approve to be forwarded to some preacher that will read vows he, himself, statistically, is unlikely to follow.

My marriage, while not sanctioned by the state, is worth more than any marriage I know the system calls "pure." That's because my marriage stems from God, not the state, not the church, and not a sense of failing if I am not married.

I simply don't need the validation to show off (and I'm not saying you do, I just want you to see our side of the matter with an open mind). The world's version of my status as "single" or "married" doesn't matter a bit to me. Only God's validation. And only Laurie, myself and God can reach that conclusion. That doesn't cheapen what we have - if anything, it makes us stronger than those marriages that are "required." That isn't us, and it's not what God intended when He sanctified the Holy union between one man and one woman. I might as well be hom*sexual and marry another man for what a true marriage constitutes these days.



I think the world has so infiltrated the Christian that we have become much like the Pharisees and we are making up our own rules, laws and commandments.

(Please listen carefully to this)

And, as a Christian, I believe we have gotten so defensive about it that we now LOOK for and actually SEEK anything and everything to find fault with.

That the tolerance and love Jesus proclaimed as HIS own take second chair to our personal need to defend our faith.

That we are so weary of being constantly attacked that we now strike first, rather than turn the other cheek.

That the principles of love, compassion, and understanding have been replaced with disgust, intolerance, and judgment.

That, in order to justify ourselves, we pick apart scripture, rather than accepting it for the WHOLE context that it is.

I honestly, truly believe that we are turning more away from Christ - and not because it is supposed to be that way! Rather, itis because we are trying SO hard that we lose sight of the fundamentals. Once we lose Jesus in spreading the message, we lose the entire message. Then we lose potential believers.

Case in point:

My wife, who very, very much believes in God, asked me why I hang around this board to simply argue with those "who have lost sight of the true message and, instead, choose to preach THEIR sermon, rather than Jesus' sermons."

I'm not sure I can put it much better than her own words.


If you are having sexual relations outside of marriage, it is wrong, and I believe it is sin. I think if you truly searched your hearts and were honest before our living God you would admit it as well.

I will admit that, and publicly, when Jesus says so.



Without the piece of paper, you can get out of the relationship, no strings attached and become "married" to someone else.

No, you can't. There are always strings attached. I take it that, like me, you are a condemned sinner that has been divorced before and speak from experience? Or are you parrotting Rick Warren and condemning the rest of us because it is the popular thing?



Sadly, in this day and age, even the paper isn't stopping many from having relations outside of marriage. So sad.

100% agreed! It's cheapened and meaningless these days. So why the controversy over it? Please answer that.




Psalm 139-23-24-"Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."

Perhaps this could be applied to those that judge others, as well? Or perhaps it was written for them?

YBIC,

Richard

Follow_Me_Infantry
Feb 29th 2008, 02:47 PM
I am so grieved by the attitude of this "casual sex"...in an uncommitted relationship...we all know that. Call it what you will, paper or no paper..but if you are honest with yourself you would admit that if things just didn't work out..you could leave, no courts, no "papers" no more commitment. I feel like this attitude is such a slap in the face of our God and I am beyond saddened at the worldly view that Christians have taken on.

if you go back to Adam and Eve and they were cleaved together..
cleave-"dabaq" HebrewOutline of Biblical Usage
1) to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to,

to me this word indicates a commitment...a life long one...perhaps I'm wrong...before God..and if God tells us to obey the law then the law recognizes marriage, not living together, or sleepovers...that is not recognized as a commitment...

p.s. - I had premarital sex...so I am not writing as one who thinks more highly of them self as they ought to think...just being honest enough to keeping it real, keeping it honest...


follow me infantry- were you ever married before? just curious.

WHOA there, my sister!

My last marriage wasn't marriage - we just lived together. I lost 90% of the few assets I have (had) and all custody of my (her) kids that I raised for 10 years. She walked away with WAY more than she came in with.

Do you still stand by your statement?

And, yes, I have been marred twice - as I stated in this thread THREE times. If you're not going to read the posts I take the time and energy to construct, can we please refrain from commenting on each others posts? I have read every word of yours, all of them, and I would appreciate the same in return.

Trust me: I know the cost of marriage and commitment. And it ain't free - emotionally, spiritually, or financially. You don't have to be married in paper to lose everything when she strays to another and wrecks your life and your soul and your heart and your spirit and then wrecks her (our) kids to wreck you more.

Your statement is fallacy. I'm sorry for being blunt, but you just WAY hit a sore spot.

Theophilus
Feb 29th 2008, 02:57 PM
...but I do not think you or anyone else has the right to tell someone that they are living in sin.

We have something more important than the right...we have the obligation. Any caring, loving Christian, seeing someone doing something contrary to the will of God, must warn their brothers and sisters of the danger of continuing in their sin.

How do we know if someone is sinning? We will observe the "works of the flesh" {Galatians 5:19-21} in their lives. Paul told Titus (and by extension, all believers) in Titus 2:11-15 to say "no" to ungodliness, and to exhort and rebuke in teaching, with the authority of the Bible as their basis for rebuke.

Now, I'm not saying we shake a finger in someone's face, and call them a vile sinner...far from it. But you must call a spade a spade...and thereby lovingly correct the one sinning, returning them to a full and right relationship with God.

...and just so's ya' know, this is not directed toward this thread, per se...this is directed toward the idea that we are not to tell someone they're "living in sin." If I see any brother or sister sinning, i.e., displaying a work of the flesh, I'm going to speak the truth in love...with the hope and sincere desire to help them, not ostracize them. Okay? :)



Too many Christians become preoccupied with correcting others and they forget that they too are sinners. It is incredibly hypocritical and sadly it is the biggest problem with Christianity.

Interesting. I've always felt that pride was the biggest problem with Christianity. Not just people so full of themselves that they pointed out sin in others while ignoring their own sin (a holier than thou attitude)...but the pride of the person too quick to reject what may be a legitimate and loving attempt to point out something wrong in their life as a judgmental and hypocritical attack.

Sometimes, as much as we hate to admit it, even the hypocrite is right. God can use hypocritical people to point out sin...and does. It's easier, though, to reject what they have to say than look inside and do something about the sin in our lives, though. :rolleyes:

Again, not directed at the thread, just the statement quoted.;)

obeytheword
Feb 29th 2008, 03:13 PM
I think it boils down to a few pretty simple questions.

1 - Is sex prior to marriage sin biblically?

I think the answer to this is a rather emphatic and easy to understand yes.

2 - What constitutes a marriage?

We ARE bound by the law of the land unless it contradicts the law of God. As has been demonstrated here, the Bible is not crystal clear about exactly what is necessary from a functional standpoint in order to have the "relationship" you are in considered a marriage - So thus we are bound by the law of the land which defines what marriage is.



And for the record - I am not judging anyone. I am trying to help truth to be seen for what it is, and error for what it is. I am in no way trying to judge the level of commitment. I think it is fabulous for anyone to able to stand up and say how committed they are, it is great.

It is however also totally beside the point in this discussion. The bible nowhere either states or even infers that being in a committed relationship makes it ok to engage in sex . And the only way the law of the land says that a committed relationship is marriage is "common-law" marriages. If your relationship qualifies for this where you live (it differs by state) then you ARE FREE to engage in sex (in that relationship). If your relationship is NOT defined as marriage by the state you live in, then you are living in sin.

If there is a good reason to not get married now - then to honor the marriage bed, then per GOD (not me) you should abstain. It is in no way an argument with men - and I do not judge - I exhort by using the word.

Be Blessed!

ddmor
Feb 29th 2008, 03:30 PM
FMI - I took no offense to anything you said, no apologies necessary. :)


If it was a law, secular or not, that I MUST marry her or abstain, I would indeed do one or the other. It isn't. Therefore, it is subjective to perception - yours and others.

The Bible does say marry or abstain, Heb 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.'

Can you not see that only in marriage that God will NOT judge you? If you are truly married, why go through the legalities? Because that's what Laurie wants? Then Laurie must deep down inside understand that what you have isn't a 'real' marriage.

and thus, by sleeping with her before going through the legalities, you are making the two of you fornicators - and God will judge that.

Just because you are not 'feeling' it's wrong, doesn't mean it's right.

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 04:11 PM
We have something more important than the right...we have the obligation. Any caring, loving Christian, seeing someone doing something contrary to the will of God, must warn their brothers and sisters of the danger of continuing in their sin.

How do we know if someone is sinning? We will observe the "works of the flesh" {Galatians 5:19-21} in their lives. Paul told Titus (and by extension, all believers) in Titus 2:11-15 to say "no" to ungodliness, and to exhort and rebuke in teaching, with the authority of the Bible as their basis for rebuke.

Now, I'm not saying we shake a finger in someone's face, and call them a vile sinner...far from it. But you must call a spade a spade...and thereby lovingly correct the one sinning, returning them to a full and right relationship with God.

Really? So what do you think of a Christian telling another Christian who disagrees with them that they are not a Christian and they are swine (under the guise that they are correcting)? I do not think anyone has the right to correct me, especially some faceless, nameless stranger on the internet because you (not you specifically) know nothing about me, my life or what is in my heart. Hiding behind the "you're feeling convicted" argument is another of my least favorite things I have experienced on this site. If someone gets upset by the way they are being treated they are convicted. I honestly do not know why I come to this site. It harms me more spiritually than does any good. I must be a glutton for punishment.

This is not directed toward you, I am just tired of the bologna.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Feb 29th 2008, 04:11 PM
FMI - I took no offense to anything you said, no apologies necessary. :)



The Bible does say marry or abstain, Heb 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.'

Can you not see that only in marriage that God will NOT judge you? If you are truly married, why go through the legalities? Because that's what Laurie wants? Then Laurie must deep down inside understand that what you have isn't a 'real' marriage.

and thus, by sleeping with her before going through the legalities, you are making the two of you fornicators - and God will judge that.

Just because you are not 'feeling' it's wrong, doesn't mean it's right.

:giveup:

If you REALLY want to know how I feel, and why I feel the way I do, if you're not acting out of emotion and simply judging what you don't know (no offense), then please read my last post in this thread:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=116905

God is dealing with me, guiding me.

If you're going to dismiss all I have said in this thread, then read my partial testimony and dismiss that. I'm not sure what else I can do to convince you that my convictions are REAL, and not justifications for some sin that you have extrapolated from a really poor translation of the original text and CONtext of the Bible.

You ARE aware that everything you read in the Bible has been completely distorted by the Roman Catholic Church in their rule of literature in the Roman era where print became the transcript of the monks, overseen by the elders and transcribed only in the manner that a group of 3 saw fit to print or burned, yes?

Just because the majority opinion corrupts the Word doesn't mean I will fall into line.

There is NO SUCH THING as an original scripture anymore.

We are warned about this. We are warned not to judge another. We are warned that if we condemn a sin, it had better be GOD'S version of sin, not something we've read from a biased source that destroyed original text to manipulate their version, yes?

That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden, though I'll not get into that here.

But I'll accept your interpretation.

And fine: If Laurie and I are going to be in Hell for loving each other as we feel God has placed us together, if my faith is fake, if hers is a farce, if all we do is sin out of this FINALLY being happy and sure in life that we have God first, then so be it, I guess.

I guess my faith and my life is a fake. I must be so disillusioned that I can't even hear God, which means that I am not saved, or He won't talk to me if I am, and all is lost anyway.

All this because I made love to my wife after begging God to show me if she's the one, affirming that she is, and finally being bold enough to be PROUD of my wife to a point that I don't need a piece of paper from a secular government biased against my faith in the first place to license me to love her for who she is and be loved for who I am.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But if I have to worship a God like that, who misled and lied to my heart, who blessed this and yet condemns it, who takes the purest of joy and the most adamant praise of Him I have ever felt, who will send me to hell because I believed what He was telling me...

Then you can have him.

I cannot worship Jesus Christ as a deceiver of my heart. I cannot, under any circumstance, worship the pagan gods that exact vengence from their own deceit.

Sorry we disagree on this, but I guess my wife and I will burn in hell.

I cannot believe that something I cherish so much, something He HIMSELF led me to (go read the link, last post by me) is against His will. If it is, then I give up on Christianity and will leave this board and burn my Bibles without a second thought.

The righteousness of self does not righteousness of God make one be.

I really wish our discussion hadn't turned into this, but I am seriously questioning if I am even a Christian anymore - or if I want to be associated with this. I need to pray.

Please don't reply if you're going to pick apart a post this long because you don't care to comment on all of it. Either address the points--all of them--or go stave conversations with one-liners in the Anything Goes section where people talk in one-liners.

You have seriously given me much to think about, and for that I thank you. :hug:

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 04:15 PM
For the record, I think that you FMI make the most sense out of anyone in this thread. I normally skip over long posts, but I have read every single word you have posted and I have to say I completely agree with you.

Theophilus
Feb 29th 2008, 04:35 PM
Really? So what do you think of a Christian telling another Christian who disagrees with them that they are not a Christian and they are swine (under the guise that they are correcting)? I do not think anyone has the right to correct me, especially some faceless, nameless stranger on the internet because you (not you specifically) know nothing about me, my life or what is in my heart. Hiding behind the "you're feeling convicted" argument is another of my least favorite things I have experienced on this site. If someone gets upset by the way they are being treated they are convicted. I honestly do not know why I come to this site. It harms me more spiritually than does any good. I must be a glutton for punishment.

This is not directed toward you, I am just tired of the bologna.

What do I think? I think that any "correction" should be made with love as the overwhelming and abiding motive. However, even if it isn't, the person being "corrected" needs to evaluate the validity/truth of the "correction," not the character (or lack thereof) of the accuser.

Like I said, even hypocrites can speak the truth. It's up to us to separate the hypocrital "chaff" from the wheat of truth. (Sorry...read the KJV enough, and you'll start talking like this, too! :lol:)

I know, I know...in the heat of something that seems (and may even be) a personal attack, it's hard to bring anything good away from it. However, it behooves us to examine our walk...even if criticized by someone harsh and seemingly unloving...to see if there is merit to their criticism.

If, after examination, they're wrong...then we dismiss (but love and pray for) them, and hope they are enlightened to the error of the ways. God will deal with them, one way or another.

On the other hand, if after examination, they prove right...we do what's necessary to rectify the situation (and restore our spiritual "walk")...and show graciousness by thanking them for their insight. Doesn't mean we want to hang out with them, but hopefully such a show of graciousness might convict them a bit, sending them on their own road of spiritual reconciliation.

Turning the other cheek is never easy, but it's what Jesus wanted us to do. It's tough, when we feel our character is being attacked, but a gracious reply (even if the other person is dead wrong) is always the best way. In my eyes, the one who gives "the gentle answer" gains the respect of others...and it often makes the harsh one see that they need to tone down the accusatory tone, and start showing the love they're supposed to show.

FWIW...:)

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 04:39 PM
What do I think? I think that any "correction" should be made with love as the overwhelming and abiding motive. However, even if it isn't, the person being "corrected" needs to evaluate the validity/truth of the "correction," not the character (or lack thereof) of the accuser.

Like I said, even hypocrites can speak the truth. It's up to us to separate the hypocrital "chaff" from the wheat of truth. (Sorry...read the KJV enough, and you'll start talking like this, too! :lol:)

I know, I know...in the heat of something that seems (and may even be) a personal attack, it's hard to bring anything good away from it. However, it behooves us to examine our walk...even if criticized by someone harsh and seemingly unloving...to see if there is merit to their criticism.

If, after examination, they're wrong...then we dismiss (but love and pray for) them, and hope they are enlightened to the error of the ways. God will deal with them, one way or another.

On the other hand, if after examination, they prove right...we do what's necessary to rectify the situation (and restore our spiritual "walk")...and show graciousness by thanking them for their insight. Doesn't mean we want to hang out with them, but hopefully such a show of graciousness might convict them a bit, sending them on their own road of spiritual reconciliation.

Turning the other cheek is never easy, but it's what Jesus wanted us to do. It's tough, when we feel our character is being attacked, but a gracious reply (even if the other person is dead wrong) is always the best way. In my eyes, the one who gives "the gentle answer" gains the respect of others...and it often makes the harsh one see that they need to tone down the accusatory tone, and start showing the love they're supposed to show.

FWIW...:)

That is a great post. Sadly, I have a hard time backing down when provoked. I figure it is best if I just eliminate the cause of my stress and strife. I have a stress based illness and I see nothing good coming from "arguing" on the internet. I have sites I can visit to actually edify myself ;) I am going to be spending more time there and less time here.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Feb 29th 2008, 04:49 PM
Really? So what do you think of a Christian telling another Christian who disagrees with them that they are not a Christian and they are swine (under the guise that they are correcting)? I do not think anyone has the right to correct me, especially some faceless, nameless stranger on the internet because you (not you specifically) know nothing about me, my life or what is in my heart. Hiding behind the "you're feeling convicted" argument is another of my least favorite things I have experienced on this site. If someone gets upset by the way they are being treated they are convicted. I honestly do not know why I come to this site. It harms me more spiritually than does any good. I must be a glutton for punishment.

This is not directed toward you, I am just tired of the bologna.

Hun, take the good with the bad. We learn even though we get insulted. PLEASE don't take anyone here as trying to correct you. Just accept it as debated opinion.

This board would be SADLY lacking without you. You are, in fact, about the only person here my wife enjoys reading posts from. Not because you agree with us, but because you won't judge us, I think (I can't ask her right now, she is at work teaching Yoga - and I miss her already, cheesy person I am :)).

Please, please be the duck you offered another to be.

I love you, my sister I<3Jesus! :hug::kiss::hug::kiss::hug:

Theophilus
Feb 29th 2008, 04:53 PM
You are, in fact, about the only person here my wife enjoys reading posts from.

Obviously, she hasn't been seeing my better stuff! My posts are the epitome of enjoyable reading.

(...and they're loaded with truth, insight, wisdom, and humility...especially the humility).





;)

obeytheword
Feb 29th 2008, 04:57 PM
:giveup:

If you REALLY want to know how I feel, and why I feel the way I do, if you're not acting out of emotion and simply judging what you don't know (no offense), then please read my last post in this thread:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=116905

God is dealing with me, guiding me.

If you're going to dismiss all I have said in this thread, then read my partial testimony and dismiss that. I'm not sure what else I can do to convince you that my convictions are REAL, and not justifications for some sin that you have extrapolated from a really poor translation of the original text and CONtext of the Bible.

You ARE aware that everything you read in the Bible has been completely distorted by the Roman Catholic Church in their rule of literature in the Roman era where print became the transcript of the monks, overseen by the elders and transcribed only in the manner that a group of 3 saw fit to print or burned, yes?

Just because the majority opinion corrupts the Word doesn't mean I will fall into line.

There is NO SUCH THING as an original scripture anymore.

We are warned about this. We are warned not to judge another. We are warned that if we condemn a sin, it had better be GOD'S version of sin, not something we've read from a biased source that destroyed original text to manipulate their version, yes?

That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden, though I'll not get into that here.

But I'll accept your interpretation.

And fine: If Laurie and I are going to be in Hell for loving each other as we feel God has placed us together, if my faith is fake, if hers is a farce, if all we do is sin out of this FINALLY being happy and sure in life that we have God first, then so be it, I guess.

I guess my faith and my life is a fake. I must be so disillusioned that I can't even hear God, which means that I am not saved, or He won't talk to me if I am, and all is lost anyway.

All this because I made love to my wife after begging God to show me if she's the one, affirming that she is, and finally being bold enough to be PROUD of my wife to a point that I don't need a piece of paper from a secular government biased against my faith in the first place to license me to love her for who she is and be loved for who I am.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But if I have to worship a God like that, who misled and lied to my heart, who blessed this and yet condemns it, who takes the purest of joy and the most adamant praise of Him I have ever felt, who will send me to hell because I believed what He was telling me...

Then you can have him.

I cannot worship Jesus Christ as a deceiver of my heart. I cannot, under any circumstance, worship the pagan gods that exact vengence from their own deceit.

Sorry we disagree on this, but I guess my wife and I will burn in hell.

I cannot believe that something I cherish so much, something He HIMSELF led me to (go read the link, last post by me) is against His will. If it is, then I give up on Christianity and will leave this board and burn my Bibles without a second thought.

The righteousness of self does not righteousness of God make one be.

I really wish our discussion hadn't turned into this, but I am seriously questioning if I am even a Christian anymore - or if I want to be associated with this. I need to pray.

Please don't reply if you're going to pick apart a post this long because you don't care to comment on all of it. Either address the points--all of them--or go stave conversations with one-liners in the Anything Goes section where people talk in one-liners.

You have seriously given me much to think about, and for that I thank you. :hug:

I can say I personally apologize if anything I have written implies even vaguely that you are not a Christian, or are damned to spend an eternity in hell, etc. I earnestly WANT not to sin, but guess what, I still do from time to time. Sometimes a lot, and sometimes not much, and I certainly hope that over time I am getting better, but it is not mine to judge.

I would also certainly hope that if I were doing anything others saw as sin that they WOULD speak up and let me know what they see, and show me why they believe it is sin. That is true love.

I believe your convictions are real. I believe you TRULY believe you are not sinning. I am not just saying that to sound nice - I can sense an honesty in what you are presenting. Just because you earnestly believe it however, does not make it NECESSARILY so.

Yes - pretty much the entire scripture has been distorted, and that is why using 1 "trump" verse to prove something is "OK" or "a sin" is not too helpful in many cases. People seem to have no concept of context or original audience anymore in terms of interpreting scripture. This in no way means we can ignore what IS clear in the heart of God.

God in no way wants pain for you or any other believer, and uncommitted relationships and divorce are clearly not his wish - because it literally hurts every person who comes into contact with it. You have expressed some of your hurts in the past - even within committed relationships. God DOES NOT like this. God defines a committed relationship - that he endorses as marriage. He also has rules to control how one can exit from this commitment. Mans law is VERY liberal in this regard when compared to Gods law, so Gods law is the standard for you in terms of Divorce.

If you sin - or have a less than perfect understanding of Gods will for your life will you go to Hell? I certainly hope not, because regardless of my wishes, I STLLL sin, and I certainly do not have perfect understanding of his will. Just because you struggle with a question like this in your life DOES NOT mean you are not a Christian. It just means you are struggling to live for Christ in a rather unkind world that distorts everything pure of God.

Let me give you a rather brief picture of where I come from.

I was not a Christian in any way when my wife and I started seeing one another. She had committed her life to God, but had since that point made some rather bad decisions, and was not walking with the Lord. Long story short, we ended up living together, and you guessed it. We had a sexual relationship. We absolutely planned on getting married, and were engaged, but we held off because we had both come from broken families, and we did not want to have the same thing happen to us. ALSO she was a single parent struggling to go through school (college), and because of this received quite a bit of state help. So FINANCIALLY we were better off to just live together.

Anyway - time went on, and I became a Christian and we started going to church (won't go into details here). Over time, we both separately had felt conviction that even though we were engaged, we were really not following Gods plan. Eventually she brought it up to me (about 6 months before our wedding was set to be) She expected me to get real mad, etc when she said she wanted to abstain from that point until our wedding night, but I was actually VERY HAPPY - because I had felt the same thing!! So we abstained (was RATHER hard I can assure you) until we were married.

Why do I convey this? To explain that I know not everyone is perfect, and I certainly do not think that just because you have sinned that you are not a Christian. The people here may often come across harsh and seem judgemental. Heck, some probably ARE being rather judgemental, but that in no way means that what they have to say about the word is wrong.

All I would ask personally is that you meditate on the scriptures in question, and honestly ask yourself what God really wants. He has shown you that this is the right person from you from what you expressed. Scripture indicates that the spirit will not lead you to do something contrary to scripture - so I just ask that you meditate and make absolutely certain that you are following the intent of the spirit working within you in all things.

In his Love!

Follow_Me_Infantry
Feb 29th 2008, 05:02 PM
Obviously, she hasn't been seeing my better stuff! My posts are the epitome of enjoyable reading.

(...and they're loaded with truth, insight, wisdom, and humility...especially the humility).





;)

I know this is a funny post, BUT...

No kidding, and in all honesty...

She DOES enjoy your posts, as well! You and Brother Mark, Slug, I<3Jesus, and couple others I am forgetting. But it's very evident who she feels is turning her away from my personal faith in Christ and who examples it.

I can't speak for her, but I personally find you to be in the Spirit of loving correction - not judgment and condemnation.

I want her to know y'all, and to know even those she disagrees with, but it's difficult when she reads posts proclaiming our love as tainted even after we went to God with all we were.

You do not do that.

I MUST tell you how much I respect you, bro. I feel I am also justified telling you that Laurie respects you as a Christian that examples the position of Christ in lovingkindness.

To me, that says more than any text could possibly say.

I love you, brother :hug::hug::hug:

Theophilus
Feb 29th 2008, 05:14 PM
I know this is a funny post, BUT...

No kidding, and in all honesty...

She DOES enjoy your posts, as well! You and Brother Mark, Slug, I<3Jesus, and couple others I am forgetting....I love you, brother :hug::hug::hug:

Well...golly. You've accomplished the heretofore unaccomplishable...and rendered me well night speechless.

My heartfelt thank you for saying such a sweet thing...such words are priceless. They are "...like apples of gold in pictures of silver." (Proverbs 25:11) :)

karenoka27
Feb 29th 2008, 05:16 PM
To Follow Me Infantry: "I apologize for the way I came at you. I did read your posts and I did miss the one part in your post where you said you were married twice before...
Please understand that I came to this thread full knowing that I would be going against those who see no wrong in having sex outside of a legal marriage recognized by the law.
Please hear me..I was there..I did the same thing..I even had a child outside of marriage, so I am only trying to get my point across that I have been convicted that it is wrong.
Since you thought I didn't read your threads I went back and read them again. I will respond or ask you a question according to where I don't understand.
I'm guessing you probably don't like me much and I understand...I am saddend though that there seems to be "sides" according to those who are married and those who are having sex outside of a legal marriage..but I suppose that is what keeps this discussion going.

Quote: "We are not legally married..." but later you say, "And not that I need to state this in our defense but I am marrying Laurie legally."

Why? you said you already are married in God's eyes.

Quote: "We both completely agree that adultery is a sin against God."

Please help me to understand..you mentioned you were married before..how is your not being with another woman now not committing adultery against your first wife?

Quote:"One on one monogamous relationship expected to last forever."

Didn't you make that promise the first time you were married.."til death do you part?"

In all fairness you mentioned that you are not fully familiar with Scripture if I'm saying that correctly? Ok...then be fair to me in the fact that as I did come to understand Scripture, I understood that God does not want us to have relations outside of marriage...

John 4:15-18-"The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."16He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back." "I have no husband," she replied.Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."
Jesus did not condemn her...he pointed a truth out to her.


John 8:3-"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Again Jesus did not condemn this woman...but He did tell her to not do it again. FollowMeInfantry..I am not condemning you...I am only trying to understand how you can Biblically justify it.

And as far as being obedient to the law of the land that we live in:
Romans 13:" 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

The law of the land recognizes marriage...not people saying they love each other before God.






Can I just say that this is a Bible Chat forum and yet I've gone through all the posts and found very little chatting about the Bible or Scripture used to back up what is being said. I think some of you who are jumping on the wagon to attack, should bring something with you.Perhaps..Scripture..I say that in love.



I really am sorry. I just love the Lord so much and I often find myself defending Him...I forget that He doesn't need me to do that..He is perfectly capable of standing on His own Word...

ravi4u2
Feb 29th 2008, 05:45 PM
You are obviously more focussed on the legalisms of marriage than the symbolism. Marriage is a symbol of Christ and the church. The church was Chosen by the father as Rebekah was chosen by Abraham for Isaac. She was called or wooed by the son as Jacob kissed Rachel. She is gathered by the Holy Spirit as the woman at Sichem was gathered into the kingdom.
None of them had 'papers'. The will of the father was accomplished.

Adam and Eve did not have papers or witnesses, the will of the Father was accomplished.

Even a modern day Pharisee would have to acknowledge that in our modern society, papers are not required. Check out common law marriages. They are as legal as others. Papers is just one option for legal marriage.

In the Bible you will find that bracelets are the token of marriage. Bracelets indicate that the union is not unclean. Papers were not required until governments required registry. Papers were given for divorce so that there was a witness to the divorce freeing the woman for remarriage. There was no need for a man to get divorce papers since he could take multiple wives anyway.

As for speaking from silence, it is MORE justified to say that there were no papers from silence on the subject than it is to claim that papers were required without any evidence. It is anachronistic to argue that since we require papers today, that has always been the case.

I usually don't get too involved in knit picking the law until I am dragged kicking and screaming into it. ;)

In the case mentioned previously, if it were 'sin' by the Pharisaical judgment of the law, then there would have been some mention of uncleanness or stoning, or 'outside the camp'. It was considered a case of property.

There is in fact a double entendre in the law. It suggests that as it is the son who woos the church, that he must pay the price for her... 30 shekels of silver, the price to redeem a woman, the price of His life.

The law is so rich in shadows of Christ, that the legalisms are quite boring.

All of that being said, most people who choose not to get married and simply live together are in sin. But that is no surprise to any of us. We are in sin too. We just choose sin that is more palatable to our own taste, and sin that is more palatable to the particular church we find ourselves in.

If you want a marriage that truly symbolizes Christ and the church, then get her father's blessing and do it right. So even a bunch of people with papers do not honor God by following his example.

You missed the point of my message. I had said:
While it is a bad passage to prove that certificate and ceremonies were not required, it is a good passage to illustrate the point that you need consenters to a marriage and that someone just does not become somebody else's wife because she was seduced to sleep with him.The emphasis being on:
illustrate the point that you need consenters to a marriage and that someone just does not become somebody else's wife because she was seduced to sleep with himWhich is basically what you agreed to in your post.

The following is the legal definition of common law marriage:

In a handful of states like, Alabama, Colorado, D.C., Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Hew Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolia, Texas and Utah, heterosexual couples can become legally married without a license or ceremony. This type of marriage is called a common law marriage. Contrary to popular belief, a common law marriage is not created when two people simply live together for a certain number of years. In order to have a valid common law marriage, the couple must do all of the following:

live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and
intend to be married. When a common law marriage exists, the spouses receive the same legal treatment given to formally married couples, including the requirement that they go through a legal divorce to end the 'marriage'.If you note the law of the land accepts 'common-law' partners ONLY if they had intended to be married some point in time. Which means that they are basically still long term cohabitants.


I think ProjectPeter may have something to say about a part of your post:
All of that being said, most people who choose not to get married and simply live together are in sin. But that is no surprise to any of us. We are in sin too. We just choose sin that is more palatable to our own taste, and sin that is more palatable to the particular church we find ourselves in.in the thread, Heresy of Cheap Grace (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=116551)...:lol:

Souled Out
Feb 29th 2008, 05:54 PM
FMI,

Avoiding impropriety and the appearance of sin is not the same as bowing down to legalists. The former, I too have to be cognizant of (it's all a part of loving man), but the latter I apply some grace to them and avoid like the plague.

God has blessed you greatly with Laurie and as with all blessings we have to make sure we’re being good stewards.

If God blesses me with a Porsche, even though I love the Porsche, and I’m thankful to Him for giving it to me, being a good steward means legally registering the car and getting insurance for it because we have to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s (registering and insuring the car or getting marriage papers) and render to God what is God’s (honoring God by not acting like a fool on the road while bearing a tag that say "JESUS" or turning over ALL aspects of the marriage, you loving Laurie like Christ loves the Church and her submitting to you). In your case turning over all aspects means turning over everything -- itty credit and all.

Until Caesar is taken care of we won’t be able to fully enjoy the blessing. Governing authorities don’t honor God or what He has joined together but they do work together. Let me show you.

Thank God that you weren’t involved in that traffic accident, but if you were Laurie would not have been able to fulfill her wifely duties by being there 100% for you like God intended because the state would not recognize her as your wife or let her make decision on your behalf, which is what God would want.

The papers protect you (the both of you as one) and let’s no man put asunder what God has joined together. They also show that you do render to Caesar what is his, as God expects, as well as they protect the eyes of unbelievers and those of your weaker brothers/sisters in Christ that won’t know what in the heck you’re doing (even though you, Lauri and God do).

Be blessed in your marriage.

ddmor
Feb 29th 2008, 05:58 PM
Okay - if you really want me to comment on all of it I will. I think this post has shown me where you ultimately stand. We do disagree on the fundamentals of Christianity. Because I believe that God protected His word for us today. That it is as holy as when it was written.

And for the record, I can't say if you're going to burn in hell for this, because God knows if you are truly continuing to seek His will, it's His say. I would never even begin to know what He does about you, or to think I can make any call about your hear after. I was only trying to point out that what you're doing is contrary to what I read. I was trying to point out how your logic didn't really mesh with the word.

Now saying that, what I was trying to say in my last post was that you may not see sin in what you're doing, but it sounds like Laurie does - and I say that because she wants the legal wedding. Why want the legal wedding if it isn't binding as what you've already done? IF you're already married - and you truly believe you are, and if you truly believe that the evolution of what 'we' call marriage is hypocrisy - then you SHOULDN'T get married that way. However, she still wants it, so that tells me -and I admit I could be wrong about this- that she still believes being legally married is the will of God. THEREFORE you might be drawing her into sin, if she really doesn't believe you two are really married, and you have to have the paper to make it so eventually. Do you see why I say that? Because it sounds like she needs the paper to be legal. "To him who knows to do right, and he doesn't do it to him it is sin." What does God say about drawing people into sin? Matt 18:6 "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. It is something if I was doing - I'd want someone to warn me about!
That is what I was trying, albeit poorly, to get acrossed.


:giveup:

If you REALLY want to know how I feel, and why I feel the way I do, if you're not acting out of emotion and simply judging what you don't know (no offense), then please read my last post in this thread:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=116905



I kept abreast of that thread, I found your knowledge of small businesses very enlightening, and I was interested in learning more about you. To be truthful with you - I became interested when you told us you lay naked with your gf in some thread (can't remember which). I thought it was an inappropriate comment for a Christian board. Hey I think any husband who would say that on a Christian board - talking about private matters on a public forum - inappropriate. There are many who are here so they can remain strong and pure. Comments like that might make the weak stumble. Being an older Christian I am very sensitive to helping the younger Christians stay strong. So that comment caught my eye, and I've been reading as many of your testimony threads as I could find. You sound like a wonderful Christian man, that I would like knowing and talking to.




God is dealing with me, guiding me.




I understand that. I'm sorry if it sound like I'm implying that you're not trying. Or that you're bound for hell in a basket.




If you're going to dismiss all I have said in this thread, then read my partial testimony and dismiss that. I'm not sure what else I can do to convince you that my convictions are REAL, and not justifications for some sin that you have extrapolated from a really poor translation of the original text and CONtext of the Bible.




again - I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm dismissing you. I'm not. I've always enjoyed your posts - and agree with most of what you say. I think I've repped you several times, haven't I? I have great respect for what you've contributed. I really don't get into these kinds of talks very often. But when I do, it's with people I hope will take what I'm saying as said with love, and with concern; because really - that's how it's offered.




You ARE aware that everything you read in the Bible has been completely distorted by the Roman Catholic Church in their rule of literature in the Roman era where print became the transcript of the monks, overseen by the elders and transcribed only in the manner that a group of 3 saw fit to print or burned, yes?

Just because the majority opinion corrupts the Word doesn't mean I will fall into line.

There is NO SUCH THING as an original scripture anymore.

We are warned about this. We are warned not to judge another. We are warned that if we condemn a sin, it had better be GOD'S version of sin, not something we've read from a biased source that destroyed original text to manipulate their version, yes?

That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden, though I'll not get into that here.




It's what you said here that makes me believe we disagree on how holy we see the Bible. I take it without a grain of doubt, it is my standard for living, and my road map to Heaven. I believe God has protected it and we have the literal Words of God in the Bible.




But I'll accept your interpretation.

And fine: If Laurie and I are going to be in Hell for loving each other as we feel God has placed us together, if my faith is fake, if hers is a farce, if all we do is sin out of this FINALLY being happy and sure in life that we have God first, then so be it, I guess.

I guess my faith and my life is a fake. I must be so disillusioned that I can't even hear God, which means that I am not saved, or He won't talk to me if I am, and all is lost anyway.

All this because I made love to my wife after begging God to show me if she's the one, affirming that she is, and finally being bold enough to be PROUD of my wife to a point that I don't need a piece of paper from a secular government biased against my faith in the first place to license me to love her for who she is and be loved for who I am.

I'm sorry you feel that way.


FMI - if showing you a verse in the Bible strikes such a chord ... I gotta wonder why. Don't you? I tried to make my post not personal - I tried to tell you in love what is said. You say you're not all that versed in the Bible - I was just telling you what was there. If you're in the right, then I'm just babbling and you should ignore me.




But if I have to worship a God like that, who misled and lied to my heart, who blessed this and yet condemns it, who takes the purest of joy and the most adamant praise of Him I have ever felt, who will send me to hell because I believed what He was telling me...


I'm not saying you have to worship God MY way. And I am not saying He didn't lead you to Laurie - nor am I saying that He never blessed your union (how can I know that?). All we can go on to know what His will is, is His word, the Bible.

Is is possible that He does bless the union, and would bless it more with that piece of paper? I think He would be more pleased, and bless you all that much more. (can you think of the hugeness of the blessing I'm talking about? If He has blessed you as much as you've said, and I believe you - then I'm talking huge!!) But, again, that is my opinion. Bending the knee to Him, pleases Him. And that's what our relationship should be - trying to do things that please Him.



Then you can have him.

I cannot worship Jesus Christ as a deceiver of my heart. I cannot, under any circumstance, worship the pagan gods that exact vengence from their own deceit.

Sorry we disagree on this, but I guess my wife and I will burn in hell.

I cannot believe that something I cherish so much, something He HIMSELF led me to (go read the link, last post by me) is against His will. If it is, then I give up on Christianity and will leave this board and burn my Bibles without a second thought.


Again, this sounds like I touched a nerve. Don't burn your Bibles ... don't give up on Him. :hug: If I'm wrong, then I'm just babbling.


The righteousness of self does not righteousness of God make one be.

I really wish our discussion hadn't turned into this, but I am seriously questioning if I am even a Christian anymore - or if I want to be associated with this. I need to pray.

Please don't reply if you're going to pick apart a post this long because you don't care to comment on all of it. Either address the points--all of them--or go stave conversations with one-liners in the Anything Goes section where people talk in one-liners.




I could take this really wrong - but I'm not going to, because I know you don't know me. I very rarely post in Anything Goes. I'm dyslexic, reading and staying focused on long posts to respond to in a linear fashion is VERY hard for me to do (like right now? I have a headache from trying so hard). It takes me a LONG time to do it, then re-read it for mistakes, then re-read it for readability - and by the time I'm done what I've posted is long out of date; and that makes me very self conscious about getting into any kind of real on going discussion ... so if I think God wants me to respond, I keep things to the point - I try not to post one liners. Sorry if my way of doing things ruffled your feathers. Please take the fact that I tried to do what you asked as a sign that I do respect and love you as my Christian brother. :hug:


You have seriously given me much to think about, and for that I thank you. :hug:

I'm glad - because that really is all I wanted to do, and believe it or not - you have given me much to think about.

Amazedgrace21
Feb 29th 2008, 06:38 PM
Hi Richard (FMI),

Thanks for the response and sharing your positions in respect to my posts..I welcome a discussion and as such , I have indeed shared my position which is, simply that ..and as was stated "offered' for consideration ( or reconsideration). That is a far stretch from being cast in the role of assuming myself the judge of anyone for having a different position now is it? Nor did I call anyone's salvation into question, perhaps you felt this was the case, but it was not. :hug: I am honestly a bit disappointed that you would shoot from the hip and state to disagree with your position would equate as making that accusation towards you:confused...

I intentionally set forth a personal example's I have encountered and as such, with my daughters consent to engage in an opposing position from mine as it applies to hers since it represents the the subject here and while others may feel this is being directed towards them on some level..that is a conclusion they are creating by personalizing the general discussion.

Am pointing this out as a response to:


Do you realize the insult and condemnation you just slapped many faces with in this statement? I'm not jumping on you, my sister. I reiterate: You are one of my favorite posters. But this is SO unlike you. I think you're grasping for straws and playing off emotions here, rather than accepting that perhaps, as Jesus Himself said about love, that "This is the greatest."

and..

But who are WE, you and I, to judge if two people in a relationship are practicing "marriage sex" or just satisfying fleshly desires?

In the case of my daughter Richard, I can offer much council that has scriptural merit as a response as to why I do confront her on her choices and council her as I do...nor is this 'judging her' , its a request of her to engage in accountibility based on the interdependent aspects of our "love" relationship with one another as well as with God.



Two people living together without that expressed intent does not constitute a common-law marriage, just cohabitation.

Isaac and Rebekah did not just begin living together, there was a clear expression of intent that their union be of a permanent nature (marriage). Another common ingredient between common-law marriage and the one involving a ceremony and license is its legal standing. In order for a common-law marriage to be dissolved, a legal divorce must be pursued. Another common aspect in these biblical marriages that did not involve a public ceremony as compared to those that did is that there was no sexual activity prior to their marriage, no cohabiting.

So my question is, at what point does the cohabitation become a marraige..Two of the biblical purposes of marriage are to (1) use the union to serve Christ as a new unit and (2) to represent the greater reality of the union between Christ and His church. For a Christian, under normal circumstances, a public ceremony in a church enables them to begin their union before family and friends with a testimony of their intent to use their marriage to serve Christ and with a public witness of salvation from sin that is available through Christ.

This is where much that you share as a framework of what marraige is purposed for , as does my daughter lose its validity in respect to God's perspective of the circumstances IMHO> that is not an emotional reaction on my part its a conviction of an intellectual response formed by God's Word Richard..

In this context,God gave the laws and gave the government the authority to determine what constitutes a legal marriage (Romans chapter 13; Colossians 1:16). In the United States, a legal marriage is only binding with the necessary paperwork, and God honors those laws as well. God takes marriage very seriously; it is a sacred covenant not to be taken lightly. To not want to obey the laws of marriage in society indicates that one is not submitting themselves to God's perspectiv and will but in fact subjecting God to their's.

The Bible promotes complete abstinence outside of (and before) marriage. Sex before marriage is just as wrong as adultery and other forms of sexual immorality, because they all involve having sex with someone you are not married to. This is not "me" being judgemental..this is God's positions..I am simply conveying it as well as stipulating that I am in full agreement to abiding by God's will in this matter, thatto do otherwise is a willful act and choice to "sin". That is pretty 'black and white" as you say because there are moral absolutes whenit comes to God's moral truths and laws right?

As a Christian, I am going to be accused of being judgemental when I will not stray from those absolutes and some pretty exclusive positions on many subjects as to the scriptural mandates and contexts God has set forth , I expect it and should right?– that is just the nature of things. So while I may suffer some major grief and even find myself genuinely sorrowed by the response or reaction I am given when I step forward and challange a loved one , a brother or sister in Christ, "in love" with a position..my first priority is to do so on their behalf and before God for doing so..sin is a serious matter Richard..the dangers and harm of it are as much a concern as is the salvational aspects of it..to cite a concern with a brother or sister falling into sin is not calling their salvation into question as you stipulated that you perceived I was doing..it's about the interdependency of our "family ties" in Christ..we are 'family'..love commands we do this reproving, reproofing, correction, etc does it not?

It is important to remember that God wants to give us the desires of our heart, but that is only possible if our desires match His.Biblical morality holds that absolutes pertain to certain circumstances, but you must weigh the circumstances to determine whether the absolute applies to it or not.

The Bible is clear that the definition of love does not rely on feelings; this is evident when we are told to love our enemies (Luke 6:35). It is possible only when we allow the Holy Spirit to work through us, cultivating the fruit of our salvation (Galatians 5:22-23). It is a decision we make on a daily basis to die to ourselves and our selfishness, and let God shine through us. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 tells us how to love others: “Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.”

We have a moral rule that we ought to obey the authorities over us, but we also have another moral rule that we ought to preach the Gospel. When the apostles were in conflict with those two moral rules, they chose not to obey the government, in fact, they disobeyed it and obeyed the higher rule which is to preach the Gospel.

The point being, the circumstances determined what decision they would make in this situation but they were not being relativists. Why not? Because their point of view was that everybody faced with this same dilemma in the same circumstances are obliged to respond the same way. That's what makes the rule an absolute.

They weren't saying, Well, for us, we're going to break the law and preach the Gospel, but for you in the same situation you have a different morality. You do whatever you want. You might cease preaching the Gospel and obey the law. Whatever you want to do. That's relativism.

Biblical morality holds that absolutes pertain to certain circumstances, but you must weigh the circumstances to determine whether the absolute applies to it or not. If it does apply to the given circumstance, it applies equally to everyone who is in exactly the same circumstance. That's what makes it an absolute. The sins of fornification and adultery are indeed moral truths , they are 'absolutes', correct?

It is wrong to lie as a general moral rule, but there are times, even in the Bible, when choosing to lie was better than choosing to see the sacrifice of innocent human life. So in that case, protecting human life by lying (and it happened at least twice in the Scriptures that I know of) was actually commended as a proper moral act because people made a moral decision by applying an absolute rule relative to the circumstances, and in so doing they made the proper moral choice. Not relativism, absolutism.

Marraige is not relative to the circumstances relative people dictate their sexual conduct Richard, this is my position..and is as such because that is what God dictates. This is not putting limitations on God, this is living within the limitations God set's for us and for only good and holy reasons IMHO..this is why I sited the legal marraige standing of Mary and Joseph..this was set into force by the cultural standards prescibed by God that are to be adhered to.."honored"..submitted to when they uphold oppose to contradict Gods moral laws...

there was no 'cohabitation until every step of the ceremony set forth by God's model of marraige were abided by both Mary and Joseph to the fullest extent both in spiritual and letter context of these laws..it involved ceremony and 'paper work' to have the status God acknowledged legitimized this marraige..both before Him and in public as one of His .it set a prescedent for others to know and recognized what made this marraige , "a marraige"...on every level , each required to be present ..'per God'.

Which is why I stated this observation:

Quote:
It was a very serious and grave matter in terms of this "standard" being taught by Christ Himself as the one we as Christians abide by..and even if the world argues otherwise..they will always be "wrong", as will we if we go with their standards and definition of what a commitment is and that there is such a thing as "pre-marital sex"..its called fornification..period end..and this is always a "sin"..it can't be prettied up by calling it love either..any more than denial is a river in Egypt..

The truth offend others but sin offends God Richard..which should be the priority when it comes to the position we take on sin when we speak to others about it?

The worlds definition and perspective of romantic love was the context of my emphasis of how so very often folks reduce love to nothing but an emotion and banal activities within a relationship, where as scripturally love is quite different...as in the case of my ex..he found a soul-mate, ergo God meant for him to leave his other 'mate' and live happily ever after..or in the case of other''s the love is great so long as the sex is better..if they are not getting sex, they ain't getting no loving..if you re-read this I spoke in general of this mentality and its 'wrongness', its sinful nature Richard..Christians are just as guilty of this as are the unsaved..as such, they are the ones who are in error... truth stands regardless if they agree with it or not, or how they feel about it.

Some thoughts left here..and again for prayerful consideration..

Do I acknowledge my position is taken with offense by others?:cry:

Absolutely and that saddens me on the level that it is not my desire to hurt someones feeling's..but at the same time I can also say because the concern is one of conviction that stipulates their welfare and well being is at stake along with honoring God, this is not judging them..it's approaching the sin.

Upholding the biblical position when asked or presented an opportunity to do so is a biblical mandate I can not discharge based upon personal comfort levels, mine or someone elses right?..

In the case of my daughter, naturally I am vested in her well being..for some, myself, mistakes in life end up being one of the modes where the toughest lessons are eventually learned..but that is not required and would be wise to avoid when forseeably possible IMHO:).

Furthermore, God discourages it when it comes to sin being our 'teacher'..She is not only my child and a gift from God in Christ..but also my sister in Christ..so I don't get 'left' off the hook with any of the responsibilites of my love for her..nor desire to either!

:hug:

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 06:58 PM
Hun, take the good with the bad. We learn even though we get insulted. PLEASE don't take anyone here as trying to correct you. Just accept it as debated opinion.

This board would be SADLY lacking without you. You are, in fact, about the only person here my wife enjoys reading posts from. Not because you agree with us, but because you won't judge us, I think (I can't ask her right now, she is at work teaching Yoga - and I miss her already, cheesy person I am :)).

Please, please be the duck you offered another to be.

I love you, my sister I<3Jesus! :hug::kiss::hug::kiss::hug:

Awww, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy!

HisBlood
Feb 29th 2008, 07:26 PM
I'm a little late to the party, but . . .

I personally am convicted to wait until marriage. I don't want to take the chance of meeting a person, falling "madly in love" with them, sleeping with them, and then in the end breaking up with them because the relationship wasn't what I thought it was. Also, I don't want my sister or brother in Christ stumbling because of my actions.

But, on the other hand, I can see how people like FMI feel. I don't think I truly agree with all of the points he brought up, but I don't fault him for it. That's between him and God. If I came up against any other Christian who was doing the exact same thing, I would share my opinion and leave it at that. There's no point in turning a brother or sister from the faith because you have a personal conviction from God.

I would, however, like to say to I<3 Jesus that I think you are being a bit rough on the people who believe strongly on this issue. That's their opinion and they have a right to it, just like you do. You need to let things roll off and continue on instead of being defensive and, if I can be so bold as to say, rude. Please do not take this the wrong way, but I think you need to step back and take a deep breath sometimes instead of typing that sentence you really want to type.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

karenoka27
Feb 29th 2008, 07:42 PM
I'm a little late to the party, but . . .

I personally am convicted to wait until marriage. I don't want to take the chance of meeting a person, falling "madly in love" with them, sleeping with them, and then in the end breaking up with them because the relationship wasn't what I thought it was. Also, I don't want my sister or brother in Christ stumbling because of my actions.
May the Lord bless you with a wonderful man who will be privileged to enter into a pure relationship. He will treasure you as a rare jewel, I am certain.

But, on the other hand, I can see how people like FMI feel. I don't think I truly agree with all of the points he brought up, but I don't fault him for it. That's between him and God. If I came up against any other Christian who was doing the exact same thing, I would share my opinion and leave it at that. There's no point in turning a brother or sister from the faith because you have a personal conviction from God.
You must remember that this is a Christian message board..and this particular forum is called Bible "Chat"...therefore we are discussing what we each believe. No one is attempting to turn a brother or sister from the faith in any way. We are to, however, encourage one another in our walk with Christ to be obedient to what He calls us to do. That is all we are doing.

I would, however, like to say to I<3 Jesus that I think you are being a bit rough on the people who believe strongly on this issue. That's their opinion and they have a right to it, just like you do. You need to let things roll off and continue on instead of being defensive and, if I can be so bold as to say, rude. Please do not take this the wrong way, but I think you need to step back and take a deep breath sometimes instead of typing that sentence you really want to type.
She has already responded to this in a previous post:
I<3 Jesus-"Sadly, I have a hard time backing down when provoked. I figure it is best if I just eliminate the cause of my stress and strife. I have a stress based illness and I see nothing good coming from "arguing" on the internet. I have sites I can visit to actually edify myself ;) I am going to be spending more time there and less time here."

Anyway, that's my two cents.
and you are more than welcome to share here your thoughts...just as we are doing...;)

aliveinchrist
Feb 29th 2008, 07:50 PM
*raises hand* I have a question!

And this is not directed at any ONE person, but EVERYBODY that reads this:

I would like to know, why is it when Christians try to help other Christians on the narrow path of righteousness, other Christians will call them judgemental, critical, la la la?


It is common sense what Jesus would do and would not do. Would he have sex before marriage? No. Would He live with another person before marriage? no. And on and on. Looking at who Jesus was, what Jesus did, and what Jesus preached, and what Jesus calls FOLLOWERS of HIM to do, it's common sense and practically written in bold letters right in front of our eyes what it is we should and shouldn't do.
We are to be an example to other people.



Now, that being said, some Christians ARE judgemental and critical. *stands up* I can and do tend to be one of them. But, I don't MEAN to be. I try to help and give advice, but sometimes I get so worked up TRYING to help, that I come across as critical. And for that, I apologize to everybody.


Next, as a CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY, we ARE SUPPOSED to lovingly, gently, correct other Christians when we see them/hear them in a sin.
Not a sin that WE think is a sin, but a sin that JESUS thinks is a sin.

As to what consitutes a marriage, I don't know. I really don't know. But I do know, that sex before marriage is wrong. That's what I do know.



Next, yes we are all strangers on this board, but we are also all brothers and sisters in Christ and we HAVE to remember that. All I've seen on here are GOOD people, trying to help others. And we should NOT ignore that and be so quick to jump down each other's throats all the time.

I like EVERYBODY on this board. A BIG :hug: to you all!

Edited to add: FMI, I enjoyed reading your posts, and I understand where you are coming from now. I don't agree, but I DO understand. PLEASE don't think you're making a wrong choice being a Christian and don't let other people turn you away from Jesus. You need Jesus, just like I do, and everybody else does. It really broke my heart to read that you are rethinking everything. Please don't.

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 08:18 PM
I would, however, like to say to I<3 Jesus that I think you are being a bit rough on the people who believe strongly on this issue. That's their opinion and they have a right to it, just like you do. You need to let things roll off and continue on instead of being defensive and, if I can be so bold as to say, rude. Please do not take this the wrong way, but I think you need to step back and take a deep breath sometimes instead of typing that sentence you really want to type.

If I typed what I really want to type 95% of the time I would be banned. You are entitled to your opinion, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 08:22 PM
*raises hand* I have a question!

And this is not directed at any ONE person, but EVERYBODY that reads this:

I would like to know, why is it when Christians try to help other Christians on the narrow path of righteousness, other Christians will call them judgemental, critical, la la la?

Why is it that some people hide behind correction and the concept of being convicted in order to tell other people how they should live?

aliveinchrist
Feb 29th 2008, 08:24 PM
Why is it that some people hide behind correction and the concept of being convicted in order to tell other people how they should live?

Do you read the Bible? At all?

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 08:29 PM
Brother Mark, I believe she answered your question. look on page 3. This is what she said


"I never said sex before marriage was acceptable."

I saw that. However, that doesn't really address the question. Shoot, there's a lot of things I don't say that I believe. Thanks for the help though. I am just asking for clarity. A simple yes or no would be nice. Or "sex outside of marriage is sin" or something along those lines. It would clear it up. Anyway, thanks for doing the search. ;)

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 08:31 PM
Why is it that some people hide behind correction and the concept of being convicted in order to tell other people how they should live?

Hi I<3. I've been gone all day but I just scanned through the thread. Lot's of things to answer. But I am still hoping to get a simple statement from you. I went back and read your post. I am hoping for a little clarity which is why I keep asking.

Is sex outside of marriage a sin?

Shoot, all you gotta do is type a simple yes or no in response to this question. :saint:

Thanks ahead of time. ;)

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 08:33 PM
Do you read the Bible? At all?

Yeah, there is no need to be snotty. Last time I checked Jesus didn't have a 'tude.

karenoka27
Feb 29th 2008, 08:36 PM
Why is it that some people hide behind correction and the concept of being convicted in order to tell other people how they should live?
Then again, why do some people take their conviction and hide behind justification to continue to live as they please in spite of what the Lord might think...before you respond..go back and read Scripture. You have yet to share Scripture to back up your views.

Luke 6:46-49"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."

aliveinchrist
Feb 29th 2008, 08:39 PM
Why is it that some people hide behind correction and the concept of being convicted in order to tell other people how they should live?

2 Timothy 4:2

Preach the Word! Be ready in season AND out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with ALL long-suffering (patience/love) and teaching.

That's just one. Give me a little while, and find more.

aliveinchrist
Feb 29th 2008, 08:40 PM
Yeah, there is no need to be snotty. Last time I checked Jesus didn't have a 'tude.

I'm sorry. You're right. Jesus didn't.

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 08:42 PM
Then again, why do some people take their conviction and hide behind justification to continue to live as they please in spite of what the Lord might think...before you respond..go back and read Scripture. You have yet to share Scripture to back up your views.

Luke 6:46-49"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."

I am not having premarital sex, so there is no need to hide behind anything. I am just tired of seeing a handful of people, always the SAME people, tearing others down and hiding behind the conviction nonsense. I'm sticking up for the little guy here. It isn't enough you guys have made him question his faith, you just keep getting your digs in (not you specifically). I am tired of seeing those same few people attack their fellow board members with the backing of the moderators while those who question it get slapped on the wrist repeatedly.

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 08:46 PM
My brother Mark,

Sir, I adore your posts. I read every word you post on these forums regardless of the section it is in, regardless of whether I happen to agree with you or not. You, my friend, have a true gift from God to lovingly correct and to discern and explain in a manner that does not reek of condemnation and sanctimony. I respect you, which is the highest compliment this old soldier has to offer.

Thank you kind sir! What a way with words you have. ;)


In regards to your post, and since this is Bible Chat and not "Idle Opinion Chat," I need to address your use of scripture, here.

Excellent! As that is one of the purposes of bible chat. Shoot, we all ain't gonna agree down here because we see through a glass darkly. But there are many things we can come to agreement on.


Please look at the adjectives used in these verses, RE: Sexual relations:

Immoral, lustful, impurity, idolatry...

These were written to the church at Thessalonia(?) and to the church in Corinth. Both "dens of iniquity."

Right. But we can also finds those same words written to other churches and in other letters.


I may not know a whole bunch about the Bible, but I am fairly well versed in history, especially that of the Roman Empire's dual fall from power.

Hom*sexuality was rampant in those days. The council, the senate, and basically all aristocrats (as all leaders were then) were known to indulge in same-sex fornication as a privilige of their status - commoners, 90% of the population not serving, accepted these practices as a sign of luxury and status. Like you and I might covet that new BMW or big screen TV the Jones' have with their affluence.

I believe this has a great deal to do with context. "...Defraud his brother..." Why did he use "brother" rather than "defraud his wife?"

Those are valid points. But defrauding can also be found in other parts of scripture. Keep in mind too the definition of defrauding... making suggestions, promises, etc. and getting the other person's hope up, but not following through. In other words, a man that dated a girl, got her excited about marriage, led her on, but then didn't follow through, is guilty of defrauding her and his brother, or said another way, her father.


At that time, harlots, another very specific definition used in these same scriptural passages to the Corinth Church (in other words, these same words but as quoted elsewhere than you did), abounded in those time. Hookers, we'd call them today. They stood under the arches and sold themselves for lust and money - lust and money... Two of the biggest things we are warned against throughout the Bible, yes?

So I think we lose quite a bit of context by applying these verses to a loving, committed, monogomous relationship between a man and a woman in love. I'm not outright saying they don't apply to a man/woman relationship set in forever, but I do think we need to view what the author was viewing at that time - which would be akin to today's San Fransisco, in my opinion (and for what it's worth).

While prostitutes were a problem, there are other issues with that interpretation. For instance, Jesus said that for a man to lust after a woman in his heart was guilty of adultary. And keep in mind the very definition of the words used in the passages I quoted are "porn" or unlawful sex. So, we simply have to determine what is unlawful sex.


I don't think we do the context justice by comparing it to Hebrews: The city proper in Corinth and Ephesus and Thessalonia(?) was not the place loving, committed relationships took place. A man, a commoner, was basically unable to afford to raise a family within the city proper. They did, but they coveted the affluence those in seats of power (the rich elite) held. Conversely, in Hebrews, we are addressing a completely different class of people. These people married for rights to land between families and, generally, practiced predisposed marriages and were spread out all over the land where courting a woman took days just to travel to see her.

But see, you are looking back to culture to qualify scripture. There is some good in that. Until we look at the overriding picture of scripture. When a law is given to multiple cultures, at some point, we must admit it is no longer about culture. Right? Once we reach agreement on this issue, then we can move forward on the whole when is sex OK and when is it not OK. But just so you know, it's not important that you agree with me. ;)



So, in essence, I think Paul is telling the churches that amongst all this sexual sin they are surrounded by, they are to stand straight and tall and not succumb to the temptation to act as all those around them were acting.

Right. Wouldn't you say our current culture is similar to their's when it comes to sex? Shoot, there are massage parlors everywhere on highways these days. Sex outside of marriage is now the norm.


They were to set the example.

That is part of the reason. The other reason is simply to live a life pleasing to God the Father. This, in my opinion is the most important reason.


And, to bring us full circle, I feel that Laurie and I do set an example of a pure, pristine, undefiled (read: Dirty) marriage. While we are "unwed," we ARE married in every sense of the word sans legalistic mumbo jumbo to make feel gooders feel good with politically correct public paperwork trails.

Thus, I contend that, in its context, relations before marriage are NOT a sin if they are conducted in the same spirit and purity that a secular "marriage" "licenses" someone to claim.

It's not bucking the system, my friend, it's simply apathy to conform TO a system and, instead, turning to God for HIS blessing - which is the only blessing I personally feel any two, loving, committed, Godly people require to consumate their relationship.

Your thoughts, please?

I'll deal with the whole marriage issue later. It is worthy of discussion. My opinion may surprise some folks, but I haven't studied it out as much. Is it OK with you if I don't fully address the marriage thing yet? I can give you an uninformed opinion if you insist, but I would rather wait.

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully and clearly respond FMI. I really appreciate it.

karenoka27
Feb 29th 2008, 08:51 PM
I am not having premarital sex, so there is no need to hide behind anything. I am just tired of seeing a handful of people, always the SAME people, tearing others down and hiding behind the conviction nonsense. I'm sticking up for the little guy here. It isn't enough you guys have made him question his faith, you just keep getting your digs in (not you specifically). I am tired of seeing those same few people attack their fellow board members with the backing of the moderators while those who question it get slapped on the wrist repeatedly.

Can I share something with you? We are not here as a handful of people to tear anyone down, on the contrary..we are here to build each other up. If you read the posts without feeling like you have to defend anyone, you might be able to see that. No one is attacking..only encouraging a brother to walk with the Lord in a way that would bring Him glory. No one is even telling Follow Me Infantry to break up with Laurie, but to only consider what he is doing before he takes her to be a wife unto himself. That is all.

Unfortunately in this world today..everyone wants to live the way they want and not consider what the Lord might desire. I truly care about FMI, and I am praying for him.

2 Timothy 4:2-"Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

aliveinchrist
Feb 29th 2008, 08:56 PM
I am not having premarital sex, so there is no need to hide behind anything. I am just tired of seeing a handful of people, always the SAME people, tearing others down and hiding behind the conviction nonsense. I'm sticking up for the little guy here. It isn't enough you guys have made him question his faith, you just keep getting your digs in (not you specifically). I am tired of seeing those same few people attack their fellow board members with the backing of the moderators while those who question it get slapped on the wrist repeatedly.


:hmm: hmmmm.....Jesus corrected other people. He would tell them what was a sin and what was not. He did it lovingly and with patience and kindness. We are supposed to follow Jesus' example, are we not?

karenoka27
Feb 29th 2008, 08:58 PM
May I suggest that everyone stop the sarcastic remarks back and forth and if you made any (raises hand...) then please apologize to each other. (I did.)
We are here to discuss what the Bible has to say, please share what the Bible has to say.

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 09:02 PM
I'm not talking solely about this thread. If I had the time and patience I could post links to dozens of threads in which Christians rip others to shreds and are allowed to do so because they hide behind the notion that they are instructing and the people who are being "instructed" are feeling convicted and that is why they disagree. It is hard to listen to someone when they infer that you are not a Christian and that you are swine. I am referring back to one thread, but similar incidents have happened countless times. The snotty, "I'm better than you" attitude that I have encountered doesn't really make me want to listen to anything certain people have to say. I'm just saying people can be a little more Christ-like in their "instruction."

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 09:04 PM
:hmm: hmmmm.....Jesus corrected other people. He would tell them what was a sin and what was not. He did it lovingly and with patience and kindness. We are supposed to follow Jesus' example, are we not?

I see very few people correcting others lovingly on this board.

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 09:07 PM
We are here to discuss what the Bible has to say, please share what the Bible has to say.

I would not have started this thread in this section, but I am not the thread starter. As far as apologies go, I have yet to see one that I thought was sincere. I will try not to be sarcastic anymore.

Edited to add: I just got a sincere apology in PM. Miracles do happen ;) OK, I am sorry. That was supposed to be sarcastically funny. It was a nice PM.

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 09:08 PM
But who are WE, you and I, to judge if two people in a relationship are practicing "marriage sex" or just satisfying fleshly desires?

Now, I am about to give some pretty tough scripture for this one. Please remember, I didn't write it. It ain't coming from me! :P But, we are to judge the body. All this talk about "not judging" each other isn't always valid. While I can't know what's in a persons heart if they don't tell me, I can discern if an action is sinful. 1 Cor 5 deals with just such a thing. Even though it's a little long, I am going to post the entire chapter and highlight key verses.

1 Cor 5

5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. 2 And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. 3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler — not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.
NASB



If having sex before a piece of paper changes anything between two Godly, Christ-centered people, then they are doing something wrong. God exthols us to give Him the glory in everything. The Holy Spirit is infused into every believer. By sharing ourselves with each other in "that" way (sexual contact), and by giving God the glory for the love and closeness that accompanies that final vestibule of self, aren't we actually releasing each others Holy Spirit to be shared between the two, rather than kept for self? You are on to something here. It is one reason I believe sex is to be saved for marriage and marriage only.


If either the man or the woman is saying that they refuse to open themselves fully to the other, that they will hold back, then they are not fully and Godly committed. A piece of paper and a blessing will NOT change that. It's being selfish, wanting to hold on to a sense of self, refusing to allow your soon-to-be betrothed to know the FULL you. Actually, we have a great example of this in scripture. Joseph was going to "divorce" Mary because she was pregnant. Scripture even says he was a "just man" because of the way he went about it.

Matt 1:18-19

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly.
NASB

Even though they were married, Joseph had not yet slept with her. Perhaps they were betrothed as that is far more than engagement but the process of marriage wasn't fully completed. Either way, it had not been consumated. And betrothal to the Hebrews was far more than engagement. It required a divorce so to speak. This is an incredibly difficult thing for those that say premarital sex is OK to get around. Joseph did not sleep with Mary before they were married. And upon finding out she was pregnant, being righteous, he was going to put her away privately.


To be one entity, nothing can be hidden. Everything must be known. Waiting until marriage vows are exchanged is a way of entrapment if you're holding anything back. It promises one to the other without having fully given of self - being selfish and withholding self pieces.Come on now FMI. Forgive me for being so forward. But holding back sexually is self denial not selfish. I would argue just the opposite, that having premarital relations was all self centered because the flesh would rather be pleased than to wait until marriage for the consumation. This argument won't hold much weight with folks. Might want to find some scripture or a scriptural example to back you up on that one.


That's no way to start a life commitment bound by legal statutes. That's back to the marriage thing. I'll wait on that one.


Why? If I marry legally without that heart intent of forever, why am I now somehow indemnified from sin? Likewise, why I am sinning if I have that commitment but do not have the paper?Well, if you are not married in God's eyes, is it sin? That's the crux of the question I am asking and answering. When one is married can be dealt with later. But first, I am hoping to establish when is sex sin and when is it not.


And Mary and Joseph were a ONE TIME thing for the birth of Christ to protect the David lineage as prophesied. Certainly this is NOT what He expects of marriage if he have 50 billion examples of X and one example of Y?Hmmm. Why are Mary and Joseph not a good example but Adam and Eve are? Adam and Eve are much more a one time even than Joseph and Mary. :hmm:


Fornication has NOTHING to do with pre-marital sex. NOTHING. Read my post to Mark for a glimpse of the contextual history surrounding the use of the verbiage, and we'll discuss it further after that if you're willing. Care to look at all occurances of fornication in scripture FMI? Many cultures were told not to fornicate. I am going to do that soon. I may lay out many verses that deal with sexual sin. But it could get to be a rather long post. ;)

aliveinchrist
Feb 29th 2008, 09:08 PM
I see very few people correcting others lovingly on this board.


That didn't answer my question: are we supposed to follow Jesus' example?

Really?

That's sad. Cause all I see are people trying to help and show other people the correct path of righteousness, according to what Jesus wants.

Maybe I'm taking it a different way then you? :dunno:

I don't know. :giveup:

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 09:10 PM
I am not having premarital sex, so there is no need to hide behind anything.

Glad to hear that. Why not? Would it be sinful? ;)

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 29th 2008, 09:13 PM
I think some people are so entrenched with the idea of witnessing to others and teaching others that they themselves have forgotten what it was to be taught.

:hmm:

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 09:17 PM
I'm not going to get into the whole "married because we couldn't control the flesh" thing, because, frankly, I think Paul was off his rocker when he wrote that.

Hmmm. That's an interesting statement FMI. You don't think Paul was writing something inspired by God? You know my opinion... we can't pick and choose scripture to toss out because we don't like it.

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 09:17 PM
I think some people are so entrenched with the idea of witnessing to others and teaching others that they themselves have forgotten what it was to be taught.

:hmm:

No doubt. I like to think that truth is caught more than it is taught. ;)

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 29th 2008, 09:19 PM
No doubt. I like to think that truth is caught more than it is taught. ;)

Interesting that this is said, particularly in this thread.

*edit*

I want to add something. Some in this thread were doing what they were supposed to, discussing what they believe to be a sin and using scripture and doing it without any pretense of "Me=Right; You=Wrong!". Some did not, and it's disgusting. Some in this thread are needlessly combative, no matter their asinine excuses to the contrary, and for no better reason than the excuses themselves. Many non-believers view Christians with a pre-conception based on the actions of the 2nd type I mentioned, and I wonder why.

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 09:25 PM
All this because I made love to my wife after begging God to show me if she's the one, affirming that she is, and finally being bold enough to be PROUD of my wife to a point that I don't need a piece of paper from a secular government biased against my faith in the first place to license me to love her for who she is and be loved for who I am.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But if I have to worship a God like that, who misled and lied to my heart, who blessed this and yet condemns it, who takes the purest of joy and the most adamant praise of Him I have ever felt, who will send me to hell because I believed what He was telling me...

Then you can have him.

I cannot worship Jesus Christ as a deceiver of my heart. I cannot, under any circumstance, worship the pagan gods that exact vengence from their own deceit.

Sorry we disagree on this, but I guess my wife and I will burn in hell.

I cannot believe that something I cherish so much, something He HIMSELF led me to (go read the link, last post by me) is against His will. If it is, then I give up on Christianity and will leave this board and burn my Bibles without a second thought.

A couple of thoughts. First, our hearts can deceive us quickly. Second, what parts of scripture do you believe to be tainted? I ask this because, if our hearts can deceive us, we will need scripture to correct us.

Jer 17:9-10

9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
10 "I, the Lord, search the heart,
I test the mind,
Even to give to each man according to his ways,
According to the results of his deeds.
NASB

God searches the heart. We are judged by the Word and His word. If the bible is tainted, we are in a lot of trouble.

obeytheword
Feb 29th 2008, 09:29 PM
I am not having premarital sex, so there is no need to hide behind anything. I am just tired of seeing a handful of people, always the SAME people, tearing others down and hiding behind the conviction nonsense. I'm sticking up for the little guy here. It isn't enough you guys have made him question his faith, you just keep getting your digs in (not you specifically). I am tired of seeing those same few people attack their fellow board members with the backing of the moderators while those who question it get slapped on the wrist repeatedly.

Just as an FYI since FMI has not responded in a bit. He has expressed to me personally he intends to go back and meditate on scripture on the subject. Please do not defend someone who does not appear to want defense, and call what you are doing seeking justice for the little guy.

The Word of the Living God is true. If I am doing something that another sees as sin, I CERTAINLY hope they would come to me and show me by the Word that it is wrong. That is all that is happening here. Yes, as in any conversation when people have very strong convictions one way or the other, it can get heated, but the goal should NOT be to defend our "position" on the subject, but rather to try and figure out what Gods position is.

I have had MANY times when confronted by sin in my life that I questioned my faith, or at least my theology or both!!! In every single case, I have come out on the other side MUCH stronger. It is VERY easy to THINK that God would want this or that.

I.E. God wants me to be happy - and so having sex with the person I will marry one of these days makes me happy, so surely he is ok with it...

But when you go to the Word trying NOT to defend a position, but rather to see what the Word says - it becomes clear what God really wants.

Theft is also wrong by scripture. If someone asks me about stealing cable, or copying a DVD - I would respond the same way and tell them it is a sin. It is in no way picking on someone, but rather HELPING them see the truth of Gods word more clearly.

In any case, It is my prayer that the spirit of offense you have expressed seeing present would be allowed to disperse, and be replaced by the Peace of God which surpasses all understanding!

Be Blessed!

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 09:34 PM
Just as an FYI since FMI has not responded in a bit. He has expressed to me personally he intends to go back and meditate on scripture on the subject. Please do not defend someone who does not appear to want defense, and call what you are doing seeking justice for the little guy.

I wasn't referring solely to him.

Dude, I think we seriously need a virtual jump to conclusions mat on this board. Who wants to go first? Oh wait...

*snicker*

Edit: I am sorry, I just have a really sarcastic sense of humor and it gets the best of me. ;)

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 29th 2008, 09:45 PM
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/7256/jumpconclusionrr3.jpg

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 10:06 PM
Alrighty guys and gals, time to reign in the thread a little bit. Let's stay off of what is marriage or not marriage. Going forward, we are going to focus only on is extramarital sex sinful or not. Once those posting here reach a consensus, or agree to disagree, then we can move forward on the marriage discussion.

OK? Excellent. Post on about what constitutes sexual sin.

Blessings!

Mark

I<3Jesus
Feb 29th 2008, 10:10 PM
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/7256/jumpconclusionrr3.jpg

Ha, too funny! Office Space is a great movie.

ddmor
Feb 29th 2008, 10:12 PM
Based on Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled. Logically that means anything outside of marriage is defiled.

ravi4u2
Feb 29th 2008, 10:14 PM
Alrighty guys and gals, time to reign in the thread a little bit. Let's stay off of what is marriage or not marriage. Going forward, we are going to focus only on is extramarital sex sinful or not. Once those posting here reach a consensus, or agree to disagree, then we can move forward on the marriage discussion.

OK? Excellent. Post on about what constitutes sexual sin.

Blessings!

MarkAs sexual immorality and marriage are inter-twined, it will be very difficult to discuss one without mentioning the other. But as this is Bible Chat, discussions and/or opinions should be kept biblical, whatever slant it may take depending on one's Biblical orientation. But this is certainly not a place for blanket statements, emotional standpoints, etc. Such views, though may be valid for the poster, should be posted elsewhere in Bibleforum, which were designed for them. This I say as we don't want anyone to feel that they are being 'ripped' apart for something that is said based on the Bible. This after all, is Bible Chat.

Brother Mark
Feb 29th 2008, 11:08 PM
As sexual immorality and marriage are inter-twined, it will be very difficult to discuss one without mentioning the other. But as this is Bible Chat, discussions and/or opinions should be kept biblical, whatever slant it may take depending on one's Biblical orientation. But this is certainly not a place for blanket statements, emotional standpoints, etc. Such views, though may be valid for the poster, should be posted elsewhere in Bibleforum, which were designed for them. This I say as we don't want anyone to feel that they are being 'ripped' apart for something that is said based on the Bible. This after all, is Bible Chat.


They are intertwined, I agree. However, we can lay aside our disagreements about marriage momentarily. We can speak of married or unmarried couples. Once we clear up that extramarital sex is sinful, then the marriage debate can begin again. But what's happening is the marriage thoughts are clouding the other issue. Thanks for being patient and understanding.

Paraclete
Feb 29th 2008, 11:45 PM
Alrighty guys and gals, time to reign in the thread a little bit. Let's stay off of what is marriage or not marriage. Going forward, we are going to focus only on is extramarital sex sinful or not. Once those posting here reach a consensus, or agree to disagree, then we can move forward on the marriage discussion.

OK? Excellent. Post on about what constitutes sexual sin.

Blessings!

Mark

My problem with this issue has always been this: If premarital sex is sinful between a man and a woman who are engaged to be married, what "magic act" makes it suddenly not sinful to preform the same actions after the marriage ceremony? Practically speaking, I can see the benefit of holding premarital sex is sinful; for many people later realize they had never truly committed to the other person in their heart, and this often times after the marriage ceremony.

Thanks,
Paraclete

ravi4u2
Mar 1st 2008, 12:18 AM
They are intertwined, I agree. However, we can lay aside our disagreements about marriage momentarily. We can speak of married or unmarried couples. Once we clear up that extramarital sex is sinful, then the marriage debate can begin again. But what's happening is the marriage thoughts are clouding the other issue. Thanks for being patient and understanding.So, if you need consensus, my vote is:
YES! SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE IS SIN!

bjones
Mar 1st 2008, 12:23 AM
Alrighty guys and gals, time to reign in the thread a little bit. Let's stay off of what is marriage or not marriage. Going forward, we are going to focus only on is extramarital sex sinful or not. Once those posting here reach a consensus, or agree to disagree, then we can move forward on the marriage discussion.

OK? Excellent. Post on about what constitutes sexual sin.

Blessings!

Mark

OK, for a Pharisaical pronouncement:
anything outside of a marriage arranged by the Father is sin...
It indicates that the daughter was not 'loving, honoring and obeying him'.
It indicates that the groom has no respect or honor for the Father either, and the marriage is akin to a theft.

So, sex outside of that relationship is sin, because a marriage, papers or not, outside of that relationship does not reflect the pattern and teaching of marriage in the Bible.

The prodigal son had broken the relationship with his father. Had his luck been better, and had he become a great heart surgeon and saved hundreds of lives, he would still be dead to the father until a reconciliation.

No amount of good works, credentials, or papers overcomes a broken relationship with the father. Only a heart of repentance, and offering oneself as a bondslave to the Lord and Master Jesus brings one back into the relationship where one can proceed to do the good works that were created for you from the foundation of the earth.

Usually I am called a Lordship salvationist rather than a 'cheap gracer' as some would presume to do. Pointing out an infatuation to judge others by finely parsing the law is not intended to condone sin nor to minimize it, merely to highlight an unhealthy legalism, in my humble opinion.

There are only three reasons to finely parse the law today. To judge someone else, or to justify a behavior your conscience is telling you is wrong. Both of these are lousy reasons. The third reason is to play the role of the Pharisee to experience first hand how easy it is to go from Bible student to judge. This can be healthy if you don't get stuck in the role.

I<3Jesus
Mar 1st 2008, 12:25 AM
What "magic act" makes it suddenly not sinful to preform the same actions after the marriage ceremony?

Well first they cut down a tree and then they send it to a paper mill...

LOL :P

Sorry, I am in a silly mood. Sleep deprivation will do that to you.

MMC
Mar 1st 2008, 01:04 AM
Sex outside of marriage is sin.

Now....*why* do I believe that?...I am not biblically well-versed enough to know where it says that in scripture. I've been taught that by other Christians.

SO....please Mark (or anyone else in this thread)....cite the verses that support (or refute) this statement. I'm confident there are some....and I'd really like to go read them myself.

:)

ravi4u2
Mar 1st 2008, 04:54 AM
OK, for a Pharisaical pronouncement:
anything outside of a marriage arranged by the Father is sin...
It indicates that the daughter was not 'loving, honoring and obeying him'.
It indicates that the groom has no respect or honor for the Father either, and the marriage is akin to a theft.

So, sex outside of that relationship is sin, because a marriage, papers or not, outside of that relationship does not reflect the pattern and teaching of marriage in the Bible.

The prodigal son had broken the relationship with his father. Had his luck been better, and had he become a great heart surgeon and saved hundreds of lives, he would still be dead to the father until a reconciliation.

No amount of good works, credentials, or papers overcomes a broken relationship with the father. Only a heart of repentance, and offering oneself as a bondslave to the Lord and Master Jesus brings one back into the relationship where one can proceed to do the good works that were created for you from the foundation of the earth.

Usually I am called a Lordship salvationist rather than a 'cheap gracer' as some would presume to do. Pointing out an infatuation to judge others by finely parsing the law is not intended to condone sin nor to minimize it, merely to highlight an unhealthy legalism, in my humble opinion.

There are only three reasons to finely parse the law today. To judge someone else, or to justify a behavior your conscience is telling you is wrong. Both of these are lousy reasons. The third reason is to play the role of the Pharisee to experience first hand how easy it is to go from Bible student to judge. This can be healthy if you don't get stuck in the role.This is too simplistic a view. While I agree that it is Biblically correct pattern that the father has to arrange or consent to a marriage, there are quite a bit of variants. For example, what happens if the father is an unbeliever and wants to arrange the wedding of his child with another unbeliever? Should she seek the Lord for an appropriate partner or blindly follow the arrangement of the father? If we place too much emphasis on patterns and shadows, we do not need the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Word says that those that are led by the Spirit, they are the sons of God. Not those that are led by patterns and shadows. For example, Hosea took Gomer a prostitute for a wife, in obedience to the Word of the Lord. His father did not arrange for him to marry the prostitute. Nevertheless, Hosea did that in obedience to the Lord. Not that this should be a norm, but it is a good illustration of the need to hear the Spirit over prescriptions, patterns and shadows.

ravi4u2
Mar 1st 2008, 04:57 AM
My problem with this issue has always been this: If premarital sex is sinful between a man and a woman who are engaged to be married, what "magic act" makes it suddenly not sinful to preform the same actions after the marriage ceremony? Practically speaking, I can see the benefit of holding premarital sex is sinful; for many people later realize they had never truly committed to the other person in their heart, and this often times after the marriage ceremony.

Thanks,
ParacleteThe 'magic act' is something called 'covenant'. How did you 'magically' become a follower of chist one day? The same logic is in play here.

ravi4u2
Mar 1st 2008, 05:02 AM
Sex outside of marriage is sin.

Now....*why* do I believe that?...I am not biblically well-versed enough to know where it says that in scripture. I've been taught that by other Christians.

SO....please Mark (or anyone else in this thread)....cite the verses that support (or refute) this statement. I'm confident there are some....and I'd really like to go read them myself.

:)Nobody says it better than Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews. Paul says, "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge."

Athanasius
Mar 1st 2008, 05:04 AM
My problem with this issue has always been this: If premarital sex is sinful between a man and a woman who are engaged to be married, what "magic act" makes it suddenly not sinful to preform the same actions after the marriage ceremony? Practically speaking, I can see the benefit of holding premarital sex is sinful; for many people later realize they had never truly committed to the other person in their heart, and this often times after the marriage ceremony.

Thanks,
Paraclete

Are we completely forgetting the spiritual aspect of marriage here, or. . . ?
Not to mention the covenant aspect, which Ravi brought up.


Sex outside of marriage is sin.

Now....*why* do I believe that?...I am not biblically well-versed enough to know where it says that in scripture. I've been taught that by other Christians.

SO....please Mark (or anyone else in this thread)....cite the verses that support (or refute) this statement. I'm confident there are some....and I'd really like to go read them myself.

:)

Today at Bible study we were talking about the wages of sin; the mandatory, "for the wages of sin is death. . . " came up. Surprisingly, no one knew the reference. So, knowing full well it's Romans 6:23-24 I blurted out Romans 3:23 (For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). I wanted to be sneaky, changing only one number seemed the best way.

How many people do you think, inside this Bible study, checked to make sure I referenced the right verse? No one. . . Now, we all know the verse is in the Bible (specifically, we all know it is in Romans), but we should be taking a little more care with the little things, before they become big things.

So I want to ask you; you don't feel any impetus to find verses yourself?

Diggindeeper
Mar 1st 2008, 07:10 AM
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Word meanings (from The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition)

fornicate - Sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other.

adultery - sexual intercourse between a married person and one other than the lawful spouse.


It seems so strange to me that a man can say, and mean it, with all his heart that he really, truly loves a woman, but will not marry her ...yet...for whatever reason. And I am not pointing this to FMI or any one person at all. I'm really not. I see this all the time. The man won't marry the lady for whatever reasons -- they get back more on their income tax...they make it better financially, by living together and combining incomes...they love her so much, they are determined to "get on their feet financially"...and on and on.

But, the fact is, the lady who is so deeply loved will not inherit anything, if he should get killed in a car wreck or dies before the marriage is legal! Children or even sisters or brothers or nieces or nephews could legally take everything he left, and who would care for her then?

She can NEVER draw his Social Security, if she is not his legal spouse!

She will Never draw veteran's benefits, because she is not his legal spouse!

She can have NO say-so over his funeral and burial arrangements, no matter how much he and she have discussed this before his death!

Now, considering these FACTS, I must ask...how does that show how much he truly loves the woman? If he can remain in the co-habitating status, but death claims him before he legally marries her, she will be left with nothing. NOTHING! How does that show true, heartfelt love?

Isn't the husband supposed to be the protector and the provider and the priest of the home? It just seems glaringly obvious to me that he is doing neither, if he just lives with her, without legally marrying her.

We can say we are married all we want to, but someday, we will certainly have to PROVE it, one way or the other.

Marriage, and I'm talking about legal marriage, whether it be before a preacher, a priest, a rabbi, a Judge, a Justice of the Peace or a Captain of a ship, offers all kinds of legal protection to the spouse.

Whether we look at it from a secular viewpoint or a Biblical viewpoint...it seems to me that marriage is much more than claiming to be husband and wife.

Now, just one thing, and this point I am saying especially for FMI.
Darlin', it seems to me you have found a jewel of a woman. You should prize her greatly, and I perceive that you do! Solomon said:

Proverbs 18: 22
22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.

I also perceive that woman, Laurie, loves you with all her heart. And, let me tell you something. Its just in a woman, when she finds a good man, and loves him, she will willingly follow him to the ends of the earth. He may be a Missionary, but she will willingly leave her homeland and her family and her friends behind and follow him to the deepest tribal areas of the most remote jungles of Africa!

Now, Darlin' marry her. Legally. Show the rest of the world, and all of us here, that you do love her, and want to provide for her, even in case she outlives you. You have had bad experiences in the past with marriage. But this time, I honestly do perceive that you do love her, with your total being. And, she loves you. I just get the feeling she would follow you to the ends of the earth, wouldn't she? FMI, she deserves that legal marriage. Do it. Don't wait.

One more thing, I have learned over the years that a marriage is not made up of two people. NO! Its made of three, for unless Christ Jesus is in that marriage, and that home, it cannot survive. You have learned that also.

(And Mark, I apologize. After writing this, I see I have gone against your wishes and went on with the marriage part and not just the pre-marital stuff. But, I wrote as I felt led by the Holy Spirit, and now, I must leave it to you to just delete the portions that are "off-topic." I can't bring myself to delete any of it. I said what I had to say. But I won't get mad if you delete for me. :()

Follow_Me_Infantry
Mar 1st 2008, 11:01 AM
Right. But we can also finds those same words written to other churches and in other letters.

Yessir. Phillipi, Corinth, Rome, Ephesus...

The common denominator is the amount, and the MANNER, of the sin prevalent in those larger cities.

As I stated, I am not dismissing the relevance of the admonishments or even the words and the fact that they are important to administer in all things. I am only attempting to set to paper (within the thread here) the context the authors were influenced by at the time - which, yes, falls to cultural and socio-significant surroundings.

While many of these verses are a common theme to all the churches, others are not. So even the authors of the letters realized and recognized that tailoring the construct and the context was important to the type of audience they were addressing - as all good writers and teachers will.

Can we agree on that last sentence? It's an important aspect to the entire basis of my argument.



Those are valid points. But defrauding can also be found in other parts of scripture. Keep in mind too the definition of defrauding... making suggestions, promises, etc. and getting the other person's hope up, but not following through. In other words, a man that dated a girl, got her excited about marriage, led her on, but then didn't follow through, is guilty of defrauding her and his brother, or said another way, her father.

But what has this to do with the topic? I'm sure you posted it with a specific purpose, but I am failing to grasp it.

Are you suggesting that by not marrying her I am on a road to defraud her, even unintentionally, because a lack of follow-through exists, vis-a-vis seeing it all the way through to an actual wedding ceremony? I can kind of see that, I suppose. It's just a really difficult concept for me to grasp because I know there is no deceit in my heart. I'll meditate on this. But if you could elaborate, I'd be grateful.




While prostitutes were a problem, there are other issues with that interpretation. For instance, Jesus said that for a man to lust after a woman in his heart was guilty of adultary. And keep in mind the very definition of the words used in the passages I quoted are "porn" or unlawful sex. So, we simply have to determine what is unlawful sex.

Agreed. We must also define what is unlawful sex in the eyes of the Lord versus the eyes of the church proper.

I think we are on the same page, but we don't agree on the intent here, brother.

I believe that the idea of "unlawful sex" has been distorted by the church - both because you lose much in any translation and because the church is known, especially in those days, to censor and add as they see fit.

In other words, Jesus' version of "lust" and the definition we use today are different.




But see, you are looking back to culture to qualify scripture. There is some good in that. Until we look at the overriding picture of scripture.

There is nothing BUT good in that. If you wish to know an author's intent, look at his or target audience. You would not write the same letter to convey meaning to a believer and an unbeliever, and the reason is simple: Not everything means the same thing when the audience has different cultural and socio backgrounds.

If you took a trip to Bavaria (or any other less-Americanized part of Europe) and asked a resident there, "How are you doing" you're going to get every nuance of every good and bad thing they are feeling and experiencing in that day. Conversely, used here in the states, it is nothing more than a greeting. So cultural context is extremely relevant. If a Bavarian resident came here and asked how you were, they would get insulted at you not answering the question fully. They really want to know how you ARE. And you'd be puzzled. The CONTEXT, the meaning, is lost in translation and demographics.

Paul understood this and custom tailored his works to target each church individually, rather than Xeroxing a general statement. We must do the same, for we are not Corinth, Ephesus, etc.

So the question is this: Is "unlawful sex" the same today as it was in *that* day? And I do not believe it is. Nor do I believe it is the same for a believer with pure intent versus a non-believer that just wants a little Friday night action.


When a law is given to multiple cultures, at some point, we must admit it is no longer about culture. Right? Once we reach agreement on this issue, then we can move forward on the whole when is sex OK and when is it not OK. But just so you know, it's not important that you agree with me. ;)

I do happen to agree with you - with this caveat:

When a law is given to multiple cultures, it is generally the author's intent to use the demographics to allow for interpretation of that law as it best applies to that particular area, culture, and sets of beliefs.

So, yes, it's not always about culture when a strict law is set to edify ANY person. This is probably Paul's intent, that some concepts are concepts in word regardless of the surrounding influences (culture).

However, he DID tailor the context to each a bit differently.

So, once again, and I need you to understand this, Mark, I am not dismissing these scriptures as irrelevant to us or anyone. Rather, I am framing context so we don't add or take away from the Word as it is written. To really know that Word, we must take into account culture, socio circles, and the demographics that CAUSED Paul to write to them in the first place. The intent.





Right. Wouldn't you say our current culture is similar to their's when it comes to sex? Shoot, there are massage parlors everywhere on highways these days. Sex outside of marriage is now the norm.

Yes. But not all of us conform to that particular aspect of our surrounding influences and cultural acceptance of what we know is sin. In that instance, Jesus told us not to lust after a woman - which we do if we patron those establishments.

But that is a FAR cry from making love to one woman in a Godly, committed, monogomous, healthy relationship between one man and one woman - a point everyone here seems to be sidestepping, yourself now included.




That is part of the reason. The other reason is simply to live a life pleasing to God the Father. This, in my opinion is the most important reason.

Absolutely! :hug:

Mark? Guess what? Some of us praise God for what we share with our significant other.

It goes back to scripture:

Matthew 15:11

What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

In other words, it's all about the heart, the INTENT!

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Think about that verse. Now look at what most here are saying.

You're not looking at the heart, my heart, my INTENT. All you see is sex, the outward appearance of my love for her.

God knows WHY we share what we do, and I do not feel condemned because I know, and more importantly, HE knows, that my heart, my intent, is PURE and focused on bringing HIM the glory.

I understand that you and others cannot see giving glory to God by making love, and in its outward appearance, it seems like justification and nothing more.

All I can ask is that y'all believe me that I am not justifying. And I can demand, THROUGH SCRIPTURE POSTED ABOVE, that judging other than the heart is not of the Lord.

That's why I see no sin in pre-marital sex between two loving, committed [...] in healthy relationship. The intent isn't to knock out a piece and roll over looking for your watch wondering how you'll get out of bed without waking her up. The heart and the intent are focused on bringing Him the praise and glory and honor for the magnificent, beautiful, Holy thing that making love out of love while in love is.

Can so many here not see that?




I'll deal with the whole marriage issue later. It is worthy of discussion. My opinion may surprise some folks, but I haven't studied it out as much. Is it OK with you if I don't fully address the marriage thing yet? I can give you an uninformed opinion if you insist, but I would rather wait.

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully and clearly respond FMI. I really appreciate it.

That's fine with me, brother. And I hope that the scripture and extrapolation I posted above gives you pause and something to consider about how GOD judges things, versus how MAN judges things. As holy as Paul was, he still ain't God and is not the judge of hearts and intents.

And thank YOU for taking all this time with me, Mark. I don't need to agree to learn. If the worse that comes of this discussion is that I am "forced" to study scripture a little deeper and with a mind towards a different understanding than that of my own, then I really am the winner!

Looking forward to your reply, my friend! :hug:

MMC
Mar 1st 2008, 01:39 PM
So I want to ask you; you don't feel any impetus to find verses yourself?

Yes, I do. In fact, after I posted my message, I started to search and I found Exodus 20:14 - "You shall not commit adultery" My dictionary concordance (in the back of my bible) defines adultery as sex with someone not your spouse....but I don't think that's a complete definition - because most legal definitions of adultery require that one person actually BE married. SO that leave a whole category of persons who are not married (but having sex)....I *think* that's where fornication comes into play. But no one has posted any verses about what exactly fornication is - (although Mark keeps hinting that at SOME point he's going to lay out his argument for us). It was late, and I'm a bit laid up right now with flu, and so only able to handle reading/searching/posting in small bits at the moment. I got tired so I didn't post that verse, and I knew I wasn't done yet (ie, needed to find more verses defining adultery/fornication).

Please forgive me if I'm asking for help. I have only recently begun studying scripture in earnestness (Have been working my way systematically through the New Testament and am presently on Romans). I have VERY little knowledge of Old TEstament, and I've got a pretty poor concordance - so its hard for me to find things. Plus, a lot of times I remember something I've read, but can't remember the exact book/verse where I read it. I don't have a lot memorized. So I post here sometimes for help.

Brother Mark
Mar 1st 2008, 01:52 PM
Yessir. Phillipi, Corinth, Rome, Ephesus...

The common denominator is the amount, and the MANNER, of the sin prevalent in those larger cities.

Ever do a study on immorality? It's used in the gospels as well. Many of those cities you mentioned are gentile cities. But what about Jewish issues? We find sexual immorality/fornication forbidden in practically ever new testament book. Not all, but almost all.

We see it in Matthew, John, Acts, 1 & 2 Cor., Gal, Ephesians, Col, 1 The, Jude, and Rev. We also see sexual sin addressed in Romans. It is dealt with indirectly in Timothy. It is something Paul addresses over and over to many cultures.


As I stated, I am not dismissing the relevance of the admonishments or even the words and the fact that they are important to administer in all things. I am only attempting to set to paper (within the thread here) the context the authors were influenced by at the time - which, yes, falls to cultural and socio-significant surroundings.

Will you explain away all the verses on culture? For I can give many through many different cultures to show God's displeasure with it? Let's look at Jewish culture, where sexual promiscuity was not approved of. A very powerful passage is one on divorce. What grounds did Jesus lay out for divorce in scripture?

Matt 5:31-32
32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
NASB

Notice, Jesus didn't say that if you divorced your wife because of adultery, then one was committing adultery. No, he said because of unchastity. It is actually the word we translate fornication that I gave above. It is porneia. In other words, porneia doesn't always have to mean adultery. How is it possible to divorce your wife when no adultery has been committed? Since we are dealing with Jewish culture, let's look at the OT and see what God laid out in scripture.

Ex 22:16-17

16 "And if a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.
NASB

In Jewish culture, if a man had sex with a virgin prior to marriage, he was obligated to marry her. Why? Because God said he had to. Now for some more verses. This next set of verses is very, very interesting. For it defines words for us that we can use in the NT.

Deut 22:13-21

13 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says,' I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' 15 then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 And the girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
NASB

Alright, here's some scripture Jesus learned his "don't divorce except for immorality" from. I can give you plenty of OT verses about divorce concerning immorality, not just adultery, but simply because she was not a virgin at marriage. What's interesting about this scripture, is God is saying that if she is not married, and yet has had sex, she is a harlot! That can be showed over and over again. What is a harlot? One who exchanges sex for some kind of pay off. Is sex outside of marriage a trade? You bet it is! Doesn't always have to be money either. It can be emotional security, pleasure, love, or many other things. The point is, when a woman, who did not sell herself for money, was found to not be a virgin, God called that harlotry.

Let's go back to the NT and see some more of what Christ said concerning sexual immorality.

Matt 19:8-9
8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
NASB

Here again we have a quote from Jesus. A reason for divorce is not limited to adultery, but sexual immorality! Again, the word used is porneia. And it means harlotry, which we now know means the woman wasn't a virgin at marriage.

Now, if we go into marriage knowing she wasn't a virgin, we can't divorce her. Because we knew going in what was up. But should she become sexually immoral within the marriage, then divorce is back on the table.

So now, we have sexual immorality dealt with in a culture of gentiles in the epistles and in the culture of Jews. From one extreme to the other, God has said the same exact thing, sex outside of marriage is wrong.


Are you suggesting that by not marrying her I am on a road to defraud her, even unintentionally, because a lack of follow-through exists, vis-a-vis seeing it all the way through to an actual wedding ceremony? I can kind of see that, I suppose. It's just a really difficult concept for me to grasp because I know there is no deceit in my heart. I'll meditate on this. But if you could elaborate, I'd be grateful.

I am saying sex outside of marriage is defrauding. As for you and your wife/gf, I am not saying anything on that issue as you have stated you are married and I am not addressing what constitutes a marriage yet. ;) But yes, for a man to sleep with a woman with whom he is not married he has defrauded not only her, but her family. Back to the culture thing... why does it mention your brother? Because family was owned back then, hence the dowry. The OT says that if a man sleeps with a virgin, he has to pay the dowry. To defraud is similar to stealing only it has a trick or deception tied to it. It means doing things and saying things that tend to make the other party believe your intentions are permanent when they are not.


In other words, Jesus' version of "lust" and the definition we use today are different.

You might be surprised to find out what Jesus definition of lust is. Here's a direct quote from Him. We can dig deeper into it as we go along. Lust doesn't have to be sexual in nature to constitute a sin. Here's a passage where Jesus used the word lust.

Matt 5:27-28

27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; 28 but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
NASB

What's interesting, is God didn't use the word "wife" there. Now the word translated "woman" can mean "woman, especially a wife" it doesn't have to. But let's focus on the word lust. I agree, we have distorted it in churches today. We have made it weaker, not stronger.

NT:1937

NT:1937 epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o); from NT:1909 and NT:2372; to set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or otherwise):

KJV - covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).

It simply means to long for or set your heart upon. It also recognizes that their is a right way and wrong way for one to long. But it is not ok to long after a woman! Doesn't have to be sexual in nature at all for God to consider it lust.



There is nothing BUT good in that. If you wish to know an author's intent, look at his or target audience. You would not write the same letter to convey meaning to a believer and an unbeliever, and the reason is simple: Not everything means the same thing when the audience has different cultural and socio backgrounds.

Depends. If we use culture to explain away intent, we get into trouble. It is something that helps us understand the word as long as we don't explain it away and say "Oh, that doesn't apply to me".


If you took a trip to Bavaria (or any other less-Americanized part of Europe) and asked a resident there, "How are you doing" you're going to get every nuance of every good and bad thing they are feeling and experiencing in that day. Conversely, used here in the states, it is nothing more than a greeting. So cultural context is extremely relevant. If a Bavarian resident came here and asked how you were, they would get insulted at you not answering the question fully. They really want to know how you ARE. And you'd be puzzled. The CONTEXT, the meaning, is lost in translation and demographics.

Agreed. It's important. But we still have to be careful.


Paul understood this and custom tailored his works to target each church individually, rather than Xeroxing a general statement. We must do the same, for we are not Corinth, Ephesus, etc.

So the question is this: Is "unlawful sex" the same today as it was in *that* day? And I do not believe it is. Nor do I believe it is the same for a believer with pure intent versus a non-believer that just wants a little Friday night action.

Well, that's why I wrote what God said to the Jewish culture above. Now we have two cultures that are polar opposites and God said the same thing to both. No sex outside of marriage.


But that is a FAR cry from making love to one woman in a Godly, committed, monogomous, healthy relationship between one man and one woman - a point everyone here seems to be sidestepping, yourself now included.

Nope. I am not sidestepping it. I am saying let's simply talk about sex in marriage or outside of marriage. If you consider that relationship a married one or unmarried, it shouldn't impact our discussion at all. Now, if we can reach agreement on sex outside of marriage, then we can start to determine what constitutes a marriage. One step at a time my friend.


Mark? Guess what? Some of us praise God for what we share with our significant other.

You mean wife or husband? Right. ;)



It goes back to scripture:

Matthew 15:11

What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

In other words, it's all about the heart, the INTENT!

Correct! And guess what else is in that verse? Sexual sin. Let's look at it.

Mark 7:18-23
18 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated? "(Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
NASB

Care to guess what Greek word was used for fornications? The same one God said was reason for divorce in the earlier passage. It's the one that means a woman was not a virgin before she was married. See, when sexual sin is in the heart, it defiles a man or a woman.



"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Think about that verse. Now look at what most here are saying.

You're not looking at the heart, my heart, my INTENT. All you see is sex, the outward appearance of my love for her.

Oh, you might be surprised FMI. But again, we are getting ahead of ourself. I am not speaking about your situation. At this point, I am believing she is your wife because you said so earlier. I am just speaking to sex outside of marriage that will defile a person.


God knows WHY we share what we do, and I do not feel condemned because I know, and more importantly, HE knows, that my heart, my intent, is PURE and focused on bringing HIM the glory.

OK. But we don't always base right and wrong about how we feel and what our heart tells us. Remember, the heart is desparately wicked and deceitful above all things and no one but God can know it (Jer 17:9). And what brings God glory? For us to obey Him from the heart.


That's why I see no sin in pre-marital sex between two loving, committed [...] in healthy relationship. The intent isn't to knock out a piece and roll over looking for your watch wondering how you'll get out of bed without waking her up. The heart and the intent are focused on bringing Him the praise and glory and honor for the magnificent, beautiful, Holy thing that making love out of love while in love is.

Can so many here not see that?

Because it's not scriptural. Every reference to nonsinful sexual intimacy in scripture is between married couples. If the heart is pure, the heart will marry the woman in question. But again, I am leaving the definition of marriage out of it for now. I do know this, all scriptural reference to nonsinful sex is within the confines of marriage.


That's fine with me, brother. And I hope that the scripture and extrapolation I posted above gives you pause and something to consider about how GOD judges things, versus how MAN judges things. As holy as Paul was, he still ain't God and is not the judge of hearts and intents.

I took those verses and put the context around them. I hope you don't mind. God does judge the heart. The heart matters all! From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks FMI. Your words will reveal your heart as do mine. As for judging, we do judge the body. We are instructed to in 1 Cor 5. But that's another thread too.


And thank YOU for taking all this time with me, Mark. I don't need to agree to learn. If the worse that comes of this discussion is that I am "forced" to study scripture a little deeper and with a mind towards a different understanding than that of my own, then I really am the winner!

Looking forward to your reply, my friend! :hug:


Well, here you go buddy. I have a lot more scripture to bring to the table, but that's enough for now. Don't you think so? I am looking forward to the next round. ;)

Brother Mark
Mar 1st 2008, 01:54 PM
Sex outside of marriage is sin.

Now....*why* do I believe that?...I am not biblically well-versed enough to know where it says that in scripture. I've been taught that by other Christians.

SO....please Mark (or anyone else in this thread)....cite the verses that support (or refute) this statement. I'm confident there are some....and I'd really like to go read them myself.

:)

Hi MMC! Always nice to see you in threads that I am in. Read my responses to FMI because it will be with him that I build a case against sex outside of marriage. By the end of the thread, you will have a good many scriptures. ;)

MMC
Mar 1st 2008, 01:58 PM
Today at Bible study we were talking about the wages of sin; the mandatory, "for the wages of sin is death. . . " came up. Surprisingly, no one knew the reference. So, knowing full well it's Romans 6:23-24 I blurted out Romans 3:23 (For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). I wanted to be sneaky, changing only one number seemed the best way.

Why would you do that? Do you have any new believers in your bible study?


How many people do you think, inside this Bible study, checked to make sure I referenced the right verse? No one. . . Now, we all know the verse is in the Bible (specifically, we all know it is in Romans), but we should be taking a little more care with the little things, before they become big things.

I agree we need to be diligent in studying scripture. I am trying to read for comprehension right now - and I'm trying to memorize verses that have made an impact on me. I'm taking in a lot of new info and it can be overwhelming. I knew the verse you mentioned, but I did not know it was mandatory, and I didn't know it was found in Romans. (I"m on Romans chapter 2 right now.) :cry:

That really hurt my feelings. But I'm also heavily medicated, so maybe I'm just a little messed up at the moment.

bjones
Mar 1st 2008, 02:25 PM
This is too simplistic a view...Maybe I am not explaining things in terms that are easy to understand.

Pharisee - one whom Jesus condemned for using the law to judge others and justify their own sin.

My response was, what I would think, an obvious legalistic answer to a demand for a legalistic answer. It was given intended to be a very good legalistic answer, but a legalistic answer none the less.

All legalistic answers are simplistic. I have been attempting to pull the conversation away from legalisms without success, since every point I make is responded to with more legalisms.

Let me make it more clear for those who are trying to justify themselves by having a piece of paper:

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

If you play the Pharisee by saying "I am justified because I have a paper" and sin at any other single point of the law, you are guilty of the whole law.

If you play the Pharisee by adding to the law in order to bind men to the law, then you add you name to the list of those to be judged by the law.

Matt 23: 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Since there is no law that says you must have a paper, all those making such claim are adding to the law. My example in the last post was intended to be a very good analysis of the law to demonstrate how the law kills. My example "kills" many of the 'good' Christian examples of marriages that were done without the father's permission. It was done to mock the very idea of adding to the law in this day and age when we have such clear teachings from Jesus to not do that, and such clear condemnations for those who do.

Likewise, those who would justify themselves by claiming to have a clear conscience in the matter without a paper, place themselves under the law of the conscience as mentioned in Romans. Any point of guilt in their conscience makes them guilty of the whole law of their conscience. The law is the law. And we are all guilty.

Christ died to set us free from the law of sin and death. Go be free from guilt and free from sin. "Go and sin no more", he says, not "Go and add to your guilt and sin, just like the Pharisees".

The law will never justify, and it will never give life. Adding to it won't help.

This whole thread should start out with the disclaimer "If we were Pharisees, how would we apply the law in the context of our modern society."

Follow_Me_Infantry
Mar 1st 2008, 02:30 PM
Hi sister Karen!

Blessings to you and yours this Saturday morning!


To Follow Me Infantry: "I apologize for the way I came at you. I did read your posts and I did miss the one part in your post where you said you were married twice before...
Please understand that I came to this thread full knowing that I would be going against those who see no wrong in having sex outside of a legal marriage recognized by the law.

I understand that, ma'am, and no apologies necessary. They are appreciated, but unnecessary. If anything, I owe YOU an apology for incorrectly inferring that you skipped my posts. I offer that apology now.

I am the minority in these threads, and it's easy to feel ganged up on and get defensive. I really try not to and to listen to everyone as brothers and sisters who have my very best interests at heart, to help me improve my walk with Him Who sustains me. Doesn't mean I always succeed, just that I always try.



Please hear me..I was there..I did the same thing..I even had a child outside of marriage, so I am only trying to get my point across that I have been convicted that it is wrong.

I too have children (a son, actually) out of marriage. A more Godly, purposed kid doesn't exist on this planet (in my fatherly tainted eyes, of course - any parent would say the same).

I am just not convicted it is wrong. Whether I will be or not remains to be seen. There are some compelling arguments here, and some profound scripture posted for me to meditate on through prayer to ask God to show me His desires for my life and in this situtation.

No matter the outcome, we're all looking at scripture and praying for the right words, and that honors God, and that's the REAL meaning behind living - to honor Him. We all win! :pp



Since you thought I didn't read your threads I went back and read them again. I will respond or ask you a question according to where I don't understand.

Again, my apologies for the assumption, Karen.



I'm guessing you probably don't like me much and I understand

Nothing could be further from the truth, my dear sister. I am sorry for anything I have said or alluded to that gives you that impression! I cherish you and I always look forward to your input. You're good people, Karen.


...I am saddend though that there seems to be "sides" according to those who are married and those who are having sex outside of a legal marriage..but I suppose that is what keeps this discussion going.

Hands and feet, sweetie. God made us all different.

I am not saddened that there is a line. We shouldn't agree on everything. The only way to learn is to be exposed to things you don't know, don't understand, or discuss those things you don't agree with. So we're all learning, with the glory going to God. It seems as if there are sides. But in reality, we're all brothers and sisters that are BOTH teaching AND learning.

That's a good thing.


Quote: "We are not legally married..." but later you say, "And not that I need to state this in our defense but I am marrying Laurie legally."


Why? you said you already are married in God's eyes.

Because I want her to have legal access to my rights and assets in the event of my death.

And because she wants a formal wedding.

Just not right now. Right now, we are married in our hearts, before God, so the formailities that are ceremonies are just a facade to celebrate. They are inconsequential. We are husband and wife, and nothing about that will change when we go through the "actual" and legal ceremony to make it somehow more proper.

I just cannot saddle her with my burdens right now. It's not the right thing to do.


Quote: "We both completely agree that adultery is a sin against God."


Please help me to understand..you mentioned you were married before..how is your not being with another woman now not committing adultery against your first wife?

I didn't leave her (either of them). They left me in search of better - in one case, because better was already in her arms.

I am not the alduteress here.

I wasn't saved, really saved, my first marriage.

Either way, I tried like he-double toothpicks to reconcile. She wouldn't have it because she found what she thought was better. I didn't divorce her - SHE divorced ME. My first wife couldn't handle being an Infantry wife and strayed. I have forgiven her for that, but adultery is a no-questions-asked deal breaker and we divorced. My second wife, which was a common-law marriage, became a cop and found all the attention she ever wanted as one of the few good looking females on the force. She started a relationship with a married guy and dumped my worthless butt. Then she took custody of my kids away from me.

What would you have me do? Spend the rest of my life crying in my beer? I moved on. They couldn't keep their legs closed and their hearts pure, and that is not my sin to atone for.


Quote:"One on one monogamous relationship expected to last forever."


Didn't you make that promise the first time you were married.."til death do you part?"

Yes. Except in the case of adultery. And THAT, my sister, IS scriptural.


In all fairness you mentioned that you are not fully familiar with Scripture if I'm saying that correctly? Ok...then be fair to me in the fact that as I did come to understand Scripture, I understood that God does not want us to have relations outside of marriage...

John 4:15-18-"The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."16He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back." "I have no husband," she replied.Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."
Jesus did not condemn her...he pointed a truth out to her.


John 8:3-"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Again Jesus did not condemn this woman...but He did tell her to not do it again. FollowMeInfantry..I am not condemning you...I am only trying to understand how you can Biblically justify it.

Thank you for those, and thank you further for not condemning me just because you don't agree with me.

Here's how I justify it scripturally:

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

God judges the intent of my heart, and my heart and my intent are pure and focused on loving Laurie THROUGH a love for God and His bestowed blessings.

As I told Mark, y'all are seeing sex. But that's not it. It may be foreign to you or others to view making love as a form of worshipping God and giving Him glory, but that's exactly what this is: Sharing each other before God, honoring the gift, with pure hearts and pure intentions. We (Laurie and I) have consumated our marriage before God by giving to each other of ourselves freely and without reservation. It has made us stronger because we brought it before the Lord and recieved His blessing before we ever even held hands. We are, in HIS eyes, married and, as such, not violating His word. And I praise Him for that gift, the blessing that is giving of myself fully to her without reservation.

Call it warped thinking if you'd like, but God knows my heart and man only sees the externals - the icky sex. Laurie, God and I see it different. We see a beauty that can only be expressed in such a manner, and we use it to glorify Him that provides it.

Does that make sense?


And as far as being obedient to the law of the land that we live in:
Romans 13:" 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Agreed 100%!


The law of the land recognizes marriage...not people saying they love each other before God.

Then let man recognize us for what we are: Married. I respect the law of the land, and I respect that God extols us to respect that. But I am not bound by it in the context of this discussion. They'll give anyone a license to marry, which is a cheapened example of my love for Laurie and not the deciding factor here. In my opinion, of course!







Can I just say that this is a Bible Chat forum and yet I've gone through all the posts and found very little chatting about the Bible or Scripture used to back up what is being said. I think some of you who are jumping on the wagon to attack, should bring something with you.Perhaps..Scripture..I say that in love.

I am trying to do that very thing. But I don't know scripture as well as the rest of you, so it literally takes me a half hour of varying key words to finally find the verse I am looking for. But that is good, as it IS helping me to learn where certain concepts and phrases are found.




I really am sorry. I just love the Lord so much and I often find myself defending Him...I forget that He doesn't need me to do that..He is perfectly capable of standing on His own Word...

Honey, please stop apologizing! I am here to learn, and I don't see you being defensive - just helpful.

I love you, sister! :hug:

Studyin'2Show
Mar 1st 2008, 02:31 PM
There are only three reasons to finely parse the law today. To judge someone else, or to justify a behavior your conscience is telling you is wrong. Both of these are lousy reasons. The third reason is to play the role of the Pharisee to experience first hand how easy it is to go from Bible student to judge. This can be healthy if you don't get stuck in the role.There is actually a fourth reason to 'parse' the law, and that would be to study in order to understand more clearly what God wants our eyes to see and our ears to hear. Notice, this reason has nothing to do with judging or justifying anything. ;)

God Bless!

MMC
Mar 1st 2008, 02:41 PM
Matt 5:31-32
32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
NASB

My NIV says "marital unfaithfulness". What translation is 'NASB'? Also, how do you know what the greek words are that are being translated? (I would like to learn how to do this).


Notice, Jesus didn't say that if you divorced your wife because of adultery, then one was committing adultery. No, he said because of unchastity.

I don't understand what you are saying. Did you mistype something? If you divorce your wife for adultery, then how are you "committng adultery"? (Or, even using "unchastity" - If you divorce your wife for "unchastity", then one is committing adultery.)

I thought Christ was saying that "unchastity" WAS a legitimate reason for divorce, and that if you divorce on this basis, then you ARE NOT causing your wife to be an adulterer, and you yourself are not an adulterer if you decide to remarry.


It is actually the word we translate fornication that I gave above. It is porneia. In other words, porneia doesn't always have to mean adultery.

Again, how do you find out what the greek word is that was translated?



Alright, here's some scripture Jesus learned his "don't divorce except for immorality" from. I can give you plenty of OT verses about divorce concerning immorality, not just adultery, but simply because she was not a virgin at marriage. What's interesting about this scripture, is God is saying that if she is not married, and yet has had sex, she is a harlot! That can be showed over and over again. What is a harlot? One who exchanges sex for some kind of pay off. Is sex outside of marriage a trade? You bet it is! Doesn't always have to be money either. It can be emotional security, pleasure, love, or many other things. The point is, when a woman, who did not sell herself for money, was found to not be a virgin, God called that harlotry.


So now, we have sexual immorality dealt with in a culture of gentiles in the epistles and in the culture of Jews. From one extreme to the other, God has said the same exact thing, sex outside of marriage is wrong.


But yes, for a man to sleep with a woman with whom he is not married he has defrauded not only her, but her family. Back to the culture thing... why does it mention your brother? Because family was owned back then, hence the dowry. The OT says that if a man sleeps with a virgin, he has to pay the dowry. To defraud is similar to stealing only it has a trick or deception tied to it. It means doing things and saying things that tend to make the other party believe your intentions are permanent when they are not.

So, a woman who is not a virgin when she marries is a harlot, and harlotry is sin.

A man who has sex before he marries is a defrauder, and defrauding is sin.

A man or woman who is married, and has sex with someone not their spouse, is an adulterer, and adultery is sin.

Thus, ANY extramarital (outside of marriage) sex is sin.

Have I got that right, Mark?



You might be surprised to find out what Jesus definition of lust is. Here's a direct quote from Him. We can dig deeper into it as we go along. Lust doesn't have to be sexual in nature to constitute a sin. Here's a passage where Jesus used the word lust.

Matt 5:27-28

27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; 28 but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
NASB

So...if a man lusts after another woman not his wife, he has committed adultery in his heart - does that mean that if my husband lusts after another woman (but does not actually have sex with her), I have grounds for divorce? :confused

bjones
Mar 1st 2008, 02:42 PM
Perhaps a constructive topic would be "As Christians, is it wise to... or loving to... or expedient to..."

In the sphere of permissible behaviors, mature Christian limit their behaviors based upon:

Wisdom gained from scriptural teaching, or experience of other Christians
Love, to not cause others to sin
Testimony to send a message

So is it wise to not have a paper? Probably not since the union might not be recognized in some circles, this can place legal burdens upon each other and can limit your interactions with some groups.

Is it loving to not have a paper? This could depend upon the circumstances, but in most cases in the US it is un-loving to not make the commitment public and living together is just an extension of the hedonistic rebellion of the 60's. It is the woman who is put at risk in such arrangements, and a loving man, in my opinion, would take the steps required to protect her, and I have done so to protect my wife.

Is it a good Christian testimony? I don't think so. It looks too much like the world for my tastes, so it is not how I would try to establish a Christian witness. Even in groups where you might be more accepted, you may find that they are more judgmental of you since they will apply the standards they think are core Christian standards to your life, even if they don't apply them to themselves.

These now are stated as my opinions based on my experience and knowledge of the world and the Bible. As I mature, perhaps someone will convince me to think otherwise.

Brother Mark
Mar 1st 2008, 02:51 PM
My NIV says "marital unfaithfulness". What translation is 'NASB'? Also, how do you know what the greek words are that are being translated? (I would like to learn how to do this).

The NIV is a thought for thought translation. So the interpreter decides what is meant in the Greek text, then translates that meaning into English. The NASB or KJV or NKJV is more a word for word translation. It is easier to do a word study with.

As for the words, you can use a PC or a Strong's concordance. For years I used the Strongs. I think esword is a free PC program on the net that will allow you to look up the Greek words and their meaning. The Strongs concordance is in most PC bible programs these days but it is linked to the KJV bible. If you are not familiar with that version, it is best to get an interlinear scripture. That's a bible that has both Greek/Hebrew and English one under the other so you can see which word was translated to a specific English word. With a PC, you can also see every occurrence that a Hebrew or Greek word is used in scripture. It is a powerful tool for word studies. If you like, start a thread on this stuff and you will get a lot of input from others, including me on the subject.


I don't understand what you are saying. Did you mistype something? If you divorce your wife for adultery, then how are you "committng adultery"? (Or, even using "unchastity" - If you divorce your wife for "unchastity", then one is committing adultery.)

The adultery was caused upon the remarriage because the divorce was invalid.


I thought Christ was saying that "unchastity" WAS a legitimate reason for divorce, and that if you divorce on this basis, then you ARE NOT causing your wife to be an adulterer, and you yourself are not an adulterer if you decide to remarry.

He was. Sorry about the confusion. I was just showing that according to old testament law, the immorality he was referring to was premarital sex. It didn't have to be adultery that occurred within the marriage itself.


Again, how do you find out what the greek word is that was translated?

See above. Start another thread on this and you will get so many options to do it that your head will swim. ;)


So, a woman who is not a virgin when she marries is a harlot, and harlotry is sin.

In the OT, harlotry wasn't always money for sex. But in general, there is a trade going on without a commitment. Hence the word harlot. But yes, you are correct.


A man who has sex before he marries is a defrauder, and defrauding is sin. Yes. And a whoremonger. But that is another study too.


A man or woman who is married, and has sex with someone not their spouse, is an adulterer, and adultery is sin.

Thus, ANY extramarital (outside of marriage) sex is sin.

Have I got that right, Mark?

Very well laid out. Of course, we could add additional names to the sin but all those will work.



So...if a man lusts after another woman not his wife, he has committed adultery in his heart - does that mean that if my husband lusts after another woman (but does not actually have sex with her), I have grounds for divorce? :confused


I don't think so. Sorry to disappoint you. :D Why? Because Jesus said "you have committed adultery in your heart". As a believer, we can't always know another's heart. But we can know their actions. Yet, God is concerned about the heart and won't just let us off the hook because our actions are pure.

Brother Mark
Mar 1st 2008, 02:52 PM
Hey folks, again, let's try to keep what constitutes marriage out of this for now. It will only confuse the issue for some.

Thanks,

Mark

MMC
Mar 1st 2008, 03:02 PM
I don't think so. Sorry to disappoint you. :D Why? Because Jesus said "you have committed adultery in your heart". As a believer, we can't always know another's heart. But we can know their actions. Yet, God is concerned about the heart and won't just let us off the hook because our actions are pure.

:lol::lol: No, I don't want a divorce! LOL! I just needed some clarification, because the bare logic was leading me down that path, and it seemed "wrong" somehow. Thanks for the clarification - an excellent point re: our ability to "know" that the sin has been committed.

karenoka27
Mar 1st 2008, 03:05 PM
FollowMeInfantry...thank you. You are truly a blessing.
I am not going to post on this thread any longer, but I do look forward to seeing you in other posts. You shared more about yourself than perhaps was necessary and I respect you for doing so.
Again, thanks.:hug:

Studyin'2Show
Mar 1st 2008, 03:21 PM
I think many in this dialog could do some good by stepping back and taking a deep breath here. Because someone says they believe this or that is sin is not the same as them condemning anyone. We are here to discuss these issues as mature believers. For the most part we don't know each other or anything about each other so these are ALL just general statements based on the word of God and NOT personal attacks as some are thinking.

Okay, that said. bjones, I think I liked your last post if I'm understanding you correctly (BTW, thanks for clarifying :)) So, on that note the whole 'marriage license' thing is not about a magic piece of paper. I'm a child of the 60s and know many who were in what they felt were committed relationships that were really only temporary. The problem without the 'magic paper' :D is that it is easy to get hurt with no legal recourse.

So, as was said earlier, I think it's best for the conversation to move away from the 'what is marriage' question. Maybe that would be best for another thread. As for this one, if you believe you're married, I not going to ask to see proof. When does that ever happen really? My hubby and I actually started telling people we were married before we were married and no one ever questioned it. Maybe biblically we were and just didn't know it. :hmm: That was before we were saved. Now, as a believer, I would encouraging any believer in that situation to make it legal. But keep in mind that only God knows the heart, and that includes your 'spouse'. You may truly believe you are committed. They may say they are but.... Remember also that on this side of the cross we are to be ambassadors for the kingdom, and believe me, people ARE watching! The 'magic paper' is as much for our witness as for anything else.

God Bless!

Follow_Me_Infantry
Mar 1st 2008, 04:10 PM
Hey folks, again, let's try to keep what constitutes marriage out of this for now. It will only confuse the issue for some.

Thanks,

Mark

Mark,

You already placed me at a HUGE disadvantage placing this thread here where you know I am weak in scripture.

My entire point in this is the CONCEPT of what defines marriage.

How we can we possibly discuss pre-marital sex without FIRST defining what constitutes a "marriage?"

If we're going to take this turn, and at the risk of sounding like a jerk, then I have to back out of the conversation - y'all want answers I can't give without addressing questions and definitions that are the very core and key of my stance.

I really don't care if sex outside of marriage is a sin, because, in my eyes, I'm not doing that. And that's where you're leading. To limit me to defining the entire framing of my belief in the context of this discussion is to, basically, remove any voice I have.

If you're going to define the terms, which as the thread originator you have every right to do, then I must remove myself if those terms mean that I must subjugate myself to a narrow definition of an act (sex) that hinges solely on another act (marriage).

I can't debate under those conditions. You've swiped my legs from under me, and no matter what I say or do from this point on, I will be contradicting myself.

I<3Jesus
Mar 1st 2008, 04:17 PM
Mark,

You already placed me at a HUGE disadvantage placing this thread here where you know I am weak in scripture.

My entire point in this is the CONCEPT of what defines marriage.

How we can we possibly discuss pre-marital sex without FIRST defining what constitutes a "marriage?"

If we're going to take this turn, and at the risk of sounding like a jerk, then I have to back out of the conversation - y'all want answers I can't give without addressing questions and definitions that are the very core and key of my stance.

I really don't care if sex outside of marriage is a sin, because, in my eyes, I'm not doing that. And that's where you're leading. To limit me to defining the entire framing of my belief in the context of this discussion is to, basically, remove any voice I have.

If you're going to define the terms, which as the thread originator you have every right to do, then I must remove myself if those terms mean that I must subjugate myself to a narrow definition of an act (sex) that hinges solely on another act (marriage).

I can't debate under those conditions. You've swiped my legs from under me, and no matter what I say or do from this point on, I will be contradicting myself.

This is a great post. I also have no clue why this thread was placed here. If anything I think it belongs in the controversial part of the board.

Brother Mark
Mar 1st 2008, 04:27 PM
Mark,

You already placed me at a HUGE disadvantage placing this thread here where you know I am weak in scripture.

But scripture is WHAT constitutes right and wrong. We have to mold our opinions to what scripture says. Let me ask you a direct question, someone rejects Jesus outright. Then they are standing before God they ask "But I didn't know you would send me to hell for that." What do you think God will use? He says he will judge them by the word.


My entire point in this is the CONCEPT of what defines marriage.

How we can we possibly discuss pre-marital sex without FIRST defining what constitutes a "marriage?" Simple. All we have to do is say it is or is not forbidden. Then, we can discuss what is or is not marriage. What you are asking is "is this relationship acting in a sinful way". That is much broader. Once one determines if sex outside of marriage is sin, then we can determine what is marriage. Gotta crawl before we walk.


If we're going to take this turn, and at the risk of sounding like a jerk, then I have to back out of the conversation - y'all want answers I can't give without addressing questions and definitions that are the very core and key of my stance.

I really don't care if sex outside of marriage is a sin, because, in my eyes, I'm not doing that. And that's where you're leading. To limit me to defining the entire framing of my belief in the context of this discussion is to, basically, remove any voice I have.Woa. Not leading anyway. Just a simple question. Is sex outside of biblical marriage sin? I am leaving the definition of marriage WIDE open purposefully. Why? Because we may or may not be able to agree on what marriage is. But certainly we can agree on if sex outside of marriage is OK. Do you understand what I am saying?


If you're going to define the terms, which as the thread originator you have every right to do, then I must remove myself if those terms mean that I must subjugate myself to a narrow definition of an act (sex) that hinges solely on another act (marriage).

I can't debate under those conditions. You've swiped my legs from under me, and no matter what I say or do from this point on, I will be contradicting myself.I don't see how. You'll have to explain it to me if you don't mind. I am simply wanting to follow a path... first, when is sex sin and when is it not. If it is sin outside of marriage, then let's define marriage. But if it is not sin outside of marriage, there really is no need to speak of sex and marriage at the same time. Does that make sense?

Shoot, define marriage any way you want to, then tell me if sex has to be limited to a God ordained relationship that He sees as marriage. Once that is established, then we can study what makes marriage a marriage according to scripture. With these two truths before us i.e. sex as it relates to marriage, and what is marriage, then we have a guide to know what is right before God.

If you can't define whether sex outside of marriage is a sin without contradicting yourself, isn't that a clue that perhaps, something is amiss with the position that sex outside of marriage is OK, if indeed that is your position?

Brother Mark
Mar 1st 2008, 04:27 PM
This is a great post. I also have no clue why this thread was placed here. If anything I think it belongs in the controversial part of the board.

Because scripture is the basis for determining moral and sexual truth. ;)

I<3Jesus
Mar 1st 2008, 04:36 PM
Because scripture is the basis for determining moral and sexual truth. ;)

It could have been placed elsewhere where those of us who are not good at spouting off Bible verses can converse without having everyone yell "where is your scriptural backing." I asked specifically where in the Bible the requirements for marriage are laid out and I still haven't gotten a sufficient answer ;)

Brother Mark
Mar 1st 2008, 04:41 PM
It could have been placed elsewhere where those of us who are not good at spouting off Bible verses can converse without having everyone yell "where is your scriptural backing." I asked specifically where in the Bible the requirements for marriage are laid out and I still haven't gotten a sufficient answer ;)

Oh, we'll get to that too. And I can move the thread to another forum. But the bible will still be the source we need to refer to for truth. We won't get far trying to say what is and what is not sin without scripture.

Speaking of not getting an answer, I never got a clear answer as to whether sex outside of marriage is forbidden by scripture either. That's why I kept asking. Just wanting some clarification.

So, is sex outside of marriage sinful?

I<3Jesus
Mar 1st 2008, 04:45 PM
I never said sex before marriage was acceptable. I am just disagreeing with the consensus as to what qualifies as a marriage ;)

That was just one of the times I said I did not think it was acceptable.

Brother Mark
Mar 1st 2008, 04:52 PM
That was just one of the times I said I did not think it was acceptable.

Thanks. I saw that. The reason I asked again is what I noted earlier. It is one thing to say "I never said sex before marriage was acceptable" but yet another to say "Sex before marriage is NOT acceptable". There is wiggle room in the first but not the second. There are many things I don't speak or say yet, I still agree with. I like precision which is one reason I ask. Otherwise I assume I know what the person is saying when I really don't. When I assume, I make way too many mistakes and offend folks. So I ask until I understand. I appreciate your patience with me.

I appreciate you answering my question clearly. Thanks.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 1st 2008, 05:09 PM
Mark,

You already placed me at a HUGE disadvantage placing this thread here where you know I am weak in scripture.

My entire point in this is the CONCEPT of what defines marriage.

How we can we possibly discuss pre-marital sex without FIRST defining what constitutes a "marriage?"

If we're going to take this turn, and at the risk of sounding like a jerk, then I have to back out of the conversation - y'all want answers I can't give without addressing questions and definitions that are the very core and key of my stance.

I really don't care if sex outside of marriage is a sin, because, in my eyes, I'm not doing that. And that's where you're leading. To limit me to defining the entire framing of my belief in the context of this discussion is to, basically, remove any voice I have.

If you're going to define the terms, which as the thread originator you have every right to do, then I must remove myself if those terms mean that I must subjugate myself to a narrow definition of an act (sex) that hinges solely on another act (marriage).

I can't debate under those conditions. You've swiped my legs from under me, and no matter what I say or do from this point on, I will be contradicting myself.Maybe I'm confused because you say you consider yourself married so let's move on. There's no need to 'define' marriage, at least for the purpose of this thread. No one here has asked anyone to produce a little piece of paper. On this message board, I have mentioned my hubby (baxpack7 (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=25257) ;)) but neither of us have produced a piece of paper. The only way anyone comes to the conclusion that you are not married is because that is what you've shared. So, maybe the piece of paper is as much for each of us individually as anything else. So, with that said, you said in your last post that you believe you are married. That's fine with me. One thing I might mention is that if you truly believe that, don't waver. That way it won't confuse new believers who may think you're saying one thing when you're not.

Maybe this thread has run it's course as it seems everyone agrees that s*x should only be with a marriage relationship. Where there is some difference is in what we each consider marriage. :hmm:

bjones
Mar 1st 2008, 05:18 PM
There is actually a fourth reason to 'parse' the law, and that would be to study in order to understand more clearly what God wants our eyes to see and our ears to hear. Notice, this reason has nothing to do with judging or justifying anything. ;)

God Bless!


Thanks for sharing that, I almost included it, but upon parsing Romans 10.1 it says the law "has a shadow" of the good things coming. When we study the second layer of the law, we aren't studying the law itself but the shadow attached to it.

So when we get on the same semantic page, I agree with you.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Mar 1st 2008, 05:23 PM
Brother Mark

I answered the "is sex outside of marriage a sin" question in my first few posts. My very FIRST or SECOND post on page 5 of this thread, in fact.

But I will answer again just so that there can be no confusion and you and I are on the same page.

Is sex outside of marriage a sin?

Yes and no.

Yes, if you're pleasing only the flesh. Go masturbate (but then you're still under condemnation of lust - at least you aren't "using" another). To further define it in my eyes, if you're having sex without a committed relationship that you haven't talked to God about the relationship, wanting it to be "long-term," then you're sinning. If God says NO and you still do it, you're sinning.

No, if you are in a committed, Godly, monogomous relationship between a man and a woman where both choose to consent and submit their desires before God and await His input and follow His promts. If you can HONESTLY do that without conviction, I do not believe it is sin for that person.

That's why the Holy Spirit resides in us: So that your walk and my walk are PERSONAL relationships with Him, and not a rule book of absolutes - we don't serve a God of absolutes. That was proven when Moses intervened and stopped God's wrath. It isn't black and white.

Only God is absolute, and He knows we are not.

This means that He does set standards, but He also deals with each of us as an individual, and not some robot worshiping Him out of need, versus want.

So I can't really answer your question because you want a "yes" or a "no," and I don't agree that it is a yes or a no topic. Which is why I see folly in answering this without my definition of marriage.

It is sin if we are convicted it is sin, if we act out of selfish desires and do not allow God to tell us. It is NOT a sin if we ask within the confines of a pure heart and are NOT convicted that it is wrong for us.

Sorry, brother - best answer I can provide at this time.

Brother Mark
Mar 1st 2008, 05:45 PM
Brother Mark

I answered the "is sex outside of marriage a sin" question in my first few posts. My very FIRST or SECOND post on page 5 of this thread, in fact.

Yea. I saw that answer. Which is why I started providing lots of scripture. Once you said it was cultural, I used another culture. So in two distinctly different cultures, scripture was provided for sexual sin. That's not easy to ignore.


Is sex outside of marriage a sin?


Yes and no.

Yes, if you're pleasing only the flesh. Go masturbate (but then you're still under condemnation of lust - at least you aren't "using" another). To further define it in my eyes, if you're having sex without a committed relationship that you haven't talked to God about the relationship, wanting it to be "long-term," then you're sinning. If God says NO and you still do it, you're sinning.

No, if you are in a committed, Godly, monogomous relationship between a man and a woman where both choose to consent and submit their desires before God and await His input and follow His promts. If you can HONESTLY do that without conviction, I do not believe it is sin for that person.

OK, this is where I get confused. Is said relationship a marriage in your eyes? If so, then it's not extramarital sex is it? That's why I asked to lay it aside. If the couple is married in God's eyes, it ain't extramarital sex. Do you believe said relationship is marriage in God's eyes?

Alright, but before we go there, we need to define Godly relationship that allows sex. First, I am asking is there such a thing as a sexual relationship, outside of what God considers marriage, that is Godly?


That's why the Holy Spirit resides in us: So that your walk and my walk are PERSONAL relationships with Him, and not a rule book of absolutes - we don't serve a God of absolutes. That was proven when Moses intervened and stopped God's wrath. It isn't black and white.

Only God is absolute, and He knows we are not.

This means that He does set standards, but He also deals with each of us as an individual, and not some robot worshiping Him out of need, versus want.

So I can't really answer your question because you want a "yes" or a "no," and I don't agree that it is a yes or a no topic. Which is why I see folly in answering this without my definition of marriage.

It is sin if we are convicted it is sin, if we act out of selfish desires and do not allow God to tell us. It is NOT a sin if we ask within the confines of a pure heart and are NOT convicted that it is wrong for us.

Sorry, brother - best answer I can provide at this time.Ah, so if I murder but am not convicted, it is not sin? If I don't feel bad when I steal, it is not sin? Do you see the slippery slope here?

Are you saying then that God approves of some sexual relations outside of what he sees as marriage?

Athanasius
Mar 1st 2008, 05:54 PM
Yes, I do. In fact, after I posted my message, I started to search and I found Exodus 20:14 - "You shall not commit adultery" My dictionary concordance (in the back of my bible) defines adultery as sex with someone not your spouse....but I don't think that's a complete definition - because most legal definitions of adultery require that one person actually BE married. SO that leave a whole category of persons who are not married (but having sex)....I *think* that's where fornication comes into play. But no one has posted any verses about what exactly fornication is - (although Mark keeps hinting that at SOME point he's going to lay out his argument for us). It was late, and I'm a bit laid up right now with flu, and so only able to handle reading/searching/posting in small bits at the moment. I got tired so I didn't post that verse, and I knew I wasn't done yet (ie, needed to find more verses defining adultery/fornication).

Please forgive me if I'm asking for help. I have only recently begun studying scripture in earnestness (Have been working my way systematically through the New Testament and am presently on Romans). I have VERY little knowledge of Old TEstament, and I've got a pretty poor concordance - so its hard for me to find things. Plus, a lot of times I remember something I've read, but can't remember the exact book/verse where I read it. I don't have a lot memorized. So I post here sometimes for help.

I apologize if I sounded as if I came off in a brash tone. I think there are a lot of people who know what's in the Bible, just can't find where it exactly is--I know, I'm one of those people.

It's always good to ask for help; God knows how many times I've had to ;)
Once again, the tone of my post probably came off wrong--I apologize.


Why would you do that? Do you have any new believers in your bible study?

No, there weren't. They were younger (16-18), but none of them were new. I should have mentioned that I didn't leave it, 'at that'. I brought up the point.



I agree we need to be diligent in studying scripture. I am trying to read for comprehension right now - and I'm trying to memorize verses that have made an impact on me. I'm taking in a lot of new info and it can be overwhelming. I knew the verse you mentioned, but I did not know it was mandatory, and I didn't know it was found in Romans. (I"m on Romans chapter 2 right now.) :cry:

That really hurt my feelings. But I'm also heavily medicated, so maybe I'm just a little messed up at the moment.

Sorry, I didn't meant offend you--I was only trying to use it as an illustration. I said it was mandatory only because whenever people talk about sin, consequences come up and the wages of sin almost always, always is mentioned. I didn't mean for it to come across in a manner which came down on you for not studying things.

Gard
Mar 1st 2008, 06:02 PM
May i suggest a new wrinkle here?

Peter 2:13,14

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

This verse has always meant to me that we should honor authority and obey the laws set forth by men or governments. If this is the case, then laws specify that a recognized marriage involves a legal marriage certificate to be on file. Now, the only way to get that certificate is to legally marry in a ceremony so the the presiding official can sign a submit said certificate.

So, if we are to obey the laws of our society, we do have to have a certificate in order for a marriage to be legal. If we simply say that we are married, with no legal ground to stand on, would that not mean that God will not recognize the marriage since we refused to obey the law?

On a side note...if I am misinterpreting this verse, please let me know.

Brother Mark
Mar 1st 2008, 06:31 PM
Hey FMI, I just wanted to clarify some of my thoughts for you.

One reason I don't want to say what is or is not marriage is because then we might get into saying one is or is not living in sin. Shoot, I want to avoid that in this thread! I don't want someone feeling like I am attacking them per say.

Just so you know.... I am not convinced that we need to have a paper to say we are married. Hopefully, that will put you at ease at where I am going.

bjones
Mar 1st 2008, 07:06 PM
When Eve was tempted it says "the serpent was MORE subtle" than the other animals.

We miss this point. If the serpent was MORE subtle, then the other animals were LESS subtle. It implies that the other animals tempted Eve in a very open and brazen fashion.

The only temptation possible was to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. So the other animals also tempted her. It is likely that by seeing them eat the fruit, she wondered, "Why can they eat it and I cannot?" and she answered herself with something like "Oh, because they are animals and I am not.

But the serpent almost makes the point:
God created us animals with instincts to guide us. When something looks good, smells good, etc. we eat it and we glorify God by doing so, having been created this way.
Are you sure you're not an animal like us? Doesn't it look good and smell good?

So the temptation of original sin was the same message we hear from our schools, the media and the world we live in... "We are just animals"
The world finds cohabitating seagulls to justify homosexuality, etc.
The London zoo has people on display to make the very point.

It is true that we share the same instincts as animals. This should be no surprise... we are made from the same dust of the earth. But we are more than animals. We are created with the ability to hear and respond to God.

So He has given us some things to remind us that we are more than animals.

He has given us the Sabbath so we don't occupy time instinctively like animals, but willfully set aside time in response to God's word.

We say grace at meals to remind us not to eat instinctively like animals, but with thanksgiving.

We have clothing to remind us not to occupy space instinctively like animals.

And we have marriage to remind us not to have sex instinctively like animals.

Are we required by law to have a Sabbath? No more? It was given FOR man.

Are we required by law to say grace? No.
Wear clothes? No. (well sometimes...)

To have a specific event that declares publicly that two have become one? No.

But each of these are visible reminders that we are more than animals.

We face the same temptation of original sin everyday... to respond instinctively rather than to consider what God has said.

Many of us need all the reminders we can get to help us overcome that temptation. My ten year old daughter includes in her nightly prayer, and has for years, "Thank you God for clothes to remind us we are more than animals, and Teddie bears to play with."

I<3Jesus
Mar 1st 2008, 07:33 PM
May i suggest a new wrinkle here?

Peter 2:13,14

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

This verse has always meant to me that we should honor authority and obey the laws set forth by men or governments. If this is the case, then laws specify that a recognized marriage involves a legal marriage certificate to be on file. Now, the only way to get that certificate is to legally marry in a ceremony so the the presiding official can sign a submit said certificate.

So, if we are to obey the laws of our society, we do have to have a certificate in order for a marriage to be legal. If we simply say that we are married, with no legal ground to stand on, would that not mean that God will not recognize the marriage since we refused to obey the law?

On a side note...if I am misinterpreting this verse, please let me know.

What about common law marriages?

Seeker of truth
Mar 1st 2008, 07:41 PM
Jim was common law married before I met him. They lived together for 10 years and have 2 children.

It is my understanding the Church doesn't recognize common law marriage.

As for the state recognizing it his ex has his last name but they split up just before Ohio dropped common law.

bjones
Mar 1st 2008, 07:56 PM
Depends which church you're talking about.

When a Mormon polygamist and his two wives and most of his 19 children get saved, in the states, most denominations try to insist they get divorced, yet permit their missionaries in foreign countries to accept polygamists just as they are, recognizing both marriages.

A bit of hypocrisy there.

The first marriage is formalized by the state, the second is a common law wife. My fellowship accepts them as they are and trusts God to lead them in how they should live. When called upon to do marriage counseling with the second wife, I worked toward reconciliation.

I should say although I have known many people who claimed common law marriages as Christians, I have not known any (excepting the polygamist) who did not choose a formal marriage shortly after starting counseling with me.

When you consider being wise, loving and creating a testimony for others, there are few who would decide to do otherwise.

Seeker of truth
Mar 1st 2008, 08:04 PM
Depends which church you're talking about.

When a Mormon polygamist and his two wives and most of his 19 children get saved, in the states, most denominations try to insist they get divorced, yet permit their missionaries in foreign countries to accept polygamists just as they are, recognizing both marriages.

A bit of hypocrisy there.

The first marriage is formalized by the state, the second is a common law wife. My fellowship accepts them as they are and trusts God to lead them in how they should live. When called upon to do marriage counseling with the second wife, I worked toward reconciliation.

I should say although I have known many people who claimed common law marriages as Christians, I have not known any (excepting the polygamist) who did not choose a formal marriage shortly after starting counseling with me.

When you consider being wise, loving and creating a testimony for others, there are few who would decide to do otherwise.

Jim's ex is Jehovas Witness. She had left the Kingdom Hall while she and Jim were together and returned shortly before they split. She told him they needed to be legally married. He refused. She took the kids and left as she would have been disfellowshipped had she continued on living with Jim.

They went through a disillusionment and things were pretty ugly for awhile. When Jim and I first were married his ex was quite upset as she conidered them to still be married. Now alomost 9 years later she and I are friends.

bjones
Mar 1st 2008, 08:19 PM
It is good that you can be civil in such things. Loose ends can often make things ugly.

I<3Jesus
Mar 1st 2008, 08:23 PM
Jim was common law married before I met him. They lived together for 10 years and have 2 children.

It is my understanding the Church doesn't recognize common law marriage.

As for the state recognizing it his ex has his last name but they split up just before Ohio dropped common law.

What church though? What denomination? I have never heard of a common law marriage not being acknowledged, but then again I haven't come across too many (three or four tops).

Seeker of truth
Mar 1st 2008, 08:26 PM
What church though? What denomination? I have never heard of a common law marriage not being acknowledged, but then again I haven't come across too many (three or four tops).

The Pentecostal Church does not nor do I believe the Lutheran and Methodist Church do. I don't think the Catholic Church does either.

As for the others I can't say for sure.

Seeker of truth
Mar 1st 2008, 08:28 PM
It is good that you can be civil in such things. Loose ends can often make things ugly.

She has been very good to the girls. She and Jim don't really speak unless they absolutly have to but I have no reason to have any issues with her. Whatever went down between the two of them has nothing to do with me.

Yes, it's much better for everyone involved that we get along :)

Athanasius
Mar 1st 2008, 08:44 PM
When Eve was tempted it says "the serpent was MORE subtle" than the other animals.

We miss this point. If the serpent was MORE subtle, then the other animals were LESS subtle. It implies that the other animals tempted Eve in a very open and brazen fashion.

I find this to be a bit of a stretch. . .



It is true that we share the same instincts as animals. This should be no surprise... we are made from the same dust of the earth. But we are more than animals. We are created with the ability to hear and respond to God.

I would say that we share some of the same instincts as animals. But that doesn't make us anything like animals. . .


He has given us the Sabbath so we don't occupy time instinctively like animals, but willfully set aside time in response to God's word.

We say grace at meals to remind us not to eat instinctively like animals, but with thanksgiving.

We have clothing to remind us not to occupy space instinctively like animals.

And we have marriage to remind us not to have sex instinctively like animals.

Are we required by law to have a Sabbath? No more? It was given FOR man.

Are we required by law to say grace? No.
Wear clothes? No. (well sometimes...)

To have a specific event that declares publicly that two have become one? No.

But each of these are visible reminders that we are more than animals.

We face the same temptation of original sin everyday... to respond instinctively rather than to consider what God has said.


Excuse what I'm about to say, but this strikes me as farfetched. For example, are you saying Adam and Eve were (or were closer to) animals, since they didn't wear clothes until the Fall? I think there is a great disservice done to us, as people, to say that we are more than animals, but only because God has given us rules that we can follow to allow for that distinction.

Brother Mark
Mar 1st 2008, 08:46 PM
Just as a side note... I think the shakina glory of God clothed Adam and Eve before the fall. Once they ate, then they could see they were naked. Before that, the pretty much glowed. Just my 2 cents. ;)

We are still off topic, but might as well continue on until some of the earlier posters return. Carry on brothers and sisters.

bjones
Mar 1st 2008, 09:10 PM
I find this to be a bit of a stretch. . .

I would say that we share some of the same instincts as animals. But that doesn't make us anything like animals. . .

Not only do we have the same instincts, but the same DNA patterns. (No I do not believe in evolution, God just used the same toolbox for both)



Excuse what I'm about to say, but this strikes me as farfetched. For example, are you saying Adam and Eve were (or were closer to) animals, since they didn't wear clothes until the Fall?

Yes. That is farfetched because that is not what I said. The distinction is our communion with God.



I think there is a great disservice done to us, as people, to say that we are more than animals, but only because God has given us rules that we can follow to allow for that distinction.

I agree, that's why I wouldn't say that.

The popular view of original sin might be paraphrased this way:
God told Adam not to eat the fruit, and to multiply, but he couldn't multiply until he ate the fruit, so God unjustly condemned him to eat sweaty bread and cast him out of the garden, and to really punish him sent his wife with him. This started the battle of the sexes, and if someone in deepest darkest Africa dies they go to hell because they haven't heard the name of Jesus and we all go to hell without Jesus because of what Adam did.

That is a disservice.
----

The belief that the animals tempted Eve is actually part of ancient Jewish midrash, not my invention.

The instinctive nature is referred to by the apostles as the 'flesh'. We renew our minds by the washing of the word, so we can consider what God has said rather than react instinctively. Part of the image and likeness stuff.

I would say that after the fall, when man is a slave to sin, and can do nothing but sin, he is more like the animals. He has a dead spirit which is why Jesus says he has to be born again.

Removing original sin by thousands of years and making it sound like mythology does no one any good, so I have restated it in a way that explains why each of us must deal with it personally.

I<3Jesus
Mar 1st 2008, 09:27 PM
The Pentecostal Church does not nor do I believe the Lutheran and Methodist Church do. I don't think the Catholic Church does either.

As for the others I can't say for sure.

Ah OK, but then isn't the church contradicting the whole follow the law of the land bit then?

Follow_Me_Infantry
Mar 1st 2008, 09:36 PM
Y'all ain't gonna believe this nonsense...

Remember that my flight on Thursday was re-routed and so I had to accept another, later flight?

Want to guess where I JUST came home from?

If you said the Ft Myers airport, then *ding* *ding* *ding* we have a winner!

:B:B:B

:giveup::giveup::giveup:

Once again, my flight was scrapped because there wasn't any way my bags would make my connecting flight.

I'm traveling with a gun. The bags HAVE to make the connection, lest there's a Kimber Custom II .45 floating around in space until they are kind enough to return it.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr

I will never, ever, ever fly US Airways again. Once is understandable, but 2 times in 3 days? That's inexusable.

So I have employees that won't get paid during their scheduled payroll (yesterday), I am annoying friends trying to schedule a ride home, and I'm stuck in Florida AT LEAST one more day with no one there to care after my mom.

I'm sorry, I love spending time with Laurie, but this just upsets me to no end! I was supposed to be home in AZ on the 28th. Here it will be the 2nd at the earliest before I can get back, and I've heard every excuse from the airlines, and it's really peeing me off. There is NO excuse for this type of service, and the soldier in me will be calling the corporate office and demanding a FULL refund of my ticket for the hassels - not to mention the $30 in wasted gas and $10 in wasted parking money and 2 full wasted days playing reindeer games with airline employees that seem to know only one thing: That it isn't THEIR fault.

Thanks for allowing me to vent.

I'm going to take Laurie to dinner and will reply to those posts warranting replies, which are getting fewer and fewer, after I get her tucked in for bed or when I wake up tomorrow.

Seeker of truth
Mar 1st 2008, 09:44 PM
Ah OK, but then isn't the church contradicting the whole follow the law of the land bit then?

I guess it all depends on what one feels constitutes a marriage.

I guess I am confused as to why if a couple is devoted to one another why they would be against that little peice of paper and pledging vows in front of a Pastor.

It seems quite a few people feel having s#x and /or living together makes them married. I admit though I have read the Bible more than once I don't have all the answers. I do know it clearly states fornication and sexual immorality are sinful.

A scenerio.....a man and woman live together. They sleep together as if they were married. They consider themselves to be married. If things do not work out they move on till they meet another person they do the same thing with. Wouldn't quite a few people have a lot of partners they were married to then? Does having s#x make us married? Does living together make us married? What is fornication and sexual immorality then?

Just a few things to think about :hmm:

Chachynga
Mar 1st 2008, 09:58 PM
Okay, you got me from here. How some can believe that being married, and having sex with someone that is not your spouse is okay - is beyond me.

And indeed Mark it is a descent start, IMHO enough to make the case that 1 man and 1 woman for all their days on this earth will honor each other in the marriage covenant.
Maybe they are of the church of Crossed-Fingers! :lol: :B :bounce:

bjones
Mar 1st 2008, 09:59 PM
I guess it all depends on what one feels constitutes a marriage.

I guess I am confused as to why if a couple is devoted to one another why they would be against that little peice of paper and pledging vows in front of a Pastor.

It seems quite a few people feel having s#x and /or living together makes them married. I admit though I have read the Bible more than once I don't have all the answers. I do know it clearly states fornication and sexual immorality are sinful.

A scenerio.....a man and woman live together. They sleep together as if they were married. They consider themselves to be married. If things do not work out they move on till they meet another person they do the same thing with. Wouldn't quite a few people have a lot of partners they were married to then? Does having s#x make us married? Does living together make us married? What is fornication and sexual immorality then?

Just a few things to think about :hmm:

You are going to drive Mark nuts... he's been trying to avoid that question in this thread for a long time. ;)

The real question is that even if marriage does not require a paper, isn't your unspoken testimony to the world that fornication is OK? And is this the testimony you want? Is that the message you want your kids and the kids in the church to get?

What is the answer based in love?

I<3Jesus
Mar 1st 2008, 10:02 PM
I wish you guys would find another word to use. The word fornication makes me giggle, it sounds so weird ;) :lol:

Seeker of truth
Mar 1st 2008, 10:08 PM
I would like to add, when I was still in the world I lived with a few men. I did not feel or consider myself married to these men. We lived together due to fleshly desires. We were fornicating and our lives were immoral as we were fornicating. We wanted the perks of marriage without the commitment.

Does it make me a hypocrite since I am against this now or does it make me a Christian who sees my former sin?

I would never again live with any man I am not legally married to. Had I been a Christian years ago I would never have divorced my first husband let alone married someone else. As a Christian I must live in accordance with the Word. I can't pick and choose the parts that I think make sense and ignore the parts I do not understand.

In the past my life was full of sin. It was sin. Now my life is all about Him which means denying myself any pleasure that is sin.

I realize am rambling. I am trying to make my point while choosing my words carefully.

Seeker of truth
Mar 1st 2008, 10:11 PM
You are going to drive Mark nuts... he's been trying to avoid that question in this thread for a long time. ;)

The real question is that even if marriage does not require a paper, isn't your unspoken testimony to the world that fornication is OK? And is this the testimony you want? Is that the message you want your kids and the kids in the church to get?

What is the answer based in love?

I have stated in several threads my feeling on this subject. I offended several people. I am trying not to offend anyone while making my point this time.

Seeker of truth
Mar 1st 2008, 10:13 PM
I wish you guys would find another word to use. The word fornication makes me giggle, it sounds so weird ;) :lol:

Sorry. I can't think of another word to use that will not offend anyone ;)

I<3Jesus
Mar 1st 2008, 10:15 PM
I am not offended by someone expressing their opinion. I get offended when someone tells me I am not a Christian and I am swine. You did not do that. I was peeved that you were jumping on the bandwagon with the individual who was in fact doing that. You two kept fueling each other's fire. I am over it now though because I know what is in my heart and I know what I feel to be good and true. I do not need anyone to agree with my opinions, I just ask that you respectfully disagree.

Seeker of truth
Mar 1st 2008, 10:20 PM
I am not offended by someone expressing their opinion. I get offended when someone tells me I am not a Christian and I am swine. You did not do that. I was peeved that you were jumping on the bandwagon with the individual who was in fact doing that. You two kept fueling each other's fire. I am over it now though because I know what is in my heart and I know what I feel to be good and true. I do not need anyone to agree with my opinions, I just ask that you respectfully disagree.


This is a hot buttom topic for me as because of my own past my daughter feels it's ok to live with her fiancee before they are married. I set a very poor example when my older children were growing up.

I should have used my words differently in the other post. I feel very strongly about this issue as I have seen the error of my ways. I was so busy trying to make my point I was careless with your feelings. I failed to use tact. I do apologize for that.

I have prayed on this and will be more careful in the future. I feel very badly I hurt you with my words :hug:

I<3Jesus
Mar 1st 2008, 10:37 PM
Don't worry, I am not mad at you. I was more mad at that other person (I do not remember their name). I do live with my fiance', but we abstain from having a physical relationship. He is a good, Christian man. We live together because I do not work since I got sick and do not have the means to live on my own and would have no where to go if it were not for him. However I was not even taking my own situation in consideration as the basis of my argument. Regardless of what anyone says I know that we are not doing anything wrong and I do know that God blesses us and watches out for us. I see his influence in our lives daily.

Seeker of truth
Mar 1st 2008, 10:42 PM
Just wanted to let everyone know I'll be back later. My husband is taking me out to dinner :)

Hannah is at a play date till later tonight and Marion is at her friends house. Jim and I plan to take advantage of some alone time as we don't often get it and we are trying very hard to get our marriage on track. I have seen so many posative changes in him (thank you Lord) and I am confident he will be saved in no time :)

Sorry for being so long winded. I do tend to ramble :lol:

RoadWarrior
Mar 1st 2008, 11:29 PM
Hi all,

I've been following this thread and have a basic question. What is the goal? What is to be gained from this discussion?

Bro. Mark, you are correct in your OP that extramarital sex is not OK Biblically. However, let the one without sin cast the first stone.

(Jesus writes on the ground.)

Now, who is it that condemns another? No one? Then go and sin no more.

But, I hear the chorus, you don't know my situation!

Never mind, I knew my own situation. I was caught in that also, at one time. I knew it was wrong but I completely lacked the power, the motivation, the will, to get out of it. Getting into a good marriage was like being rescued from a treadmill with no off button, no exit ramp.

There is a reason (several) that extramarital sex is wrong. The most important reason is that it mars the perfect image that God wants for us in our pure marital love for each other. Marriage itself is a symbol of the relationship between Christ and the church, and if we mar our human marriage, we mar that symbolism.

It is no wonder that we have so little power in our spiritual lives. We have every excuse in the book for why it is ok to mar the perfect plan He has for us.

Let us remember what Jesus wrote in the dust, pick ourselves up, go and sin no more.

ravi4u2
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:01 AM
Quite a few people think that just because they are not actually sinning it is alright. "I live with my girlfriend, but we don't have a physical relationship...I stayed overnight at my boyfriend's house alone with him but we never sinned..." What we think is sin actually does not matter at all. What is sin according to God? Now, that is important. Sin revolves around the concept of 'missing the mark'. Now, what is the mark? God said, 'Be ye holy, just as I am holy". That is the mark. Sin deprives us from attaining this mark. That is why we are told not just to flee from sin but also to "Abstain from all APPEARANCE of sin" (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

Jesus said, “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men." Jesus then continued to say, "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."

John says, "We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols."

Anything or anyone who we place before God becomes an idol and hence sin. Something that causes us to miss the mark of God. To be holy just as He is holy! To be the light and the salt of the earth, it is not enough that we just abstain from sin but even the very appearance of sin. A person who cannot or will not is not really born of God.

swtjudy
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:05 AM
OK guys, here's a thread to discuss extra marital s*x. Some folks say it's OK but I do not believe that it is. We'll start small and go from there.

1 Thess 4:1-8

4 Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that, as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you may excel still more. 2 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. 8 Consequently, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.
NASB

I highlighted several verses above that begin speaking to the issue. Don't overlook the ones that are not in bold print though for they are just as important (esp. vs 8).

Ok, moving on. Let's look at a key word first... sexual immorality.

NT:4201

NT:4202 porneia (por-ni'-ah); from NT:4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:

KJV - fornication.

Here's the root word so we can understand it even better.

NT:4203

NT:4203 porneuo (porn-yoo'-o); from NT:4204; to act the harlot, i.e. (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry:

KJV - commit (fornication).

Basically, God is saying that we should refrain from unlawful lust/sex. As we go forward, we can discuss, with some wisdom and discretion, what is or is not lawful.

The scripture quoted above also mentions keeping our body/vessel in honor. What does this mean? Well, he gives us the answer in another passage.

Heb 13:4
4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
NASB

The marriage bed is undefiled. But those that commit fornication and adultery, God will judge them. Also, notice how the marriage is held in honor! It is the way to keep your vessel/body honorable and keep it within the bounds of the sanctification process.

We can look deeper into the Greek words if you like, but they simply refer to lust and such. It is no accident that you notice the similarity in the Greek words with our English word porn.

I suppose this is a decent start.
What if a person has been married 3 times? Were all 3 marriage beds holy? The first marriage was before becoming a Christian, the second was ended because of adultery on the husband's part, and the third was because the unsaved spouse decided to walk away. Also, let me say that I do not believe in sex outside marriage, but every single "Christian" man I meet does. I am 63 years old and have been looking for a good Christian husband for many years but it just seems impossible.

I<3Jesus
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:19 AM
Quite a few people think that just because they are not actually sinning it is alright. "I live with my girlfriend, but we don't have a physical relationship...I stayed overnight at my boyfriend's house alone with him but we never sinned..." What we think is sin actually does not matter at all. What is sin according to God? Now, that is important. Sin revolves around the concept of 'missing the mark'. Now, what is the mark? God said, 'Be ye holy, just as I am holy". That is the mark. Sin deprives us from attaining this mark. That is why we are told not just to flee from sin but also to "Abstain from all APPEARANCE of sin" (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

Jesus said, “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men." Jesus then continued to say, "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."

John says, "We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols."

Anything or anyone who we place before God becomes an idol and hence sin. Something that causes us to miss the mark of God. To be holy just as He is holy! To be the light and the salt of the earth, it is not enough that we just abstain from sin but even the very appearance of sin. A person who cannot or will not is not really born of God.

I do not resemble anything you just wrote and even if I did I couldn't care less what you think. That being said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

ravi4u2
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:28 AM
I do not resemble anything you just wrote and even if I did I couldn't care less what you think. That being said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.Firstly, the post was not addressed to you nor targeted at you personally. It was just my piece after general observation from this thread. There was one who was able to cast the stone, Christ Jesus, who is the Word. But that being said, if someone feels disturbed by the post, they should examine if it is mere condemnation by man or the conviction of the Holy Spirit in their own heart. After all the Word is a two-edged sword.

karenoka27
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:29 AM
I do not resemble anything you just wrote and even if I did I couldn't care less what you think. That being said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Reminder: This is a Bible Chat forum...please keep discussion on topic and use Scripture references as much as possible..If you don't know exactly where a Scripture is, that is ok..just refer to the Bible and someone else may be able to help you out.
If there continues to be arguing and lashing out, this thread will be closed.

RoadWarrior
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:30 AM
..... To be the light and the salt of the earth, it is not enough that we just abstain from sin but even the very appearance of sin. A person who cannot or will not is not really born of God.

Ravi, you make an extremely strong statement here, that I think goes beyond what is necessary. Who are we to judge if a person has been born of God? We are all in process, I have yet to see a person come to the Lord and immediately be perfect. We fail most in the commandment to love one another.


What if a person has been married 3 times? Were all 3 marriage beds holy? The first marriage was before becoming a Christian, the second was ended because of adultery on the husband's part, and the third was because the unsaved spouse decided to walk away. Also, let me say that I do not believe in sex outside marriage, but every single "Christian" man I meet does. I am 63 years old and have been looking for a good Christian husband for many years but it just seems impossible.

Swtjudy, the view to the rear is not where our eyes should be focused. Lot's wife looked back and became a pillar of salt. If you feel convicted of something, confess it to God and ask to be cleansed of it. Otherwise, let the past be past and focus your eyes forward. Where does the Lord want you to go next? Why are you looking for a good Christian husband? Is that what the Lord is calling you to do?

None of us can go back and alter what we have done. We can only repent of sin, and move forward from here.

None of us are righteous, we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Nevertheless, we are called to repent and to seek to attain that glory. We make progress more rapidly when we bear one another's burdens, than we when we point fingers at each other.

With that in mind, what can we do to help someone who is caught in the sin we are discussing? If you know someone living with another, can you offer them a place to stay while they prepare for the wedding, for example? How can we make our admonitions and advice practical and applicable for real people in real situations?

ravi4u2
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:39 AM
Ravi, you make an extremely strong statement here, that I think goes beyond what is necessary. Who are we to judge if a person has been born of God? We are all in process, I have yet to see a person come to the Lord and immediately be perfect. We fail most in the commandment to love one another.Hey, you sound as if I made that up. It was what John the apostle who said, "We know that whoever is born of God does not sin". Seeking perfection is not a bad thing. Paul says, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you." It is a misconception that love covers up a multitude of sins.

The Parson
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:41 AM
Hmmmm, this is a plumb interesting thread. It seems that some have got their definitions a bit crossed though.

Marriage by the Biblical definition is an event before witnesses where the man of God makes a pronouncement of marriage according to the vows that were taken. Thereafter, a feast was given in celebration of a holy union because it is holy.

For instance, is a marriage without a slip of paper a marriage? According to the powers that be it isn't in their eyes. Aren't we supposed to obey the powers that be?

Is a marriage a marriage without the vows made before witnesses and the pronouncement? No, even the marriage of Adam and Eve was pronounced by God and witnessed by the Holy angels I reckon.

And going against these by not having the pronouncement in front of witnesses is not marriage, it's fornication. Notice though, this is to the Christian, not the lost. The lost do what the lost does naturally. They sin and do not recognize any authority over them. Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

And a Christian who doesn't do it the way God expects is in rebellion I would think. Isn't it written somewhere that rebellion is the same as witch craft?

I<3Jesus
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:45 AM
Firstly, the post was not addressed to you nor targeted at you personally. It was just my piece after general observation from this thread. There was one who was able to cast the stone, Christ Jesus, who is the Word. But that being said, if someone feels disturbed by the post, they should examine if it is mere condemnation by man or the conviction of the Holy Spirit in their own heart. After all the Word is a two-edged sword.

I didn't say it was directed toward me. Here we go with the convicted argument again. That must be it, I am convicted.

I<3Jesus
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:46 AM
Reminder: This is a Bible Chat forum...please keep discussion on topic and use Scripture references as much as possible..If you don't know exactly where a Scripture is, that is ok..just refer to the Bible and someone else may be able to help you out.
If there continues to be arguing and lashing out, this thread will be closed.

I wasn't lashing out or arguing. Every time I post you think I am lashing out or arguing, so tell me what is the point of bothering to continue posting at all?

ravi4u2
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:46 AM
I didn't say it was directed toward me. Here we go with the convicted argument again. That must be it, I am convicted.Sarcasm actually does not help your case...:lol:

RoadWarrior
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:48 AM
Hey, you sound as if I made that up. It was what John the apostle who said, "We know that whoever is born of God does not sin". Seeking perfection is not a bad thing. Paul says, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you." It is a misconception that love covers up a multitude of sins.

Ravi, I make it a point not to rebuke or exhort someone for the sake of argument, but for the sake of helping other Christians in their own growth and progress toward greater holiness.

It is not my goal to be a fruit inspector, but to be one who bears fruit that is worthy of the glory of God.

Jesus commended the Samaritan who poured oil into the wounds of the man by the roadside.

I<3Jesus
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:50 AM
Sarcasm actually does not help your case...:lol:

Well didn't you know I was a sarcastic, trouble maker who lashes out all the time? LOL!

The Parson
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:55 AM
Everybody please get back on topic...:OFFT:

ravi4u2
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:55 AM
Ravi, I make it a point not to rebuke or exhort someone for the sake of argument, but for the sake of helping other Christians in their own growth and progress toward greater holiness.

It is not my goal to be a fruit inspector, but to be one who bears fruit that is worthy of the glory of God.

Jesus commended the Samaritan who poured oil into the wounds of the man by the roadside.While I appreciate your personal convictions, this is Bible Chat. Whatever is said here is mostly to express one's view of understanding what the Word says, and has very little to do with rebuking or exhorting. And anyway, I personally try not to exhort nor rebuke anyone I do not have a relationship with.

Seeker of truth
Mar 2nd 2008, 01:24 AM
During dinner I gave this thread quite a lot of thought. This is what I feel led to post.....

The OP was

OK guys, here's a thread to discuss extra marital s*x. Some folks say it's OK but I do not believe that it is. We'll start small and go from there.

S#x outside of the marriage bed is not only wrong, it's a sin. If we are not legally married we are not to be having s#x. We are only to have s#x with our husband/wife.

As Christians we are to set examples for others. We are not to cause another to stumble. By living with someone we are not legally married to we may cause another to stumble by giving them the impression if we are not having s#x with the person we are living with it's acceptable to live together in sin.

If we have doubts as to what is sin and what isn't we have an entire guide as to how to pattern our lives. It's called the Bible. All of our answers can be found within.

karenoka27
Mar 2nd 2008, 01:30 AM
I wasn't lashing out or arguing. Every time I post you think I am lashing out or arguing, so tell me what is the point of bothering to continue posting at all?

I don't believe I directed my comment to anyone in particular...take it as you will...but nonetheless I am speaking to everyone...

ravi4u2
Mar 2nd 2008, 01:34 AM
During dinner I gave this thread quite a lot of thought. This is what I feel led to post.....

The OP was

S#x outside of the marriage bed is not only wrong, it's a sin. If we are not legally married we are not to be having s#x. We are only to have s#x with our husband/wife.

As Christians we are to set examples for others. We are not to cause another to stumble. By living with someone we are not legally married to we may cause another to stumble by giving them the impression if we are not having s#x with the person we are living with it's acceptable to live together in sin.

If we have doubts as to what is sin and what isn't we have an entire guide as to how to pattern our lives. It's called the Bible. All of our answers can be found within.So, is that the new way of spelling sex...S#X???:lol:

Seeker of truth
Mar 2nd 2008, 01:35 AM
So, is that the new way of spelling sex...S#X???:lol:

I was paying attention to the title of the thread and got carried away :lol:

bjones
Mar 2nd 2008, 04:22 AM
"And ther real answer is that many of us do not feel convicted to give a care what people think of us."

Gee, I'm sorry you think this is pick on you day. I'm pretty sure I am the one who made the point that the paper isn't required. How did that make me your enemy?

I have been trying to steer away from law and into maturity discussing love, wisdom and testimony without condemnation of any kind, but you have taken exception to that as well thinking I am accusing you. I don't accuse you.

"Me thinks thou protesteth too much." as Shakespeare would say.

A choice to make a testimony is a voluntary choice of action with the specific design of making a message. Voluntary is not law, hence no accusation. You say you don't care what people think.... great. Then it is likely that you have no intentional message for your life other than church sucks. I am sorry for that. Christ died for better.

MMC
Mar 2nd 2008, 04:27 AM
Hey folks, I REALLY do just want to learn the scriptural basis for the position that sex outside of marriage is sinful. I'm not concerned about who may be doing what with whom...(and for the record, I engaged in sex outside of marriage - I'm not in the business of casting stones here) I just really do wanna learn some scripture....so here goes:

Mark, I found some other verses:

Sex with animals is sin:
Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. Exodus 22:19 (I think it's just dreadful God had to actually tell us that! *shudders*) Also, Leviticus 18:23

Sex with close kin is sin:
Leviticus 18:6-18

Sex with someone of the same gender is sin:
Leviticus 18:22

"Sexual immorality"/"Fornication" is sin:
1 Corinthians 6:18 / 1 Cor 10:8 (actually, I found a lot of verses about fornication - but no where did I really find a clear cut definition of it...

But "fornication" is apparently something different than "adultery" because Christ lists it out as a separate kind of sin here:

"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." Matthew 15:19-20

I was actually quite suprised to read the passages in Leviticus, which really spelled out in graphic detail what types of relations were forbidden. I had no idea my bible was so ... X-rated. Anyway...based on my review so far, the only time I see where the bible speaks approvingly of sexual relations of any kind, is when it is in reference to a man and woman who are married. Hebrews 13:4

p.s. Mark, I switched to a KJV - but my concordance is NIV - so finding verses that way was like trying to milk a duck. LOL! :lol:

MMC
Mar 2nd 2008, 04:27 AM
:hmm: I wonder if there is a verse about milking a duck in Leviticus? :lol:

MMC
Mar 2nd 2008, 04:35 AM
I've typed literally THOUSANDS of words in this thread, and no one will read them.

:giveup:

I've read them, FMI. :hug: Please don't go. I think you contribute so much to this forum.

Tanya~
Mar 2nd 2008, 05:31 AM
Hi MMC,




But "fornication" is apparently something different than "adultery" because Christ lists it out as a separate kind of sin.

The Greek word translated 'fornication' is porneia. It includes adultery. You can see that the English word "porn" comes from the same Greek root. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery. Adultery is only when a married person has sex with someone other than his/her wife. Fornication is any illicit sexual activity, whether the person committing it is married or not.



p.s. Mark, I switched to a KJV - but my concordance is NIV - so finding verses that way was like trying to milk a duck. LOL! :lol:

You can go into BibleGateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) which allows you to search in any of a number of versions.

Kahtar
Mar 2nd 2008, 05:35 AM
What is sin? Sin is breaking/violating the commands/instructions of God.
All have sinned. Without Christ, all are condemned.
Christ has taken that condemnation upon Himself, thereby setting us free from it.
It is a gift freely offered. If we accept the gift, we are freed from condemnation. If we reject the gift, we remain condemned.
Being freed from condemnation does not make continued sin permissible. Sin remains sin, and we are instructed to depart from it.
When a person speaks, or writes, what God has said is sin, that person is not 'condemning' anyone. All they are doing is declaring what God said. If a person observes a brother sinning, and reminds him that it is a sin, he is not condemning him, he is merely reminding the person of God's Word, with the intent being that the sinning brother realize what he is doing is against God's Word, and discontinuing such action.
Becoming angry at a person for trying to help you improve yourself and your relationship with God is foolish. The anger is at God's Word, not the one declaring it.
God has said sex outside the institution of marriage is sin. It is clear in His Word, for all to see. Our trying to manipulate God's Word, or twist it, or pass it off as unimportant, insignificant or that it 'can't possibly mean that', does not change what God has said one iota. The sin remains a sin whether we like that or not. All the arguing and five pages of justifying sin does not diminish the fact that it is sin.
But the sin of extramarital sex is no worse than stealing, or telling a lie, or coveting. Sin is sin, and it all has the same consequence. Death. But the death has been paid, and we are all free to accept that payment. We are also free to suffer the death ourselves.
If we have accepted that gift of Christ, our penalty of death is paid, but we are instructed by God's word to repent, stop doing, those things.
Are you a Christian that is continuing to sin, knowing it is sin? Stop it! And stop trying to justify it. Correct it. Follow after Christ, not your flesh.
If you are not a Christian, stopping your sinning will make little difference in the end. Accepting the free gift Christ has offered us will make a difference, but repentance is a requirement (as opposed to a suggestion).
Now I did not name a single name here. I did not point a finger at a single person.
If this post leaves you feeling convicted or 'condemned', I would suggest instead of lashing out at me, you try lashing out at God, for He is the one who declared clearly what is sin.
I would also suggest you try examining your own heart to see why it is that God's Word is convicting you, or condemning you, then change what needs to be changed. You will benefit by that. Your relationship with God will grow, your attitude toward others will improve, and you will lose that persistant sense of guilt. An THAT my friends, is the whole purpose of this post.

Edit to add: By the way, I've been there, done that. I lived with a girl for a good while before marrying her. I had extramarital sex. Our marriage was based upon that sex. Our marriage fell apart. I learned.. I repented. And the things I said above were true in my life- better relationship with God, etc.

MMC
Mar 2nd 2008, 05:44 AM
The Greek word translated 'fornication' is porneia. It includes adultery. You can see that the English word "porn" comes from the same Greek root. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery. Adultery is only when a married person has sex with someone other than his/her wife. Fornication is any illicit sexual activity, whether the person committing it is married or not.

Hi, Tanya! Yeah, Mark posted the greek word porneia earlier in this thread. The problem is determining what constitutes "illicit sexual activity". I had posted some verses that reference types of sexual conduct which is expressly forbidden. I get that "fornication" and adultery are sin. I'm trying to get from there to "all extramarital sex is sin."

(Which I agree it is - because I've been taught that...I'm trying to understand the scriptural support for that position) - so far I've found scriptural support for:

1. sex with animals is sin
2. sex with the same gender is sin
3. sex with a person not your spouse is sin
4. sex with close relatives is sin

and then that nebulous category called "illicit sexual activity" (ie, fornication) - which clearly encompasses 1 through 4 above, but more than that as well, I presume.

I need someone to show me the verses that say a man and woman, who are not related and not married, should not have sex.

Mark kind of started to - when he was citing verses about a woman being a harlot if she had sex before marriage, and a man being a defrauder and whoremonger if he had sex before marriage....but then I think the thread got derailed a bit.



You can go into BibleGateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) which allows you to search in any of a number of versions.

THanks. :)

Tanya~
Mar 2nd 2008, 06:04 AM
I need someone to show me the verses that say a man and woman, who are not related and not married, should not have sex.

Let's consider these:


1 Cor 7:1-2, 5

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
NKJV


"Because of sexual immorality" above is translated from a Greek definite article and the plural form of porneia.

It is clear from this passage that the only appropriate outlet for sexual gratification is in the marriage context. Otherwise, there would be no need to marry "because of sexual immorality." The passage would not make any sense if it were appropriate for sexual activity to take place apart from marriage.



1 Cor 7:36
But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.
NKJV

In what way would a man behave improperly toward his virgin? If they have the necessity (i.e., the need for sexual gratification), then they need to get married. If it was appropriate for them to consummate their desire for one another apart from marriage, there would be no need to get married in order to rectify the problem of his improper behavior toward her.

MMC
Mar 2nd 2008, 06:54 AM
Let's consider these:


1 Cor 7:1-2, 5



Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:



It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.



5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.


NKJV

"Because of sexual immorality" above is translated from a Greek definite article and the plural form of porneia.

It is clear from this passage that the only appropriate outlet for sexual gratification is in the marriage context. Otherwise, there would be no need to marry "because of sexual immorality." The passage would not make any sense if it were appropriate for sexual activity to take place apart from marriage.



1 Cor 7:36


But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.


NKJV
In what way would a man behave improperly toward his virgin? If they have the necessity (i.e., the need for sexual gratification), then they need to get married. If it was appropriate for them to consummate their desire for one another apart from marriage, there would be no need to get married in order to rectify the problem of his improper behavior toward her.


Well, yes, that bridges the gap rather nicely, actually. :) Thanks, Tanya!

Okay, Mark, take us into step two about what constitutes biblical "marriage."

Follow_Me_Infantry
Mar 2nd 2008, 10:45 AM
"And ther real answer is that many of us do not feel convicted to give a care what people think of us."

Gee, I'm sorry you think this is pick on you day. I'm pretty sure I am the one who made the point that the paper isn't required. How did that make me your enemy?

I have been trying to steer away from law and into maturity discussing love, wisdom and testimony without condemnation of any kind, but you have taken exception to that as well thinking I am accusing you. I don't accuse you.

"Me thinks thou protesteth too much." as Shakespeare would say.

A choice to make a testimony is a voluntary choice of action with the specific design of making a message. Voluntary is not law, hence no accusation. You say you don't care what people think.... great. Then it is likely that you have no intentional message for your life other than church sucks. I am sorry for that. Christ died for better.

You are, of course, absolutely right.

I apologize to everyone for my statement above in quotes and having an attitude.

Most of you know that I am not normally like that. I am not making an excuse, but it surprised even me. That whole airport thing yesterday where my SECOND flight in three days was cancelled put me under such duress that I knew I needed to pray and calm down. Instead of following that leading, I was posting instead.

Lesson learned.

I realize that the "picking on me" attitude was an emotional reaction to an otherwise logical subject; and emotional reactions rarely are productive or positive. Certainly mine was neither.

I don't hate the church. I do, however, get very frustrated at some of the seeming double standards they practice, including judgment of those that do not conform to their doctrine. Not every church does this, of course, but I have had some bad experiences, more bad than good, and it's tainted my perception.

Once again, my most sincere and deepest apologies. I pray y'all will find forgiveness for my outburst and that we can once again return to a productive and respectful discussion.

YBIC,

Richard

Follow_Me_Infantry
Mar 2nd 2008, 11:29 AM
Hi MMC,



The Greek word translated 'fornication' is porneia. It includes adultery. You can see that the English word "porn" comes from the same Greek root. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery. Adultery is only when a married person has sex with someone other than his/her wife. Fornication is any illicit sexual activity, whether the person committing it is married or not.




You can go into BibleGateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) which allows you to search in any of a number of versions.

Hi Tanya,

I found this:

I Cor 6:9 badly mistranslate "porneia" as fornication. Corinth was a wide-open port city. People there could get sex any way they wanted it. Where our English translations read 'fornication', Paul's original Greek word was 'porneia' which means to sell and refers to slaves bought and sold for cultic prostitution. What was happening in the Temples of Corinth was farmers were visiting the temple priestesses who represented the fertility Gods. By having sex with these prostitutes they believed their fields would be more furtile. It didn't even have to do with going to prostitutes, but pagan cultic worship.


LC goes on to claim that versions which translate the word as "sexual immorality" are fudging, and that it is "really a catch-all term that allows interpreters, both professional and lay, to apply this passage to any sexual behavior at all, far beyond the specific practices to which Paul refers."


Is this (and what is also said of Galatians 5 to the same effect) correct? As a matter of fact, it is indeed quite likely that Paul was thinking of sex with temple prostitutes here, but that does not in fact solve LC's problems with this word. Sex with such prostitutes would of course make sense as a sub-species of extra-marital sex. But if that is ALL the word means, then what about these passages?
Matt. 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (cf. Matt. 15:19, 19:9; Mark 7:21)
John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.So then: What Jews of Palestine were having sex with temple prostitutes?

http://www.tektonics.org/libchr/libporneia.html

__________________________________________________ ___________


Admittedly, I am unsure of the credibility of this cite or its author, J.P. Holding.

I was trying to tell Brother Mark this earlier, how the context of the passage must be examined under the culture of the target audience Paul adressed. I used San Fransisco as a modern day equivalent, if I remember correctly.

Perhaps this makes me an apologist(?), but I enjoy history and Laurie is a linguist - translator, and she has her degree in psychology (naturally, she became a horticulturist :lol:), and we have discussed this and, as a linguist, she agrees with my assessment of lost translation by denying the context of the influences of the target audience.

Here's my confusion in this whole thing:

We find Paul extolling this same message to a myriad of churches: Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, Thesselonia, etc.

But when one compares these messages, we see a different manner of presentation in almost every instance. The underlying message is the same: That sexual immorality is a sin.

And yet, with the exception of Mark 10:11, we do not see Jesus doing a great deal of teaching on what defines sexual immorality. If it is so important, such a major aspect and conflict of a Christian lifestyle by way of example, that Paul felt the conviction to write to all these churches, why wasn't Jesus Himself more specific about it with a simple, "Abstain from sexual contact unless you are married?"

I'm really trying to understand this, but between the definition of the concepts, the definition of the actual words, the context of the letters, an historical knowledge of the culture surrounding these churches, and such abstract verbiage in the final translation...

I end up doing this :dunno: or this :B while trying to do this: :hmm:

So I ask myself this:

Would these same Corinth and Ephesus letters be Paul's (and, thus, Jesus') message to us today in today's culture? If not, what would change and why?

I am fully convinced that both (Jesus and Paul) wouldn't change a thing when it comes to homosexuality, beastiality, treating a woman as a sex toy (lust), and would further condemn us as a whole for condoning the cheapening of what God made holy (the act of making love).

But would they expressly forbid sexual contact between two loving, committed, Godly Christians cherishing each other and putting God at the center of their relationship simply because the state of Florida did not issue a piece of paper?

This is the underlying concept of my confusion and inability to answer the questions surrounding the subject.

God judges the heart, not the act. Scripture is VERY clear on that. So why would Jesus tell us to align ourselves with what man views as proper, versus what God sees in the heart?

And why does the Holy Spirit convict me so deeply in regards to other type of sexual contact, but when I pray and seek for the condemnation of pre-marital sex, I feel nothing in the way of conviction.

I am SO HONESTLY trying to understand all this.

Thank you for anything at all you can help me with to sort all this out and better understand God's plan and will for my life.

I'm trying, I really am.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:57 PM
Also, in regards to my post above and the description of the 1 Cor 6:9 supposed misinterpretation, I looked to other acts (no pun intended) and thoughts and letters of Paul's authorship, attempting to test scripture with scripture by the author's own hand.

So, first, a cite about 1 Cor 6:9 and what "fornication" originally meant to Paul:

I Cor 6:9 badly mistranslate "porneia" as fornication. Corinth was a wide-open port city. People there could get sex any way they wanted it. Where our English translations read 'fornication', Paul's original Greek word was 'porneia' which means to sell and refers to slaves bought and sold for cultic prostitution. What was happening in the Temples of Corinth was farmers were visiting the temple priestesses who represented the fertility Gods. By having sex with these prostitutes they believed their fields would be more furtile. It didn't even have to do with going to prostitutes, but pagan cultic worship.

http://www.tektonics.org/libchr/libporneia.html (http://www.tektonics.org/libchr/libporneia.html)

And now take a look at Acts 15: 28,29:

28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.



Hmmmm...

It would seem that, in context, Paul was indeed referring to cultic prostitution and NOT to pre-marital sex.

Stay with me here for a moment, I'm trying to qualify that statement.

When we look at Acts 15: 28 and 29, Paul lumps "sexual immorality" in with things Gentiles worshiped as false gods and the ceremonies and practices that they did in that false worship:

Eating strangled animals, drinking blood, food sacrificed to idols, and THEN, in the midst of these pagan practices intended to honor false gods, he throws in "sexual immorality."

:hmm:

So then we return to 1 Cor 6:9:

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Here, Paul is specifically referring to sexual sin (obviously). He refers to the deeds contained in this passage as "wicked" which means "of evil." Yet he makes a very clear point of MALE prostitutes...

Just male ones? Why not just use the root "prostitute" to include anyone trading sexual favors for services or money, female included?

Is it not "immoral" and "wicked" for a woman to sell herself just as it is for a man? Why the very pointed distinction here?

Well, in Corinth, many of those "cultic prostitutes" were male. In Acts 15: 28, 29, we can see that female prostitutes were "preistesses." It's a different clause (priestess) from the generic "prostitute" he otherwise used but then did NOT use in Acts.

Why is this?



In all, I have to agree, at this moment--I am always capable of being convinced otherwise--, that "fornication," atleast as used in the letter to Corinth and in Acts, specifically targets worshiping false gods and pagan practices, and does NOT refer to pre-marital sex.

Discuss.

MMC
Mar 2nd 2008, 01:22 PM
Hey there, FMI! :hug: Glad you came back!



Here's my confusion in this whole thing:

We find Paul extolling this same message to a myriad of churches: Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, Thesselonia, etc.

But when one compares these messages, we see a different manner of presentation in almost every instance. The underlying message is the same: That sexual immorality is a sin.

And yet, with the exception of Mark 10:11, we do not see Jesus doing a great deal of teaching on what defines sexual immorality.

I agree that it is not quite as clear as some keep suggesting, FMI. That's why I've been trying to do as Mark suggested, which was to define the biblical parameters of what constitutes "unlawful sex". I'm trying to compile that list right now and will post again soon.


If it is so important, such a major aspect and conflict of a Christian lifestyle by way of example, that Paul felt the conviction to write to all these churches, why wasn't Jesus Himself more specific about it with a simple, "Abstain from sexual contact unless you are married?"

I suspect most jews (his primary audience when he was teaching) didn't need him to say that. Paul, on the other hand, had to talk about it alot - because his audiences were mostly gentile (former pagans).



God judges the heart, not the act. Scripture is VERY clear on that. So why would Jesus tell us to align ourselves with what man views as proper, versus what God sees in the heart?

I agree that God judges the heart - and I frankly don't know what your marital status is in that respect (in part, cause we haven't gotten to defining marriage yet!), because it seems pretty clear to me that you and Laurie have a loving committed relationship. I think Mark's advice to take this in bits is pretty good advice: step 1 - define the biblical parameters for unlawful sex, and step 2 - determine the biblical definition of marriage.



And why does the Holy Spirit convict me so deeply in regards to other type of sexual contact, but when I pray and seek for the condemnation of pre-marital sex, I feel nothing in the way of conviction.

I don't know. I feel pretty convicted too, but I guess I'm coming from the other direction - I feel pretty convicted that pre-marital sex is sinful, but I'm trying to find out if there is a biblical basis for this position, or if its just something I've been taught to believe. It's probably always a good idea to check our convictions against what scripture has to say - otherwise, how can we know if it is from God or from ourselves?


I am SO HONESTLY trying to understand all this.

Ditto, my brother! ;)

I keep wanting it to be laid out for me in one concise and clear logical argument, but we keep getting bits here and there (with frequent off-topic interruptions). Very frustrating. But this is good for me, cause its forcing me to go and try to compile the information myself!

Anyway, glad you're back on the thread!
YSIC,
Mel

MMC
Mar 2nd 2008, 02:57 PM
Here's the scripture I've compiled so far regarding the boundaries for permissible sexual behavior:

1. Sex with animals is a sin.

Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. Leviticus 18:23
Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death. Exodus 22:19(I’m hoping the “put to death part” is one of the old testament laws that is no longer applicable – same with the “stoning adulterers” laws). :eek:

2. Being a “whoremonger” is a sin.

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Ephesians 5:5(I’m assuming “whoremongering” is lying with prostitutes – which may be a wrong assumption – if anyone has the greek root/meaning please enlighten me.)


3. Sex with someone not your spouse is sin.

You shall not commit adultery. Exodus 20:144. Sex with close relatives is sin.

No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you. Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister. Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative. Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative. Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt. Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her. Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother. Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness. Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. Leviticus 18:6-185. Sex with someone of the same gender is sin.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 18:22
6. And here are the verses cited so far which support that ANY sex outside of marriage is sin.


Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%207:1-2&version=31#fen-NIV-28473a#fen-NIV-28473a)] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 1 Cor. 7:1-2
(the clear implication is that any sex outside of marriage is sinful, else why would Paul encourage us to legitimize the behavior by marrying?)
EDIT: I don't think Paul is saying that the only reason to marry is so we can have sex - that's a pretty strained reading of the text. I think what he's saying is - its better not to be sexually immoral at all - if you are having sex outside of marriage, stop it! If you cannot, then it is better to marry, at least then you won't be continuing in your sin. That in no way implies that the purpose of marriage is to gratify sexual desire. My two cents.


If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 1 Cor. 7:36(here we have the example of an engaged couple who are exhorted to hurry up and marry if they are "acting improperly")


"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. Exodus 22:16-17(Again, another example where sex with someone before marriage is deemed sinful, and the exhortation that the guilty must marry. Further, a man who lies with a woman without marrying her has defrauded her, and must make restitution to the girl’s father.)


If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-21&version=31#fen-NIV-5490a#fen-NIV-5490a)] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:13-21(and here again, a woman who is found to have been sexually active before marriage has sinned)

Indeed, so far the ONLY time I’ve found approval for sexual behavior of any kind, is in the context of marriage:


Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 1 Corinthians 7:4I don't know how to come to any other conclusion except that marriage is the only context in which sexual behavior is permitted. I am ready now to move on to learning about the biblical definition of marriage.

RoadWarrior
Mar 2nd 2008, 04:42 PM
...
I don't know how to come to any other conclusion except that marriage is the only context in which sexual behavior is permitted. I am ready now to move on to learning about the biblical definition of marriage.

This is an excellent conclusion.

Frequently in discussions such at this one, I notice that people are trying to figure out how much can they get away with, before incurring the wrath of God. Like a child in the cookie jar, "How many cookies can I steal before I get caught and get a whupping?" And "How can I rearrange the cookies so that it doesn't look like any are missing?"

God gave clear instructions to Adam and Eve about the marriage relationship. The rest of the Book reveals man's attempts to steal the cookies, together with warnings of conseqences and exhortations to return to the holiness of the design given by God.

We know that sexual immorality is sin. Period. It is sin. It misses the mark of what God has planned for the joining together of one man with one woman in Him. God cares about details, including timing. Anything we do outside of His plan, mars the beauty.

Most of us live in a marred life. God is gracious and gives us a second chance. It can never be perfect as it could have been without sin in the picture, but it can be very good and it can bring glory to God.

Our goal should be to cleanse ourselves from as much sin as possible, to work hard at drawing near to God and pleasing Him. If we shift our focus away from what we should not do, toward what we should do, we will have better success in all ways.

Brother Mark
Mar 2nd 2008, 05:45 PM
Admittedly, I am unsure of the credibility of this cite or its author, J.P. Holding.

I was trying to tell Brother Mark this earlier, how the context of the passage must be examined under the culture of the target audience Paul adressed. I used San Fransisco as a modern day equivalent, if I remember correctly.

Which is why I went and used the Jewish culture. Now we have several widely differing cultures where the same command is given. Temple prostitutes were not in all of them.

Tell me something FMI, what is the difference in your argument and those that argue that homosexual relationships are OK today?


Here's my confusion in this whole thing:

We find Paul extolling this same message to a myriad of churches: Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, Thesselonia, etc.

But when one compares these messages, we see a different manner of presentation in almost every instance. The underlying message is the same: That sexual immorality is a sin.

And yet, with the exception of Mark 10:11, we do not see Jesus doing a great deal of teaching on what defines sexual immorality. If it is so important, such a major aspect and conflict of a Christian lifestyle by way of example, that Paul felt the conviction to write to all these churches, why wasn't Jesus Himself more specific about it with a simple, "Abstain from sexual contact unless you are married?"

Jesus said more about it than Mark 10:11. I can quote verses if you like. ;) Having said that though, who do you think was speaking through Paul?


So I ask myself this:

Would these same Corinth and Ephesus letters be Paul's (and, thus, Jesus') message to us today in today's culture? If not, what would change and why?

And another question, if it wasn't meant for us today, why would it be preserved by God for us? And why inspire Paul to write it? Also, why is it addressed in the OT? As well as in the gospels?


But would they expressly forbid sexual contact between two loving, committed, Godly Christians cherishing each other and putting God at the center of their relationship simply because the state of Florida did not issue a piece of paper?

This is the underlying concept of my confusion and inability to answer the questions surrounding the subject.

God judges the heart, not the act. Scripture is VERY clear on that. So why would Jesus tell us to align ourselves with what man views as proper, versus what God sees in the heart?

And why does the Holy Spirit convict me so deeply in regards to other type of sexual contact, but when I pray and seek for the condemnation of pre-marital sex, I feel nothing in the way of conviction.

I am SO HONESTLY trying to understand all this.

Thank you for anything at all you can help me with to sort all this out and better understand God's plan and will for my life.

I'm trying, I really am.


Just a note as far as conviction is concerned.... Do you understand what it means to have a seared conscience? Ever do without TV for a month, then go back and watch it? Notice how the words or the violence are more shocking? We have our conscience seared.

Our heart is not a safe thing to trust. That is part of the point of this thread. I quoted a verse before about it in Jer. 17:9. But the word of God is a safe thing to trust as it was written in many different cultures and does not change.

Brother Mark
Mar 2nd 2008, 05:47 PM
Here's the scripture I've compiled so far regarding the boundaries for permissible sexual behavior:

1. Sex with animals is a sin.
Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. Leviticus 18:23
Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death. Exodus 22:19(I’m hoping the “put to death part” is one of the old testament laws that is no longer applicable – same with the “stoning adulterers” laws). :eek:

2. Being a “whoremonger” is a sin.
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Ephesians 5:5(I’m assuming “whoremongering” is lying with prostitutes – which may be a wrong assumption – if anyone has the greek root/meaning please enlighten me.)


3. Sex with someone not your spouse is sin.
You shall not commit adultery. Exodus 20:144. Sex with close relatives is sin.
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you. Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister. Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative. Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative. Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt. Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her. Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother. Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness. Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. Leviticus 18:6-185. Sex with someone of the same gender is sin.
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 18:226. And here are the verses cited so far which support that ANY sex outside of marriage is sin.

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%207:1-2&version=31#fen-NIV-28473a#fen-NIV-28473a)] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 1 Cor. 7:1-2(the clear implication is that any sex outside of marriage is sinful, else why would Paul encourage us to legitimize the behavior by marrying?)
EDIT: I don't think Paul is saying that the only reason to marry is so we can have sex - that's a pretty strained reading of the text. I think what he's saying is - its better not to be sexually immoral at all - if you are having sex outside of marriage, stop it! If you cannot, then it is better to marry, at least then you won't be continuing in your sin. That in no way implies that the purpose of marriage is to gratify sexual desire. My two cents.

If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 1 Cor. 7:36(here we have the example of an engaged couple who are exhorted to hurry up and marry if they are "acting improperly")

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. Exodus 22:16-17(Again, another example where sex with someone before marriage is deemed sinful, and the exhortation that the guilty must marry. Further, a man who lies with a woman without marrying her has defrauded her, and must make restitution to the girl’s father.)

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-21&version=31#fen-NIV-5490a#fen-NIV-5490a)] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:13-21(and here again, a woman who is found to have been sexually active before marriage has sinned)

Indeed, so far the ONLY time I’ve found approval for sexual behavior of any kind, is in the context of marriage:

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 1 Corinthians 7:4I don't know how to come to any other conclusion except that marriage is the only context in which sexual behavior is permitted. I am ready now to move on to learning about the biblical definition of marriage.

That sums it up very well MMC. Thanks for taking the time to do so.

Tanya~
Mar 2nd 2008, 06:22 PM
Hi FMI,



I found this:

I Cor 6:9 badly mistranslate "porneia" as fornication. Corinth was a wide-open port city. People there could get sex any way they wanted it. Where our English translations read 'fornication', Paul's original Greek word was 'porneia' which means to sell and refers to slaves bought and sold for cultic prostitution. What was happening in the Temples of Corinth was farmers were visiting the temple priestesses who represented the fertility Gods. By having sex with these prostitutes they believed their fields would be more furtile. It didn't even have to do with going to prostitutes, but pagan cultic worship.

That all sounds very well and good until you look at how it is used in Scripture. While there is a connotation of selling sex, the word isn't used in Scripture with quite so narrow a meaning. For example:


1 Cor 5:1

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles — that a man has his father's wife!
NKJV
There is no buying or selling here, or slavery. It is simply a matter of a man having conjugal relations with his father's wife.


John 8:41
Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
KJV

The subtle suggestion here by the Pharisees to Jesus was that they were of legitimate birth, whereas Jesus was 'born of fornication.' Mary was found to be pregnant before she and Joseph were married. This doesn't suggest buying and selling, it is only about having intercourse outside of marriage.


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

If fornication were only about trafficking in sex, then this wouldn't make sense. Porneia is about illicit sex, not just sex traffic.



Admittedly, I am unsure of the credibility of this cite or its author, J.P. Holding.


JP Holding is quoting what he terms "Liberated Christians" who seek to justify immorality. He isn't arguing this point, but just demonstrating what they are saying. And his point is right. It doesn't make sense, because Jews would not be engaging in sexual activity with pagan temple prostitutes.

Read the rest of Holding's article. He also quotes John 8:41 and makes this comment:


The John 8:41 cite is particularly relevant. In the OT allegiance to a deity other than YHWH was described in terms of harlotry and fornication. In the NT Christians are the bride of Christ. In these terms the model for marriage is allegiance to ONE party; if "free love" was the order of the day, then LC must make the absurd claim that being the "bride of Christ" permits us to worship Molech. Contextually this is a matter not of sex per se but of covenant loyalty. To therefore say, as LC does, that "[n]othing in the NT indicates any prohibition of singles' sexuality" is to make a patent mockery of the contextual background which relates marriage to covenant relations between YHWH and His people; to make it a matter of "love over legalism," a virtual blasphemy against YHWH's own love for his people on the OT; to claim that "marriage" as practiced in the Bible is no longer relevant, patently absurd especially in light of our future identity as the bride of Christ.

He is not arguing for sexual liberty among Christians. Quite the contrary.


Laurie is a linguist - translator, and she has her degree in psychology (naturally, she became a horticulturist :lol:), and we have discussed this and, as a linguist, she agrees with my assessment of lost translation by denying the context of the influences of the target audience.

I think if both of you would spend a little more time considering the question as it is presented in Scripture, you might come to a different conclusion.


sexual immorality is a sin.

And yet, with the exception of Mark 10:11, we do not see Jesus doing a great deal of teaching on what defines sexual immorality. If it is so important, such a major aspect and conflict of a Christian lifestyle by way of example, that Paul felt the conviction to write to all these churches, why wasn't Jesus Himself more specific about it with a simple, "Abstain from sexual contact unless you are married?"

In the Jewish culture of the 1st Century, that was a given. Why would Jesus need to spell it out if everyone already knew it? But Paul does tell us that, in 1 Cor 7. If you have need for sexual gratification as most of us do, then every man should have a wife, and every woman should have a husband, in order to avoid porneia.


I'm really trying to understand this, but between the definition of the concepts, the definition of the actual words, the context of the letters, an historical knowledge of the culture surrounding these churches, and such abstract verbiage in the final translation...

I end up doing this :dunno: or this :B while trying to do this: :hmm:

There's another stumbling block to understanding. Our own behavior, our own desires, our own issues, affect how we view things and how much we permit ourselves to receive. We generally tend to see what we want to see.


Would these same Corinth and Ephesus letters be Paul's (and, thus, Jesus') message to us today in today's culture? If not, what would change and why?

They do apply to our culture. When we relegate practical Biblical instruction to a foreign culture, we rob ourselves of the power of the Scripture to accomplish what it is intended to accomplish:

2 Tim 3:16-17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

If we don't allow God to correct us, then we stagnate in the faith and we become what might be termed 'spiritually retarded.' We don't progress, we don't grow. And the sin that we continue to commit deceives and hardens us, and ultimately pulls us away from God. It all starts with not believing the word of God. Whenever you find yourself 'explaining away' what God has said, you are walking on thin ice.



But would they expressly forbid sexual contact between two loving, committed, Godly Christians cherishing each other and putting God at the center of their relationship simply because the state of Florida did not issue a piece of paper?

The state of Florida has nothing to do with it. If a couple is Christian and godly, and if they truly cherish one another, they will do what is right by one another. Why should you treat the woman you love as a concubine? If you love her, wouldn't you honor her and make her your wife legally so that she can benefit from the legal protection that the state gives to a wife?

But if the state of Florida will not issue a marriage license, perhaps there is some barrier preventing a legal marriage. That would be another issue.


God judges the heart, not the act. Scripture is VERY clear on that. So why would Jesus tell us to align ourselves with what man views as proper, versus what God sees in the heart?

This isn't true. God searches the heart, and it is out of the heart that sinful acts arise. If a person is committing acts that are contrary to God's will, they reveal a heart that is in rebellion to God's will.



And why does the Holy Spirit convict me so deeply in regards to other type of sexual contact, but when I pray and seek for the condemnation of pre-marital sex, I feel nothing in the way of conviction.

It's because you have already justified your situation in your own mind. But that doesn't make you innocent.

Look FMI, you aren't in a situation that is so unique that many of the rest of us haven't been there to some degree or another. The object here is not to condemn you, but to point you in the right direction so you can take whatever measures you need to take to make things right in your life. It's your choice to make and nobody is trying to force anything on you. This is between you, God, and the woman you say you love.

Brother Mark
Mar 2nd 2008, 06:44 PM
Excellent post Tanya. I think at this point, I will add one verse. It is a powerful verse and there are many more like it in scripture.

Prov 14:12
12 There is a way which seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.
NASB

We must all be careful of doing only that which "seems right" or "feels right" to us for it can lead to spiritual death.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:07 PM
Hi FMI,



[/i]That all sounds very well and good until you look at how it is used in Scripture. While there is a connotation of selling sex, the word isn't used in Scripture with quite so narrow a meaning. For example:


1 Cor 5:1



It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles — that a man has his father's wife!


NKJV
There is no buying or selling here, or slavery. It is simply a matter of a man having conjugal relations with his father's wife.

Written to the church in Corinth. Whether or not people slept with their moms is irrelevant to whether or not slaves were sold under cultic prostitution. Arizona has both forest and desert: Each are unique. But to encourage someone about Arizona, I'd speak of both as part of the whole that is Arizona. One cannot mention Arizona without signifying Tucson or Flagstaff, each their own part of Arizona and vastly different in demographics.

So just because this ONE verse tends to the sin of familial sexual relations, that doesn't dismiss the meaning of the other verse.



John 8:41


Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.


KJV
The subtle suggestion here by the Pharisees to Jesus was that they were of legitimate birth, whereas Jesus was 'born of fornication.' Mary was found to be pregnant before she and Joseph were married. This doesn't suggest buying and selling, it is only about having intercourse outside of marriage.

Wait, let me get this right.

You're suggesting that we LEARN from the Pharisees that CONDEMNED Christ?

I'm sorry, Tanya, but there is no way I am accepting the Pharisees' words as Godly correction of potential sin.



1 Cor 7:2


Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.


KJV
If fornication were only about trafficking in sex, then this wouldn't make sense. Porneia is about illicit sex, not just sex traffic.

I highlighted in red the pertinet parts: His and her OWN. In other words, don't have ANOTHER. Don't have a prostitute when you can have a wife.

Tanya, in those days marriages were pre-arranged. People not married didn't have sex or live together unless one of them was a prostitute. It only makes sense that Paul used "marriage," because ALL "couples" back then were either married or not recognized as a couple by the church (any church).

So it's not a God concept, it's a church precedent - like some churches today have a dress code (another thing Jesus never said). The gross misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings by the church, the influences and intentional adding and subtracting of scripture under severe political pressure, cannot be ignored.

This verse makes sense if you're just having sex. But if you're in a meaningful, Godly, committed, monogomous relationship, legally married or not, you are conforming to this admonishment Paul extolls us to behave within.





JP Holding is quoting what he terms "Liberated Christians" who seek to justify immorality. He isn't arguing this point, but just demonstrating what they are saying. And his point is right. It doesn't make sense, because Jews would not be engaging in sexual activity with pagan temple prostitutes.

Read the rest of Holding's article. He also quotes John 8:41 and makes this comment:



He is not arguing for sexual liberty among Christians. Quite the contrary.

I understand that. But just because HE doesn't agree doesn't mean it is dismissable.




I think if both of you would spend a little more time considering the question as it is presented in Scripture, you might come to a different conclusion.

I find this statement very condescending.

We ARE comparing it to scripture - hence the "test scripture by scripture" comparison I made between Acts and Corinthians. It took me 3 hours to find, read, and post those two posts.

Just because I don't know as MUCH scripture as you doesn't mean I am making my own rules without scripture to base them on.

I simply feel that y'all are misinterpreting the scriptures you're posting, and I'm doing my best to explain why I feel that way. If I am wrong, I'm wrong.

But y'all are using ONE thing (a literal interpretation of scripture as taught by the church), while I am using MANY things: Scripture, a linguist, an historian, and context of socio circles of the target audience for the text in question.

I believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, but I also believe that a narrow definition of God's thoughts is simply limiting ourselves to an easy way out - just read and quote. We have to remember that God transcends all understanding. We can never fully fathom His Word, nor can any of us ever say for certain that we have it unquestionably right. We have to TEST the scriptures, and that means comparing scripture in a myriad of defining lines to reach the ambigous conclusions God wants us to have (the doctrine of free will and God not providing all the answers), not just taking a literal definition and quoting it without the context of WHY He wanted it there, where the context and INTENT are.




In the Jewish culture of the 1st Century, that was a given. Why would Jesus need to spell it out if everyone already knew it? But Paul does tell us that, in 1 Cor 7. If you have need for sexual gratification as most of us do, then every man should have a wife, and every woman should have a husband, in order to avoid porneia.

That's my point exactly, my sister! In that culture, everyone was either married or unwed and sleeping with prostitutes for flesh gratification which, at that time and in that place, was the avenue for false gods practices and worship.

This is the letter to the church at Corinth where sexual slavery ran rampant. Paul knew this. He was there. He PERSONALLY witnessed the priestesses using their bodies to worship fertility gods, the whores that occupied every street corner, the same-sex relationships as a sign of status, the denial of Christ by supporting these pagan religions. What Paul NEVER saw was a committed man and woman in a loving relationship, honoring the REAL God, making love out of wedlock. That didn't exist there.

So how can he comment on something he never knew existed?

That's why porneia is refuted for today's interpretation: Today's interpretation didn't really exist in Paul's exposures.




There's another stumbling block to understanding. Our own behavior, our own desires, our own issues, affect how we view things and how much we permit ourselves to receive. We generally tend to see what we want to see.

Agreed! But in EARNESTLY seeking the Holy Spirit and asking Him, open to any answer including "this is wrong, Richard!" I feel no conviction. And if I feel no conviction, and so many others agree with me, the perhaps--just PERHAPS, Tanya--there really is a misinterpretation occuring.




They do apply to our culture. When we relegate practical Biblical instruction to a foreign culture, we rob ourselves of the power of the Scripture to accomplish what it is intended to accomplish:

2 Tim 3:16-17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

If we don't allow God to correct us, then we stagnate in the faith and we become what might be termed 'spiritually retarded.' We don't progress, we don't grow. And the sin that we continue to commit deceives and hardens us, and ultimately pulls us away from God. It all starts with not believing the word of God. Whenever you find yourself 'explaining away' what God has said, you are walking on thin ice.

Agreed! But at the same time, what God's word actually IS is the subject of this entire thread. You contend "A" and I proclaim "B." If you ask me, God has His own reasons for not making this outright clear like He did with so many other things (homosexuality, adultery, etc). God is not the author of confusion, but He DOES desire we seek Him because we aren't given all the answers. I think this is one of those cases.




The state of Florida has nothing to do with it. If a couple is Christian and godly, and if they truly cherish one another, they will do what is right by one another. Why should you treat the woman you love as a concubine? If you love her, wouldn't you honor her and make her your wife legally so that she can benefit from the legal protection that the state gives to a wife?

You're once again taking things literally, my dear sister. I mentioned Florida, but Florida law has nothing at all to do with it.

You said it right: Doing it right by one another. That's what we are doing, what we see as right. And we feel blessed by God and that we are within biblical standards for Christian living. In my bible studies, I see nothing to tell us that we are outside of God's law.

Tanya, telling me that I am treating Laurie as a concubine is incredibly insulting and demeaning to the love we have for each other. I received infractions here for being combative, yet a moderator can come in here, as my sister in Christ, and my fellow Phoenician, and tell me how I am looking at my own relationship with my wife with verbiage such as 'concubine'?

I am EXTREMELY disappointed and hurt that you'd choose that word to cheapen what I feel for her, and I respectfully ask that you show me an equal amount of Godly respect, in Christ's love, when it comes to adding adjectives in front of my wife's name. She does not feel treated that way, and I am not treating her that way, so your comment was out of line and predisposing to a point of outright disrespect and rudeness.

I don't want an apology or a retraction (Laurie already saw it and I'll refrain from repeating her comments here), but I will thank you to address US with Godly intentions and not pointed slams and putdowns. As a soldier, a Christian, and a husband and father, I do not deserve my wife being described in such a lavicious manner. Neither does she deserve your disdain. Thank you in advance.

As for WHY we are not marrying immediately, I have explained that several times already in this very thread. There are legal and financial implications I, as a man, must consider as potential negative ramifications for her otherwise structured life. Regardless, the reason is not important. The topic is sex outside of marriage, and we should stick to that subject, not critique why or why not we marry tomorrow or further down the road.


But if the state of Florida will not issue a marriage license, perhaps there is some barrier preventing a legal marriage. That would be another issue.

Not that I know of, at any rate. Laurie is 45 and I am 37, both law-abiding citizens that pay our taxes and not related to each other in any way. I cannot imagine a scenario that ANY state would provide to deny us their secular marriage permission slip.



[/quote]This isn't true. God searches the heart, and it is out of the heart that sinful acts arise. If a person is committing acts that are contrary to God's will, they reveal a heart that is in rebellion to God's will. [/quote]

It is very true.

Matthew 15:11

What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "


1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."





It's because you have already justified your situation in your own mind. But that doesn't make you innocent.

No, it's because I DILIGENTLY prayed over it (long before we even held hands, as I've stated, and as she also did) and searched scripture for a point where Jesus said, "Do not believe the Holy Spirit, for it is your understanding, and sex outside of marriage is a sin." I could find no such passage.

I did, however, find much questioning over the words "fornication" and "adultery," and I certainly found much where we are told to listen to the Holy Spirit, to seek Him in all earnestness and with due diligence, and that God doesn't judge by man's standards, but by His because we have a personal relationship with Him through the mediator that is the Holy Spirit and the savior that is Christ Jesus.


Look FMI, you aren't in a situation that is so unique that many of the rest of us haven't been there to some degree or another. The object here is not to condemn you, but to point you in the right direction so you can take whatever measures you need to take to make things right in your life. It's your choice to make and nobody is trying to force anything on you. This is between you, God, and the woman you say you love.

Yes, sister, and I thank everyone for their input. Believe me, I am here in this thread not to defend, but to learn by having my personal beliefs challenged.

:hug:

The Parson
Mar 3rd 2008, 04:02 PM
Here is the grate though. This issue is complicated, not because the Bible complicates it but because we (the flesh) complicate it. The defining and redefining of translated words makes me believe that we don't believe that God will and does preserve His Word.

If in the scriptures we look at the 10 commandments, then we say, naw, these aren't really commandments any more because of Grace. We have just begun to complicate a simple precept. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments". He didn't say, "If you love me you will keep my suggestions".

I direct you back to my original post in this thread...

Hmmmm, this is a plumb interesting thread. It seems that some have got their definitions a bit crossed though.

Marriage by the Biblical definition is an event before witnesses where the man of God makes a pronouncement of marriage according to the vows that were taken. Thereafter, a feast was given in celebration of a holy union because it is holy.

For instance, is a marriage without a slip of paper a marriage? According to the powers that be it isn't in their eyes. Aren't we supposed to obey the powers that be?

Is a marriage a marriage without the vows made before witnesses and the pronouncement? No, even the marriage of Adam and Eve was pronounced by God and witnessed by the Holy angels I reckon.

And going against these by not having the pronouncement in front of witnesses is not marriage, it's fornication. Notice though, this is to the Christian, not the lost. The lost do what the lost does naturally. They sin and do not recognize any authority over them. Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

And a Christian who doesn't do it the way God expects is in rebellion I would think. Isn't it written somewhere that rebellion is the same as witch craft?My friend, just because we don't trust established religion is no reason to go against the way God has set things up. I hate using the term religion anyway in the context of it being the church. That's not what the Bible says it is.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

MMC
Mar 3rd 2008, 04:10 PM
Hey FMI!

I just wanted to let you know I've been diligently reading all of your posts and I wanted to thank you for having the courage to continue the discussion.

For what it is worth, I think you may have a stronger case defending the idea that you and Laurie *are* actually married, than defending the proposition that sex outside of marriage is okay.

You've told us that you and Laurie have professed commitment to one another, before God, and before your families and the community at large. That this commitment is for life, is exclusive to one another, and that Christ is at the center of it. How is that not a covenant marriage? What *is* a covenant marriage, anyway?

By that definition, I think you may be more "married" than my husband and I were when we first obtained our certificate of marriage from the state: we were married in a church (but not in the Church), and we professed a lifelong commitment to one another, but Christ was NOT at the center of it. We are now both Christians, and I think are living more in line with what God intended for marriage than when we first exchanged vows. My point is this:

Sometimes a plain reading of the text is all that is required. And as far as i can see, a plain reading of scripture says premarital sex is wrong. But, I am also not at all convinced that you and Laurie are engaging in "premarital" or "extramarital" sex.

Do you see the distinction?

Anyway....my two cents. I hope this discussion continues, as I'd really like to explore the biblical definition of marriage some more.

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 04:16 PM
Hey FMI, glad you are continuing the discussion. I am going to shift gears for a moment. Perhaps at some point, we can come back and discuss the jewish culture and what fornication meant in that culture. But for now...

Can you find me a scripture where sex outside of marriage is endorsed or encouraged by God?

Tanya~
Mar 3rd 2008, 06:07 PM
Written to the church in Corinth. Whether or not people slept with their moms is irrelevant to whether or not slaves were sold under cultic prostitution. Arizona has both forest and desert: Each are unique. But to encourage someone about Arizona, I'd speak of both as part of the whole that is Arizona. One cannot mention Arizona without signifying Tucson or Flagstaff, each their own part of Arizona and vastly different in demographics.

So just because this ONE verse tends to the sin of familial sexual relations, that doesn't dismiss the meaning of the other verse.

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say here. What I have tried to show you is that when you look at how the Bible uses the word porneia, it is NOT about cult prostitution. The man was having sex with his stepmother. That was porneia. What we want to do is try to understand how the Bible treats the word, so that you can understand what the Holy Spirit means by it.


Wait, let me get this right.

You're suggesting that we LEARN from the Pharisees that CONDEMNED Christ?

I'm sorry, Tanya, but there is no way I am accepting the Pharisees' words as Godly correction of potential sin.

This is just a red herring, FMI. All I'm trying to show, is how the Bible uses the word. Mary was pregnant with Jesus before she and Joseph were married. They of course did not know that she was a virgin; they assumed she and Joseph had had sex and she got pregnant prior to their marriage. Thus, they intimated that Jesus was 'born of fornication' or born of porneia. The point is that porneia is not a reference to prostitution, but to sex between two people who are not married to one another.


Don't have a prostitute when you can have a wife.

You're missing the point. :) The instruction is, to avoid porneia, if you need sexual gratification, get a wife. He also wrote this:


1 Cor 7:8-9
But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
NKJV


Tanya, in those days marriages were pre-arranged. People not married didn't have sex or live together unless one of them was a prostitute. It only makes sense that Paul used "marriage," because ALL "couples" back then were either married or not recognized as a couple by the church (any church).

Do you have some sources for this? I don't think you have your facts straight. The woman at the well was living with a man who was not her husband, and there is no evidence that she was a prostitute. She was a serial monogamist.


This verse makes sense if you're just having sex. But if you're in a meaningful, Godly, committed, monogomous relationship, legally married or not, you are conforming to this admonishment Paul extolls us to behave within.

I understand that this is your belief and position, but this position cannot be supported by the Scriptures. Paul clearly taught that people who want to have that kind of relationship are to get married. Now if you want to argue about what constitutes marriage, that's another issue. But the instruction is not ambiguous.



I simply feel that y'all are misinterpreting the scriptures you're posting, and I'm doing my best to explain why I feel that way. If I am wrong, I'm wrong.

The Scriptures given to us to lead us and guide us in how to live a godly life are not complicated. They are clearly presented and straight-forward so that we can understand and follow them, not like some of the more difficult theological issues in the Bible. You are suggesting that God's instruction in this regard has been misinterpreted since the beginning. What you are really suggesting is that marriage is not necessary. What would be the point of marriage if living together is Biblically sanctioned? Why did God institute marriage from the very beginning? Marriage is extremely important and significant, and you're arguing against it as if it is something that can just be dispensed with. There really is only one reason for a person to do this, and it is because you want to continue doing what you're doing, and you're just looking to justify it. FMI, this isn't a good thing. It would be better if you would simply admit that you're just not ready to obey God in this matter yet, than to fight against the Holy Spirit in this way.

I for one, would understand why you wouldn't want to get married. I, along with others, would seek to help you get to the place where you can willingly and happily live in accordance with God's will. But as long as you're trying to use God's own word against His very clear teaching, you're putting yourself in a position that is dangerous. You're literally trying to pit God against Himself. When you don't believe the word of God, and you allow sin to deceive you in this way, your heart hardens and you become more and more distant from the Lord.



But y'all are using ONE thing (a literal interpretation of scripture as taught by the church), while I am using MANY things: Scripture, a linguist, an historian, and context of socio circles of the target audience for the text in question.

Atheists and liberals do this all the time, to justify their unbelief and rebellion against God. The word of God really isn't as complicated as some of us might want to make it. There is only one reason why a person would feel the need to 'interpret' rather than implement what is clear Scriptural teaching. When the Scripture goes against what you want to do, you have a choice to make. EITHER you acknowledge your position as being wrong, OR you decide the Scripture is wrong and reject it. Many people will openly say that the Bible is wrong, but some like yourself, instead seek to "interpret" the Bible in a way to justify what is clearly wrong. When you do that, you're just being dishonest with yourself. Everyone else can see right through it. You are refusing to let God show you where you're wrong, correct you, and lead you "in paths of righteousness" through His word.


I believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, but I also believe that a narrow definition of God's thoughts is simply limiting ourselves to an easy way out - just read and quote.

What I'm observing here is that you acknowledge God's word as infallible as long as it doesn't get in your way. But what you are doing, is thwarting the very purpose of the Scriptures for your own life. You won't let it show you where you're wrong, you won't let it correct you, and you won't let it lead you into a godly way of life.


That's my point exactly, my sister! In that culture, everyone was either married or unwed and sleeping with prostitutes for flesh gratification which, at that time and in that place, was the avenue for false gods practices and worship.

What you're missing again, is that they understood God's will in the matter. God-fearing people didn't live together without being married. They didn't treat marriage as a dispensable, optional step to take in a loving, committed relationship. You either had sex in the context of marriage, or you were sinning. Period.


What Paul NEVER saw was a committed man and woman in a loving relationship, honoring the REAL God, making love out of wedlock. That didn't exist there.

Of course not. There was and is no such thing. Making love out of wedlock is NOT godly, and it does NOT honor God. It is sinful and contrary to God's will. It flies in the face of God's institution of marriage. The man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. That 'one flesh' thing is for husband and wife.


But in EARNESTLY seeking the Holy Spirit and asking Him, open to any answer including "this is wrong, Richard!" I feel no conviction. And if I feel no conviction, and so many others agree with me, the perhaps--just PERHAPS, Tanya--there really is a misinterpretation occuring.

This argument doesn't fly, Rich. Why do you think God made marriage, if it's perfectly godly to have sex outside of marriage? Maybe if you understood better about the meaning, the purpose, and the mystery of marriage, you would understand its importance.

In our culture, the majority opinion will soon lead us to same-sex marriage. Homosexuals use the same strategy you're using to justify their own position. They argue about culture definition, they argue about the words, they insist that Christians have been misinterpreting the Bible all along. They are doing this because they don't want to submit to God's word. When God's word reproves their behavior, they don't receive it, and are not convicted. If you aren't convicted, it doesn't mean you're right.


God's word actually IS is the subject of this entire thread. You contend "A" and I proclaim "B." If you ask me, God has His own reasons for not making this outright clear like He did with so many other things (homosexuality, adultery, etc). God is not the author of confusion, but He DOES desire we seek Him because we aren't given all the answers. I think this is one of those cases.

It isn't unclear at all. You don't believe it's clear, but it is very clear. Marriage was instituted at the very beginning of creation. Marriage is the context in which a man and a woman are to become one flesh.

Matt 19:4-6

4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
NKJV

God made male and female -- two sexes. Because of this, a man was to leave his parents, and be joined to his wife, and the two --the man and his wife-- become one flesh, male and female, joined together in sexual relationship. This is not confusing, it is not ambiguous.

Marriage is central to God's intention when it comes to the sexual union. There is a spiritual reason for this. Marriage is a mystery that signifies truth about Christ and the church (all believers). I don't think you realize what you're arguing against when you argue against marriage, and for sexual union apart from marriage.


You said it right: Doing it right by one another. That's what we are doing, what we see as right. And we feel blessed by God and that we are within biblical standards for Christian living. In my bible studies, I see nothing to tell us that we are outside of God's law.

If you two are happy in the relationship and want to live this way, then of course you are free to do so. But you shouldn't keep trying to justify it using Scripture. As long as you continue to try to persuade others against what God has clearly, unambiguously said about sex and marriage on a Christian message board, someone's going to keep pushing back.


Tanya, telling me that I am treating Laurie as a concubine is incredibly insulting and demeaning to the love we have for each other.

I am not intending to demean you, I am trying to demonstrate to you and show you, that what you two are doing is demeaning to Laurie. The legal definition of what she is in this relationship, is concubine.
Here is a dictionary definition:


American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=concubine&ia=ahd4) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concubine#sharethis) con·cu·bine http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fconcubine) (kŏng'kyə-bīn', kŏn'-) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n.
Law A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
This definition comes from Easton's Bible dictionary:

Concubine


— in the Bible denotes a female conjugally united to a man, but in a relation inferior to that of a wife. Among the early Jews, from various causes, the difference between a wife and a concubine was less marked than it would be amongst us. The concubine was a wife of secondary rank. There are various laws recorded providing for their protection (Ex 21:7; Deut 21:10-14), and setting limits to the relation they sustained to the household to which they belonged (Gen 21:14; 25:6). They had no authority in the family, nor could they share in the household government.

The immediate cause of concubinage might be gathered from the conjugal histories of Abraham and Jacob (Gen 16; 30). But in process of time the custom of concubinage degenerated, and laws were made to restrain and regulate it (Ex 21:7-9).

Christianity has restored the sacred institution of marriage to its original character, and concubinage is ranked with the sins of fornication and adultery (Matt 19:5-9; 1 Cor 7:2).
(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)




I received infractions here for being combative, yet a moderator can come in here, as my sister in Christ, and my fellow Phoenician, and tell me how I am looking at my own relationship with my wife with verbiage such as 'concubine'?

I knew you would not be happy with this word, Rich. I didn't use it lightly or with any intent to demean you or Laurie. I used the word because this is what you are doing. You are not convicted about having what you call a loving, committed, sexual relationship out of wedlock. What you really don't seem to grasp is that this woman whom you love, is not being treated with the honor that a loved and cherished woman deserves. You are dishonoring her by not marrying her, while yet having sexual intercourse with her. It is the woman who gets the bad end of the deal in this kind of relationship, not the man. It is the woman who is humbled, demeaned, and dishonored when a man wants to have her in a conjugal relationship but is not willing to honor her by marrying her.


I am EXTREMELY disappointed and hurt that you'd choose that word to cheapen what I feel for her, and I respectfully ask that you show me an equal amount of Godly respect, in Christ's love, when it comes to adding adjectives in front of my wife's name. She does not feel treated that way, and I am not treating her that way, so your comment was out of line and predisposing to a point of outright disrespect and rudeness.

Well is she, or is she not, your wife? Would she, or would she not prefer to be legally married to you rather than not married? If you were to ask her to marry you legally, would she refuse because she truly, in her heart, believes that remaining conjugally united to you apart from marriage is the best, most godly and beneficial thing for both of you? Or is it possible that she is willing to have it the way it is only because YOU are the one who wants it that way, and she just wants to BE with you because she loves you, and is willing to dishonor herself in this way so that she can be with you? I'm asking not for you to give me answers, but I am asking these questions to give you some thoughts to consider. You are offended that I used the word 'concubine' and you call her 'wife' yet you will not marry her. Why is that? I know the reason, Rich. And I understand the reason, and I have compassion and empathy for the hurt you have experienced in the past. But I also think you're being obstinate about the issue. It is your own obstinacy that prevents you from having any conviction about the matter, not God's lack of clarity on the issue.


The topic is sex outside of marriage, and we should stick to that subject, not critique why or why not we marry tomorrow or further down the road.

Sex outside of marraige is a corruption and a perversion of God's intention from the beginning of creation. He made them male and female, and FOR THIS REASON the man is to leave his parents and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.


Eph 5:25-33



25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
NKJV

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 06:19 PM
But y'all are using ONE thing (a literal interpretation of scripture as taught by the church), while I am using MANY things: Scripture, a linguist, an historian, and context of socio circles of the target audience for the text in question.
....
Agreed! But in EARNESTLY seeking the Holy Spirit and asking Him, open to any answer including "this is wrong, Richard!" I feel no conviction. And if I feel no conviction, and so many others agree with me, the perhaps--just PERHAPS, Tanya--there really is a misinterpretation occuring.

How is this argument any different than those that say a committed homosexual relationship is OK before God?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 3rd 2008, 06:39 PM
I have to respectfully disagree that people did not have s*exual relations unless married or with a prostitute. When Yeshua encountered the woman at the well there is nothing that even implies that she was in any way considered a prostitute. Yet He told her that the man she was 'with' at the time, was not her husband. This statement more than implies that she had some sort of exclusive relationship or if she was merely a prostitute He would have said, "The men you are with..."

I believe that MMC put things quite well in her post. BTW, I am in no way making any judgment concerning anyone's choices. As mature believers we are simply discussing our interpretation of God's word. I have no authority to make judgments but I will share my view with those who may ask. ;)

God Bless!