PDA

View Full Version : Premarital Sex: is it a sin or not?



Pages : [1] 2

Bnjmn
Nov 19th 2013, 10:00 PM
Reading over a Christian Blog site, it makes an argument saying that premarital sex is not a sin. Below is the blog, I look forward to your thoughts. Sorry it's so long.
http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/1/post/2013/11/premarital-sex-is-it-a-sin-or-not.html

The Christian Left Blog

Premarital Sex: Is It A Sin Or Not?
11/19/2013

Complied, Edited & Augmented by Charles Toy


I've been wanting to compile this article since I was 12 years old, but I was just as much full of guilt, confusion, mixed messages, hormones, and passion as the rest of you may have been at 12. I didn't know which way was up. All I knew was that I burned and I burned frequently. It was an exciting, confusing and painful time. I wish I had this article then. It would have alleviated an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance.


The Bible does not forbid premarital sex.


There is no passage of the Bible that references premarital sex as a sin against God. The association between sin and premarital sex is a new Christian idea. The only possible reference to premarital sex being a sin in the Bible is in the New Testament. This premise although, is generally dismissed by theologians because the Greek word pornei, or sexual immorality is commonly incorrectly translated into the English word fornication.


In Biblical times women were the owned property of a man. Men ruled over women and their children. Women had very few, if any, rights, and men often bought women from their families or at an auction, usually at age twelve and a half. The fathers owned the women (daughters, wives, concubines, handmaidens, servants etc.) and if you wanted to have intercourse with one of his properties, then you had to ask his permission.


If a father sold a daughter, he would get more money for her if she was a virgin. Non-virgins were less expensive to buy. If a man purchased a daughter at a virgin price, and she was not, or she did not bleed during intercourse, then he could return her to her father and get his money back.


Most marriages were arranged for financial reasons. Many couples never even met until the day of the marriage. On the day of marriage the proposed husband would give a dowry, or monetary compensation, to the father of a bride. The price of the dowry was different from woman to woman, was determined by the father, and was based on the woman’s beauty, ability to bear children, strength, household skills, and status as a virgin.


In the Old Testament, many verses that people site for being against premarital sex are actual verses against stealing another man’s property.


In Exodus 22:16 - 17, “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay the bride-price for her, and she will be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.” According to this, the only reason any wrong was done is because the father of the woman lost money when the man and the woman consented to having premarital sex without her father’s knowledge. This passage showed that through premarital sex, the man is actually stealing from the woman’s father, the difference in value between her as a virgin and her as a non-virgin. It does not show that premarital sex is wrong.


In Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29 it says, “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.” This shows that forced premarital sex, or rape is also stealing, but unlike the book of exodus, this trespass provides a punishment, as the male rapist not only stole from the woman herself but from the woman’s father as well.


Another example of premarital sex in the Old Testament is given in Deuteronomy 21:10. This is a case in which a man takes a woman captive and then if he wants to make her his wife he must follow the conditions it sets forth, and then have intercourse with her. Then, if she is found to be desirable he has the option of marrying her or sending her away. This passage not only possibly condones premarital sex, but maybe even divorce as well.


Even the 10 Commandments don’t forbid premarital sex. Most Christians would classify premarital sex under the seventh commandment, “Thou shall not commit adultery,” but adultery is defined as: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse. If neither persons are married, it cannot be adultery.


If the man performing the premarital sex was married and the woman was not, in biblical times this did not matter. The reason for this was that in biblical times adultery was defined as a situation in which there was the danger of a married woman being impregnated by another man. This is also why sex with a prostitute is/was not adultery, even if the man is married. In the Hebrew understanding of the Adultery Commandment of Moses, Adultery, as understood by what Moses said, was only wrong for married women, never a married man.


Even Solomon, a great prophet of the figure of the Bible who was said to be favored by God had seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines. The Bible shows that polygamy, rape, incest, and orgies are not only accepted, but was often rewarded, by God and was common practice of “great men of the Bible,” none of whom wherever spoken out against in the Bible.


Christ’s teachings at the Sermon on the Mount were that the only law is the law of love. He showed this by reversing four of the Old Testament laws which conflicted with loving people. Therefore, anything that was unkind, not by mutual consent, etc. would be immoral for a Christian, but obviously it would not be immoral to love sexuality before marriage or because of different but natural sexual orientation.


The New Testament says nothing about premarital sex. Some versions though do mistranslate the Greek word pornei, which means sexual immorality, into the English word fornication, which means sexual intercourse with someone who one is not married to.


Pornei, meaning sexual immorality, included such things as having sex with a woman during menstruations, adultery, temple prostitution, and pederasty.


Adultery although, is not the same sin we know today, in which it is common for a man and a woman to be considered equal. The Hebrew understanding of adultery was that it was wrong for a married woman to have sex with another man since that violated her husbands property rights to his wife. It was not wrong for a man because a woman had no such property rights. A married man could have as many wives as he could afford as long as he did not marry another man’s property.


Temple prostitution was actually the practice of the prostitutes in the Temples of Corinth selling their services as a part of the worship of a pagan fertility goddess, which was what Paul was warning against when he spoke of uniting the members of Christ with a prostitute in I Corinthians 6:12-17. This passage was not even specifically about prostitution, which was still legal and very popular in modern day Israel, but prostitution used as a form of pagan worship. He was speaking out against idolatry, not prostitution.


Pederasty was one of the worst of all sexual sins and it took on many forms. The practice of pederasty falls into three different categories. The first form is that of a sexual relationship between an older man and a young boy. Second is the practice of having a sexual relationship with slave prostitutes. Third is having a sexual relationship with an effeminate male prostitute, commonly called a “call boy” or Gigolo. Other such practices included two heterosexual males degrading one another by anal intercourse after capturing them in a battle. Another practice was heterosexuals’ using anal intercourse to drive away other heterosexual strangers they didn’t like. An example of this would be the story of Sodom and Gomorrah from Genesis 19:1-5. “The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”


“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”


But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”


This story had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Sexual orientation is only a modern concept and was not known in biblical times as it has been studied and understood in the modern era. This was a story of hospitality, as displayed by Lot. The men had surrounded the house for the sole purpose of gang raping the unwanted travelers, and Lot, the owner of the house, even offered his virgin daughters to calm the mob and save his guests. This not only shows that pederasty was at times culturally accepted in biblical times, but it also proves that women were thought of as property and little more. That’s not saying either one of the above is OK. It was just practiced.


In every case of premarital sex in the Bible there is no punishment for the sexual act. The only penalty is the man had to pay compensation to the father for the woman’s change in market value.


Today however, because most women are of a comparable status to men in most parts of the Christian world, there is no market value for daughters in Christian cultures. Given this, it stands to reason that the only penalty for having premarital sex is now gone, and it would be entirely acceptable for everyone to have consensual premarital sex. In fact, a document authorized by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church sated that the passages in the Biblical book SONG OF SONGS are “in praise of sexual love, celebrating youthful passion, with no reference to marriage... It affirms that sexual love is in itself good and beneficial.”


Today many women have the same social and political freedoms that men have always had. But to say that responsible premarital sex, or fornication is somehow wrong, shows little more than ignorance to biblical teachings. Many of the sexually repressive teachings that developed in the middle ages are still being followed today. These teachings are based on oppressive Christian traditions that have no biblical basis other than ignorance.


Since Jesus was a Jew and undoubtedly knew all about the Torah let’s examine Judaism's attitude toward premarital sex as well. It’s rather intriguing.


Then we’ll wrap up with some additional thoughts at the end.


The Torah does not outlaw premarital sex


It doesn't outlaw many other types of sexual relationships either. Nonetheless, marital sex is considered ideal, and premarital sex is traditionally not approved of.


The negative attitude toward premarital sex, to a large degree, reflects the overwhelmingly positive attitude toward sex within marriage. Marriage is referred to as kiddushin, which comes from the Hebrew word for "holy." In Judaism, holy things are things that are set apart and made special and unique.


When sex is reserved for marriage, it too is considered holy. Most Jewish authorities disapprove of premarital sex because it does not take place within the context of kiddushin.


What of a long-term committed sexual relationship in which two people--though not married--have designated each other as their exclusive partner? This question has been raised by some liberal Jewish thinkers; however, both the Conservative and Reform movement (officially) reject the possibility of attributing kedushah (holiness) to such a relationship.


As mentioned, the Torah does not directly prohibit premarital sex. Indeed, at times, rabbinic authorities and traditional sources have been lenient in this area. In medieval Spain, Nahmanides permitted sex with an unmarried woman who was not involved with another man. Nonetheless, for traditional Jews, premarital sex is not without halakhic (legal) complication. The Torah prohibits sex between a man and a woman who is menstruating (known as a niddah). This prohibition is in place until the woman's period is complete and she immerses in a mikveh or ritual bath. This restriction applies to both married and unmarried couples, though it is considered inappropriate for a non-married woman (except for a soon-to-be bride) to immerse in a mikveh. Thus sex between an unmarried man and woman can violate a Torah decree.


Interestingly, the Torah does sanction one type of non-marital sexual relationship: concubinage. A concubine or pilegesh is a woman who, though involved exclusively with one man, does not receive the legal benefits of marriage. In biblical times, concubines were kept in addition to a wife or wives. In recent centuries, Jewish authorities have, for the most part, dismissed the validity of concubinage. An interesting exception is the 18th century legal authority Jacob Emden, who suggested re-instituting the practice. Today, liberal authorities like Arthur Waskow are once again exploring the viability of this concept.


Other liberal authorities have pointed out the need to develop a new sexual ethic to address the reality of premarital sex. Waskow, a leader in the Jewish Renewal movement, suggests altering our expectation of marriage to "make it easy for sexually active people from puberty on to enter and leave marriages." Even the Conservative and Reform movements, who still stress the ideal of marital sex, acknowledge that Judaism's position on human sexuality is not consonant with the trends of contemporary life. Both denominations have suggested that premarital sexual relationships--where they exist--should be conducted according to the ethical principles that govern married sex: namely with the respect due to all humans as beings created in the image of God. In addition, Conservative rabbi Elliot Dorff has stressed the importance of modesty, fidelity, health and safety in non-marital sex.


Let’s learn more about Dorff’s notion of “the importance of modesty, fidelity, health and safety in non-marital sex.”


The two roles Judaism assigns to sex are procreation and marital companionship. Sexual activity and procreation, of course, can take place outside the context of marriage, but classical Jewish texts do not see that as proper. Marriage (kiddushin) is holy precisely because a man and woman set each other apart from all others to live their lives together, taking responsibility for each other, caring for each other, and helping each other live through life's highs and lows. They also take responsibility for the children they bear. The willingness to assume these responsibilities is critical both for their own pleasure and growth and for the perpetuation of the Jewish community and the Jewish tradition.


Marriage is also important in Judaism because it provides a structure for achieving core Jewish values in our intimate lives--values like honesty, modesty, love, health and safety, and holiness.


Marriage is no guarantee that we will succeed in this, but it does help us attain those values. Thus Judaism is not being irrational, prudish, old fashioned, unrealistic, or mean in demanding that we limit our sexual intercourse to the context of marriage; it is rather responding to concerns that are at least as real and important in the fragmented society of today as they were in the more stable society of times past.


Sometimes, though, people do not meet an appropriate mate despite a conscientious search, and sometimes marriages end in divorce. Moreover, because Jews commonly go to college and graduate school, they are often not ready to assume the responsibilities of marriage until well after they mature biologically. Some can nevertheless adhere to the Jewish tradition's ideal of restricting sex to marriage, but others fall short.


Although Judaism clearly would have Jews restrict intercourse to marriage, singles in our society generally do not abide by that norm. Under such circumstances, it is important to understand that the violation of one Jewish norm does not entitle an individual to ignore all others; it is not an either or situation, in which one either abides by all of what Judaism has to say about these matters or follows none of it.


On the contrary, precisely those values that lead Judaism to advocate marriage--honesty, modesty, health and safety, love, and holiness--still apply to sexual relations outside marriage; they are just harder to achieve in that context. Indeed, precisely because unmarried couples cannot rely on the support of a marital bond to foster those values, it is all the more critical that if they engage in sexual intercourse, they must consciously strive to live by them. Even though their behavior will not be ideal by Jewish standards, to the extent that they can make those values real in their lives, they will be preserving their own humanity, their Jewishness, and their own mental and physical health, as well as that of their partner.


Since sexual intercourse can lead to conception, sexual activity outside marriage raises questions not only in the realm of Jewish morals but also in the arena of medical ethics. Specifically, couples who conceive out of wedlock face the question of whether to abort the fetus, to carry it to term and give it up for adoption, or to raise it under the parentage of one or both members of the couple.


Jewish norms would, first of all, mandate sex education for preteens, teenagers, and adults. The topics should include not only the anatomy of sex and the mechanics of intercourse and contraception but also the overarching concepts and values that should inform a Jew's approach to sex. In addition, it should be emphasized to teenagers in particular that their sexual activity should not be determined by peer pressure and that there are forms of sexual activity short of intercourse that can be quite fulfilling but preclude the possibility of pregnancy and its complications.


Moreover, for all ages, an adequate curriculum in sex education from a Jewish perspective must pay considerable attention to the health and safety risks involved in sex with multiple partners. This is especially important these days, since a number of sexually transmitted diseases that could be cured by antibiotics until the early 1990s have now developed strains that are resistant to the drugs currently available. Moreover, AIDS, at least as of now, is both incurable and lethal. Because these medical developments pose increased danger to those involved in sex outside marriage, and because condoms offer some measure of protection against those diseases, an adequate sex education program must provide condoms and other contraceptive devices with clear instructions on how to use them.


Some fear that if rabbis and Jewish educators frankly discuss sex outside marriage and even make contraceptives available, people will conclude that Judaism is not serious in prohibiting premarital sex. There is undeniably some danger of such misunderstanding. If Judaism is to affect the world as it actually is, though, contemporary applications of its norms dare not ignore the widespread behavior of Jews and others within our society. According to the U.S. government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other studies, fully 72 percent of high school seniors, and 90 percent of twenty two year olds, have had sexual intercourse. Therefore, failure to distribute condoms and other contraceptives invites abortion, AIDS, and the other medical risks of unprotected sex with multiple partners for many, many people.


The Jewish tradition mandates that sex be restricted to marriage for very good reasons. Jewish law also requires, however, that we save lives and limit abortion. We must therefore earnestly engage in sex education, urging young adults to refrain from sexual intercourse before marriage for the many good reasons Judaism provides, but we must also deal realistically, supportively, and therapeutically with the many who fall short of that ideal to preserve their health and their very lives.


Wherever your thinking falls in all of the above admonishments does that mean you should resolve to head out and do the football team or the cheerleader squad as fast as possible? Absolutely not.


Sex is a powerful thing. It’s easy to hurt people with sex including yourself. People get attached when they give themselves in this way and if it doesn’t work out they can be terribly heartbroken. It’s a serious choice and it should be taken seriously. Since the most important law in Christianity is the Law of Love this must apply to sex too. Don’t use people. Don’t hurt people. Don’t hurt their feelings. Don’t lead them to think you feel one way when you really don’t just to get sex. Don’t view them as an object. Don’t push them to do something they may not be ready for. Sex must be mutual. Truly care for them before even considering sex. Care for them on a deep level so that you would never dream of hurting them. Be kind and giving to them. Have things in common that you consistently enjoy doing with one another. Don’t treat each other poorly or rudely. If you get in a argument resolve it quickly. Be monogamous. Don’t cheat. Don’t say bad things behind one another’s backs. Take care of each other’s emotions and well-being. Have each others backs. Be best friends. Desire that your relationship lasts and use reliable birth control.

ChangedByHim
Nov 19th 2013, 10:01 PM
Yes




.

keck553
Nov 19th 2013, 10:06 PM
Having sex with an unmarried woman (or man) in an uncommited relationship is practicing for divorce, which God hates, and is sin.

Having sex with an unmarried woman is depriving her future husband, so yes, it is adultery / sin.

Having sex with an unmarried man is depriving his future bride, so yes, it is adultery / sin.

Lusting after a woman or man who isn't your spouse is commiting adultery in your heart and is sin.

Having sex with an unmarried spouse corrupts the sanctitiy of Genesis 2:24, and is rebellion against God.

There are no excuses or justfication for sex outside of marriage.

jayne
Nov 19th 2013, 10:18 PM
The author of this blog makes a LOT of matter-of-fact statements about Biblical culture that I can't seem to locate in the actual Bible.

Pbminimum
Nov 19th 2013, 10:19 PM
Yes. It's called fornication. Check into it.

Slug1
Nov 19th 2013, 10:23 PM
Bible says that fornication is a sin... not any leeway either. Let those who like their ears tickled, agree with the opinions of that blog's author.

adampjr
Nov 19th 2013, 10:43 PM
Whoa now, slug. What starts as ear tickling can go other places fast.

Anyhow, it would take a lot to deconstruct this lengthy article but I think we all know its BS.

A few things come to mind: It's always cool with atheists to argue that "women who were raped and didn't scream get killed" because of the Leviticus passage. There's not much reason to think sexual morality of the Old Testament was abrogated by the New, but even so Paul explicitly condemns "fornication" and says it is better to marry than burn. If I thought this person was a remotely honest blog writer, I would ask him why he thinks Paul would say it is better to marry than burn if anyone could bang anyone whenever they wanted. No premarital sex might not be explicitly banned in the NT, but to pretend that its acceptable renders a good amount of the New Testament meaningless.

One of the things that set the early church apart from their culture was their very conservative sexual views. They (ante-Nicene Fathers) hammered on this point a lot. I think people a generation removed from the Apostles have a better leg to stand on in interpreting the Bible than some jackass on "Christian Left Blog."

Bnjmn
Nov 19th 2013, 10:48 PM
Glad to hear the opinions. I knew the author of this blog was reaching trying to make it sound as though it was okay and normal.

Thank you all for chiming in.

Slug1
Nov 19th 2013, 10:49 PM
Whoa now, slug. What starts as ear tickling can go other places fast.

Those who agree with and follow such a teaching as in this blog and use it to condone their premarital sex as NOT sinful... are having their ears tickled. Call it what it is... it's an opinion of the author but when others begin to follow, then the entering of false teaching territory begins and those who listen/follow, it's because it "tickles" their ears. Thus the WARNING about tickling of the ears concerning false teaching.

Aviyah
Nov 19th 2013, 11:05 PM
Depends on what constitutes sex, and also premarital.

ChangedByHim
Nov 19th 2013, 11:13 PM
Depends on what constitutes sex, and also premarital.

Everything isn't gray...

keck553
Nov 19th 2013, 11:19 PM
Bible says that fornication is a sin... not any leeway either. Let those who like their ears tickled, agree with the opinions of that blog's author.

People will come up with just about any work-around to justify their disobedience to God.

keck553
Nov 19th 2013, 11:22 PM
Everything isn't gray...

Indeed, Bill Clinton is not the interpreter of what sex is.

Especially where God is concerned.

Jesus left NO gray area -

Unmarried + lust = sin.
Married + lust for another woman = sin.

Would you agree there are no gray areas when it comes to lust and sex?

Aviyah
Nov 19th 2013, 11:24 PM
Everything isn't gray...

No, not everything.

adampjr
Nov 19th 2013, 11:42 PM
Depends on what constitutes sex, and also premarital.

Neither of those things are gray

Aviyah
Nov 19th 2013, 11:43 PM
Neither of those things are gray

Depends on what sex is defined as, and at what point two people are married.

Jake
Nov 19th 2013, 11:56 PM
Whoa...did someone find a loophole?

ChangedByHim
Nov 19th 2013, 11:58 PM
Depends on what sex is defined as, and at what point two people are married.

Ever do a word study on the word concupiscence? That should settle all gray area.

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


Whoa...did someone find a loophole?

Down boy! :rofl:

Bnjmn
Nov 19th 2013, 11:59 PM
I love this message board. Everything gets thought out and explained so well! So glad I found this place!

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 12:03 AM
Depends on what sex is defined as, and at what point two people are married.

This reminds me of a Scripture I read recently.

"In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes."

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 12:05 AM
Ever do a word study on the word concupiscence? That should settle all gray area.

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



People know when they do wrong. They might be able to fake their way through in the eyes of man, but God sees all things, even the hidden things.

"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Is there any person on earth who is not part of "everyone?"

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 12:13 AM
Ever do a word study on the word concupiscence?

This still doesn't answer what sex is defined as, or at what point exactly a couple becomes married.

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 12:20 AM
Whoa...did someone find a loophole?

You'd be surprised at the ingenuity of a Pharisee.

adampjr
Nov 20th 2013, 12:22 AM
Depends on what sex is defined as, and at what point two people are married.

Um, after their marriage they are married. These things are not confusing terms.

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 12:22 AM
Um, after their marriage they are married. These things are not confusing terms.

What constitutes a "marriage?"

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 12:27 AM
Um, after their marriage they are married. These things are not confusing terms.

The Gospels present Christ as the Groom and the Church as His Bride, and also presents marraige of a man and a woman as a "picture" of this covenant.

All someone needs to do to understand marriage is to read Malachai chapter 2 without rebellion in their heart.

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 12:27 AM
You'd be surprised at the ingenuity of a Pharisee.

In this case, maybe I should become one. :lol:

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 12:31 AM
In this case, maybe I should become one. :lol:

Well we all have our own hypocrasy to deal with in some way.....but that being said......

It is said that some Pharisees would plant something from their home just short of a Sabbath's day walk so they could walk further than a Sabbath's day walk, probably to cheat on their wives. Of course they had a work around for that too - all it takes is one burnt meal.

Hey work-arounds may look good before man...but not so much before God.

adampjr
Nov 20th 2013, 12:41 AM
What constitutes a "marriage?"

We all know what mariage is , yourself included. If anyone doesn't know exactly what is marriage because of whatever silly objections weve all heard a thousand times, we certainly know plenty what isn't marriage.

Sex is not confusing at all. It's a dishonest objection that we hear all the time (what is sex what is marriage).

The answer to the whiny teenagers who raise this objection is that yes, what you are doing into her mouth is sex, and no she is not in any way your wife.

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 12:55 AM
Well we all have our own hypocrasy to deal with in some way.....but that being said......

It is said that some Pharisees would plant something from their home just short of a Sabbath's day walk so they could walk further than a Sabbath's day walk, probably to cheat on their wives. Of course they had a work around for that too - all it takes is one burnt meal.

Hey work-arounds may look good before man...but not so much before God.

Interesting, keck, I didn't know that about the Pharisees. I guess with any generation and culture we learn to work around what is right, like you mentioned our hypocrisy. People spend a vast amount of time justifying their actions and pre-marital sex is high up on the list along with adultery.

Christians are given a sense of right and wrong and if we do wrong and we know it, then it is a sin for us. It's why I have postponed until marriage.

However, if anyone genuinely finds a loophole - let us know! haha

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 01:13 AM
We all know what mariage is , yourself included.

So humor me and define it.


It's a dishonest objection

Setting aside the impossibility for a question to be dishonest, it should still be no problem to define what marriage is and what constitutes sex.

adampjr
Nov 20th 2013, 01:47 AM
So humor me and define it.



Setting aside the impossibility for a question to be dishonest, it should still be no problem to define what marriage is and what constitutes sex.

NIt's a dishonest question because you're not actually confused about either term, and by asking it you are manufacturing a gray area where none for the Christian exists. An honest inquiry does not demand definitions to well understood terms, since many concepts are perfectly clear regardless of whether a verbal definition that fully encapsulates its entire essence is readily available. Any quickly offered answer could easily be picked apart by some or other contingency if someone wanted to "lawyer" it with far fetched what ifs and other semantic games. An honest inquiry would account for the fact that a concepts meaning is not dependent on how easily it could be fully captured without holes in a verbal sentence. We can understand a concept without a bulletproof dictionary entry. We know what marriage is and what scripture says about it an sexuality. We know that marriage involves authority. We know that two people in the car in the youth group parking lot cannot simply decide that they are married.

So as a start to defining, we know from scripture and all of human history that marriage involves authority publicity and accountability.

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 01:49 AM
NIt's a dishonest question because you're not actually confused about either term

I am actually confused about both terms because the definitions are relative.


So as a start to defining, we know from scripture and all of human history that marriage involves authority publicity and accountability.

Could you define it completely and also what constitutes an authority, how many witnesses constitutes publicity, and when "accountability" is achieved?

psyche643
Nov 20th 2013, 01:51 AM
I am actually confused about both terms because the definitions are relative.



Could you define it completely?

To all: I think Aviyah is playing "devil's advocate" and getting us to think.

Is it a "marriage" when it is declared legal by the government?
Is it a "marriage" after it has been sanctioned by the church?
Is it necessary for a third party to declare two people "married?" Are witnesses necessary? On what is this established - tradition? Bible? Legal?

My husband and I received our marriage certificate before our wedding, before the preacher pronounced us man and wife. Does that mean it would have been okay to have sex then?




As for the definition of sex: I think we all know there are folks who try to get around "fornication" by saying, oral sex isn't sex; naked fondling isn't sex; etc. Or even, "penetration without internal ejaculation isn't sex." I think Aviyah is showing that the sin is much more than the black and white boundaries we think it is.

adampjr
Nov 20th 2013, 01:58 AM
I am actually confused about both terms because the definitions are relative.



Could you define it completely and also what constitutes an authority, how many witnesses constitutes publicity, and when "accountability" is achieved?

Relative to what?

No, I spent most of the last post explaining why a verbal definition is difficult to nail and that that's irrelevant. I made a start of an answer. Nothing in my post suggested or implied that a specific number of people is necessary to the definition of a concept.

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 01:58 AM
To all: I think Aviyah is playing "devil's advocate" and getting us to think.

Is it a "marriage" when it is declared legal by the government?
Is it a "marriage" after it has been sanctioned by the church?
Is it necessary for a third party to declare two people "married?" Are witnesses necessary? On what is this established - tradition? Bible? Legal?

Exactly!⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 02:04 AM
Relative to what?

Relative = subjective = dependent, etc. from person to person. What I call marriage may be different that what you call marriage, so what is absolute marriage according to the Bible and does it define it anywhere (I don't think so)?


No, I spent most of the last post explaining why a verbal definition is difficult to nail and that that's irrelevant.

If a verbal definition is difficult or impossible, then it is not as cut-and-dry as you have presumed. But it is not at all irrelevant, because this thread is about premarital sex. If marriage is not defined, there is no way of knowing what "premarital" is.


Nothing in my post suggested or implied that a specific number of people is necessary to the definition of a concept.

You said "publicity," which means what? One witness? Two? More? The word you used demands a minimum, unless you meant publicity with regards to location - in which case what constitutes a public location? A church? Yard? Assembly building?

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 02:10 AM
To all: I think Aviyah is playing "devil's advocate" and getting us to think.

Is it a "marriage" when it is declared legal by the government?
Is it a "marriage" after it has been sanctioned by the church?
Is it necessary for a third party to declare two people "married?" Are witnesses necessary? On what is this established - tradition? Bible? Legal?


Most people have already pondered these questions, a couple of months ago, I explored this very topic for very personal reasons.

Yes, marriage is marriage when it's legalized by government, there must be witnesses, these are our societal laws which we must abide - said God. If you have sex before you have a marriage ceremony - it's pre-marital sex - sex does not constitute marriage, if this were so, there'd be a bunch of polygamists running around, a bunch of cousins marrying cousins and having weird babies. Laws are set up for a reason and these are to protect the sanctity of marriage - and for the safety and assurance of healthy future families.

psyche643
Nov 20th 2013, 02:14 AM
Most people have already thought of these questions, a couple of months ago, I explored all these possibilities for very personal reasons.

Yes, marriage is marriage when it's legalized by government, there must be witnesses, these are our societal laws which we must abide - said God. If you have sex before you have a marriage ceremony - it's pre-marital sex - sex does not constitute marriage, if this were so, there'd be a bunch of polygamists running around, a bunch of cousins marrying cousins and having weird babies. Laws are set up for a reason and these are to protect the sanctity of marriage.

I appreciate your response and respect your research, Jake. I don't really mean to make it more complicated or challenge you, but I really want to know:

You say "marriage is marriage when it's legalized by government" - Is this definition from the Bible?
You say "there must be witnesses" - Is this from the Bible?

You said "Laws are set up for a reason and these are to protect the sanctity of marriage. " - I would have to really disagree! I don't think the law cares at all about what God thinks marriage is. Consider gay marriage, now legal in many states.

Sojourner
Nov 20th 2013, 02:19 AM
Depends on what sex is defined as, and at what point two people are married.

Sex is generally defined by most as physical intimacy involving the genitalia. Marriage begins at the end of the wedding ceremony, and sexual activity prior to that ceremony is premarital. Not a whole lot of potential for gray area, in my humble opinion.

Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Heb 13:4)

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 02:20 AM
I appreciate your response and respect your research, Jake. I don't really mean to make it more complicated or challenge you, but I really want to know:

You say "marriage is marriage when it's legalized by government" - Is this definition from the Bible?
You say "there must be witnesses" - Is this from the Bible?

You said "Laws are set up for a reason and these are to protect the sanctity of marriage. " - I would have to really disagree! I don't think the law cares at all about what God thinks marriage is. Consider gay marriage, now legal in many states.

I didn't take your post as a challenge and apologies if mine came off as if it did.

I agree with you, but we live in America (well, I do), God said to follow the laws set up for us, so all marriage laws pertaining to your state - we should obey. Are you advocating disobeying these laws?

Jesus made more wine at a wedding ceremony, there were ceremonies to wed in the Bible, there were many witnesses, and I'm pretty sure pre-marital sex was a 'no-no'. Remember Mary and Joseph? It would have been a disgrace of Joseph would have left her.

Are you advocating the marriage ceremony should be sex and sex alone? How many wives would the average man have? Would we know 'next of kin'?

Ceremonies for gay marriages are wrong, does that make all marriage ceremonies wrong?

adampjr
Nov 20th 2013, 02:21 AM
Relative = subjective = dependent, etc. from person to person. What I call marriage may be different that what you call marriage, so what is absolute marriage according to the Bible and does it define it anywhere (I don't think so)?



If a verbal definition is difficult or impossible, then it is not as cut-and-dry as you have presumed. But it is not at all irrelevant, because this thread is about premarital sex. If marriage is not defined, there is no way of knowing what "premarital" is.



You said "publicity," which means what? One witness? Two? More? The word you used demands a minimum, unless you meant publicity with regards to location - in which case what constitutes a public location? A church? Yard? Assembly building?


You are missing the point. You are welcome to provide a definition since mine isn't black and white enough for you. I don't believe that you are honestly incapable of thinking of things at the conceptual level or that you can only understand a concept if it can be spelled out in black and white. I don't believe that about you from reading your other posts.

Your questions about the word "public" mean you either really don't understand what a concept is, or you are trolling, or you simply didn't read my post and don't know what I meant for that reason. My four-year-old is not so stupid as to really think that putting her hand on the bed suffices as obedience to the command "go to bed." She is trolling when she does this. I do not have to specify to her what constitutes bed, what means go, how much of the surface area of her body have to be in contact with the bed, etc.. or anything like that. For whatever reason (trolling I presume), you are failing to rise above this level.

It boils down to this: 'If a verbal definition is difficult or impossible, then it is not as cut-and-dry as you have presumed.' That sentence is simply not true. You would need to back this point up. Definition is not required for understanding. Is my command "go to bed" ambiguous because I am unable to specify an exact definition that includes every possibility that is compliant and excludes every possible noncompliant act? No. It is very cut and dry regardless.

psyche643
Nov 20th 2013, 02:22 AM
Oh no I didn't Jake, I just didn't want YOU to take offense! I'm used to tiptoeing around this board ;)

Oh of course I don't advocate disobeying laws and of COURSE the marriage ceremony shouldn't be sex! Wow!

I'm taking the same approach as Aviyah. I just want to make sure we are all defining "marriage" as the same way. If someone was married under the authority of the church, and the state did not recognize it, would that be considered a marriage?

adampjr
Nov 20th 2013, 02:25 AM
I appreciate your response and respect your research, Jake. I don't really mean to make it more complicated or challenge you, but I really want to know:

You say "marriage is marriage when it's legalized by government" - Is this definition from the Bible?
You say "there must be witnesses" - Is this from the Bible?

You said "Laws are set up for a reason and these are to protect the sanctity of marriage. " - I would have to really disagree! I don't think the law cares at all about what God thinks marriage is. Consider gay marriage, now legal in many states.

Marriage has never been a private affair in the Bible. Modern government are very different from the societies of Abraham's day - but no marriage only involved the people getting married (hence public and accountable in my definition). The only alternative to my working definition that it must involve accountability, authority, and public is that it can be unaccountable, libertine, and secret - which no examples of marriage in the Bible show - and if marriage could be that way none of the laws in leviticus are sensical (what if those young kids in the city where she didn't scream were actually "married")

psyche643
Nov 20th 2013, 02:27 AM
Sex is generally defined by most as physical intimacy involving the genitalia. Marriage begins at the end of the wedding ceremony, and sexual activity prior to that ceremony is premarital. Not a whole lot of potential for gray area, in my humble opinion.

Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Heb 13:4)

Sojourner - I think what Aviyah and I are saying, is that defining "sex" as "physical intimacy involving the genitalia" requires a source. Consider this theoretical conversation:

Unbeliever: "My boyfriend and I have "oral sex" but it's not really sex because it's not penetration, so it isn't fornication."
You: "Sex is defined as any physical intimacy involving the genitalia, so if you are doing that, it is fornication."
Unbeliever: "Is that definition from the Bible?"
You: "No, it's just generally known."
Unbeliever: "So you are interpreting a Biblical term by societal rules?"
You: [what would you say?]

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 02:29 AM
Oh no I didn't Jake, I just didn't want YOU to take offense! I'm used to tiptoeing around this board ;)

Oh of course I don't advocate disobeying laws and of COURSE the marriage ceremony shouldn't be sex! Wow!

I'm taking the same approach as Aviyah. I just want to make sure we are all defining "marriage" as the same way. If someone was married under the authority of the church, and the state did not recognize it, would that be considered a marriage?

Ah, I see, no I was not offended in the least.

I am not aware of a church authorizing marriage without the consent of the state? Is there one? According to state laws, I doubt if it would be seen as a legal marriage.

My thought is, we should follow our state laws pertaining to marriage.

Trust me, I wish there was another way. haha

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 02:32 AM
You are missing the point. You are welcome to provide a definition since mine isn't black and white enough for you.

I don't have a definition, which is why I am asking for one black and white - since everyone has jumped to the conclusion that it is so and you have accused me of being dishonest.


Your questions about the word "public" mean you either really don't understand what a concept is, or you are trolling

Where does the Bible say that a marriage must be public? If I find a stranger on the street to witness a marriage, is that public? Would the marriage be void if the stranger was not there to witness it?

And more centrally, what constitutes a marriage? Is a speaker necessary? Does the speaker need to be a pastor or church leader? Can a couple marry themselves? Is it a ritualistic procedure, or does it depend on people simply accepting an abstract concept - in which case can two people be married simply by believing they are married?


Definition is not required for understanding.

Which is why we don't have dictionaries.

adampjr
Nov 20th 2013, 02:34 AM
Yes, Sojourner. This is why I think "textbook definitions" should be avoided. The lawyering and and attempting to get around them is indefinite. It is impossible to answer all possible objections in a definition. The Unbeliever from psyche's good example is wrong. You can't win with a person like that. If the girl were a believer, she would not think it was "okay" and she would not be trying get around it.

Psyche,

We all know that what your unbeliever is doing is wrong. We don't need something like canon law to know this. I personally wouldn't (and I don't, because I get this a lot) argue the point - mostly for the largely separate reason that I don't expect unbelievers to accept Christian morality on its face without accepting Christ.

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 02:35 AM
Sojourner - I think what Aviyah and I are saying, is that defining "sex" as "physical intimacy involving the genitalia" requires a source. Consider this theoretical conversation:

Unbeliever: "My boyfriend and I have "oral sex" but it's not really sex because it's not penetration, so it isn't fornication."
You: "Sex is defined as any physical intimacy involving the genitalia, so if you are doing that, it is fornication."
Unbeliever: "Is that definition from the Bible?"
You: "No, it's just generally known."
Unbeliever: "So you are interpreting a Biblical term by societal rules?"
You: [what would you say?]

Personally, if 'other things' besides intercourse were taking place, it would be considered high risk in my book, so best case scenario would be avoidance in the interest of both parties.

If we are telling unbelievers the 'rules' set forth in the Bible regarding sex, I think it's a losing battle. They do not have the Holy Spirit to convict them.

Ceegen
Nov 20th 2013, 02:35 AM
Physical pleasure, gratification of the flesh, by means of reproductive organs between an unmarried man and woman.

There, I defined it. Don't do it. We should be completely committed to the one we say we love, out of total respect that they would be faithful to us also. Marriage is a beautiful thing, and is a command of God that marriage is holy, because God is holy and demands that we are holy too.

"For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." - Leviticus 11:45.

"She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." - John 8:11.

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 02:36 AM
I don't have a definition, which is why I am asking for one black and white - since everyone has jumped to the conclusion that it is so and you have accused me of being dishonest.



Where does the Bible say that a marriage must be public? If I find a stranger on the street to witness a marriage, is that public? Would the marriage be void if the stranger was not there to witness it?

And more centrally, what constitutes a marriage? Is a speaker necessary? Does the speaker need to be a pastor or church leader? Can a couple marry themselves? Is it a ritualistic procedure, or does it depend on people simply accepting an abstract concept - in which case can two people be married simply by believing they are married?



Which is why we don't have dictionaries.

It's why your state has marriage laws and you should abide by them. It's simple.

If everyone adhered to their own laws regarding marriage, it wouldn't be marriage anymore - it'd be a 'free for all'.

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 02:39 AM
It's why your state has marriage laws and you should abide by them. It's simple.

So, would you define marriage as only in effect after a government sanction?

Bnjmn
Nov 20th 2013, 02:41 AM
I think what Aviyah is asking is simply this.

1. What is the biblical definition of Marriage
2. What is the biblical definition of Sex

If you say fornication for number 2, what is the biblical definition of that?

Bnjmn
Nov 20th 2013, 02:42 AM
So, would you define marriage as only in effect after a government sanction?


What of all these people who get married by friends who get "ordained online"? Are those marriages legal in the eyes of God?

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 02:42 AM
Sex is generally defined by most as physical intimacy involving the genitalia.

I think that's fair, but then is any premarital physical intimacy wrong? And if not, there must be a distinction between this and sex not specified in Scripture, TMK.

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 02:43 AM
So, would you define marriage as only in effect after a government sanction?

In our society, yes.

Fortunately as Christians, our mate is ordained by God, if we are seeking Him and seeking a mate, we have faith He will lead us to the one He has chosen for us. Then we follow God's laws (say 'no' to pre-marital sex) and adhere to our state marriage laws.

adampjr
Nov 20th 2013, 02:43 AM
I don't have a definition, which is why I am asking for one black and white - since everyone has jumped to the conclusion that it is so and you have accused me of being dishonest.



Where does the Bible say that a marriage must be public? If I find a stranger on the street to witness a marriage, is that public? Would the marriage be void if the stranger was not there to witness it?

And more centrally, what constitutes a marriage? Is a speaker necessary? Does the speaker need to be a pastor or church leader? Can a couple marry themselves? Is it a ritualistic procedure, or does it depend on people simply accepting an abstract concept - in which case can two people be married simply by believing they are married?



Which is why we don't have dictionaries.

I know we have dictionaries. You know if you ever read one that they can't perfectly define all concepts. If you are capable of abstract thinking like any eight-year old, you know that concepts are intelligible without bulletproof definitions. Unless "go to bed" is confusing to you? Does that send you for a loop and a quest for black and white meaning?

My four year old knows that if she's trying to get away with something when I say "go to bed", she is already in the wrong. The same applies to God and marriage. If you're trying to justify some situation you might have been in or plan to be in, you are wrong. I don't even have to know what it is - if you have to throw up "what is marriage and what is sex?" you are already trying to get around something and are already wrong.

We know, scripturally, that extramarital sex is wrong. If you are a Christian you do not believe Scripture to meaningless. So you already have told me (unless you are not a Christian) that you do believe that marriage and sex both have intelligible meanings. neither of us have a "definition." The difference is, you for whatever reason feel a black and white, verbal one is necessary in order to understand it. But you said you don't have a definition, yet you believe (if you believe scripture) certain things about marriage. Somehow you manage to do this without a definition. Which is fine. If you can believe things about marriage without a ready definition, you could allow others the same.

psyche643
Nov 20th 2013, 02:43 AM
Ah, I see, no I was not offended in the least.

I am not aware of a church authorizing marriage without the consent of the state? Is there one? According to state laws, I doubt if it would be seen as a legal marriage.

My thought is, we should follow our state laws pertaining to marriage.

Trust me, I wish there was another way. haha

Sigh...I think we're starting to go around in circles! Understand that I also follow the state laws regarding marriage. I'm playing devil's advocate, like Aviyah is. If someone defined marriage differently than you, how would you defend your answer? Even if a marriage isn't legally recognized, can't anyone say they are married, whether or not you think they are?

And this is a whole other can of worms...but Adam and Eve only had God and his law as their witness. Does it biblically say we cannot do the same? I'm not talking about society or tradition, just, if someone really believed this, how would you defend your belief?

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 02:44 AM
What of all these people who get married by friends who get "ordained online"? Are those marriages legal in the eyes of God?

Personally, I believe marriage is marriage when two parties mutually and sincerely agree that they are husband and wife per the Genesis account. So if two people went through this online, I'd still consider it a marriage. And all Biblical guidelines would apply when the pact is made.

Bnjmn
Nov 20th 2013, 02:45 AM
Personally, I believe marriage is marriage when two parties mutually agree that they are husband and wife per the Genesis account.


That is a fair point, but then, if they only need to mutually agree to be man and wife, is there need for any official ceremony?

Diggindeeper
Nov 20th 2013, 02:46 AM
1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication.sinneth against his own body.

Why are we told to 'flee fornication' if there is no reason to.

Friends, we are not dogs! Why act like them?

Bnjmn
Nov 20th 2013, 02:46 AM
1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication.sinneth against his own body.

Why are we told to 'flee fornication' if there is no reason to.

Friends, we are not dogs! Why act like them?

What is the biblical definition of fornication?

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 02:47 AM
Personally, I believe marriage is marriage when two parties mutually agree that they are husband and wife per the Genesis account.

Not much commitment. It'd be easy to walk away. Marriage is already about 50/50, if everyone viewed it this way, that percentage would increase.

In an ideal world, maybe.

Even the time of Jesus evolved from Adam and Eve. Remember He made wine at a wedding ceremony? These were not foreign to Jesus and we have the same today.

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 02:50 AM
Sigh...I think we're starting to go around in circles! Understand that I also follow the state laws regarding marriage. I'm playing devil's advocate, like Aviyah is. If someone defined marriage differently than you, how would you defend your answer? Even if a marriage isn't legally recognized, can't anyone say they are married, whether or not you think they are?

And this is a whole other can of worms...but Adam and Eve only had God and his law as their witness. Does it biblically say we cannot do the same? I'm not talking about society or tradition, just, if someone really believed this, how would you defend your belief?

We're really not going around in circles at all. My view is we should follow state law and that's it. My views are simple.

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 02:53 AM
I know we have dictionaries. You know if you ever read one that they can't perfectly define all concepts.

They define them better than "you should know this, dummy." There's even a definition for "a."

1. Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing: a region; a person.
2. Used before terms, such as few or many, that denote number, amount, quantity, or degree: only a few of the voters; a bit more rest; a little excited.
3. Used before a proper name to denote a type or a member of a class: the wisdom of a Socrates.
3a. Used before a mass noun to indicate a single type or example: a dry wine.
4. The same: birds of a feather.
5. Any: not a drop to drink.

So saying that marriage is an abstract concept that cannot be defined is ridiculous, especially when the Bible very clearly says that there is a point before and after marriage. It is only reasonable to demand a definition for this point so as not to be inadvertently fornicating.


If you can believe things about marriage without a ready definition, you could allow others the same.

Sure, and I have - but if you are going to accuse me of being dishonest and claim that something is black-and-white, you should be able to prove it.

adampjr
Nov 20th 2013, 02:55 AM
Personally, I believe marriage is marriage when two parties mutually and sincerely agree that they are husband and wife per the Genesis account.

this is black and white, you can be credited for that. While mine does not satisfy the need for everything laid out, I suggest it holds up better under examination.

Every Biblical example refutes this. there are never two people who just decide that they are married. It is not always involving agreement. It is often at least partially arranged. My definition is more complete IF every biblical example you care to examine involves authority and publicity and no biblical example fits your libertine model.

If mutual and sincere agreement is something that CAN make it marriage, your definition is still somewhat stronger than if you mean it is necessary for marriage, since the latter would preclude a good number of biblical marriages.

Diggindeeper
Nov 20th 2013, 02:55 AM
Personally, I believe marriage is marriage when two parties mutually and sincerely agree that they are husband and wife per the Genesis account. So if two people went through this online, I'd still consider it a marriage. And all Biblical guidelines would apply when the pact is made.

I disagree. I say that we had it right in my time when we called it 'shacking up'. I farther say there are far too many here in the states that could care less about morals and standards and they see no need for a 'certificate' of marriage and they are simply 'playing house.'

Bnjmn
Nov 20th 2013, 02:57 AM
this is black and white, you can be credited for that. While mine does not satisfy the need for everything laid out, I suggest it holds up better under examination.

Every Biblical example refutes this. there are never two people who just decide that they are married. It is not always involving agreement. It is often at least partially arranged. My definition is more complete IF every biblical example you care to examine involves authority and publicity and no biblical example fits your libertine model.

If mutual and sincere agreement is something that CAN make it marriage, your definition is still somewhat stronger than if you mean it is necessary for marriage, since the latter would preclude a good number of biblical marriages.

I can only think of one marriage ceremony in The Bible, the one where Jesus turned water into wine. Granted, they did not need to explain there were other weddings as they are not key moments in Biblical history, but it does leave open the possibility that a ceremony was not always needed.

adampjr
Nov 20th 2013, 02:59 AM
They define them better than "you should know this, dummy." There's even a definition for "a."

1. Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing: a region; a person.
2. Used before terms, such as few or many, that denote number, amount, quantity, or degree: only a few of the voters; a bit more rest; a little excited.
3. Used before a proper name to denote a type or a member of a class: the wisdom of a Socrates.
3a. Used before a mass noun to indicate a single type or example: a dry wine.
4. The same: birds of a feather.
5. Any: not a drop to drink.

So saying that marriage is an abstract concept that cannot be defined is ridiculous, especially when the Bible very clearly says that there is a point before and after marriage. It is only reasonable to demand a definition for this point so as not to be inadvertently fornicating.



Sure, and I have - but if you are going to accuse me of being dishonest and claim that something is black-and-white, you should be able to prove it.

That definition of "a" is recursive. if I had provided a recursive definition of marriage I think you would have objected.

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 02:59 AM
That is a fair point, but then, if they only need to mutually agree to be man and wife, is there need for any official ceremony?

Not according to Scripture. Adam and Eve were married, yet they had no official ceremony - so surely a marriage does not require a ceremony.


Not much commitment. It'd be easy to walk away. Marriage is already about 50/50, if everyone viewed it this way, that percentage would increase.

In an ideal world, maybe.

True, but as you said, divorce rate is already at about 50%. The commitment aspect is the responsibility of the husband and wife - not the ceremony itself. I don't see why two Christians cannot commit themselves.


My view is we should follow state law and that's it. My views are simple.

Fair enough :D

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 02:59 AM
Personally, I believe marriage is marriage when two parties mutually and sincerely agree that they are husband and wife per the Genesis account. So if two people went through this online, I'd still consider it a marriage. And all Biblical guidelines would apply when the pact is made.

Aviyah, honestly I can not imagine marrying someone as you describe - on-line? Serious? I don't know you but I can tell you, you deserve a whole lot more than that!

I am not prepared for marriage right now, but I would hope I would be honorable enough to give my Bride a beautiful wedding with all the trimmings and I would hope for you to find someone who would do the same for you.

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 03:03 AM
I disagree. I say that we had it right in my time when we called it 'shacking up'. I farther say there are far too many here in the states that could care less about morals and standards and they see no need for a 'certificate' of marriage and they are simply 'playing house.'

I don't think the regular idea of marriage is at all wrong, I simply think it has extra bells and whistles. A ceremony is still a good event to have I think just for celebration and so that the family can be apart of the special event - but I don't see Biblical evidence that it is necessary for two individuals to be united.

Diggindeeper
Nov 20th 2013, 03:05 AM
Aviyah, honestly I can not imagine marrying someone as you describe - on-line? Serious? I don't know you but I can tell you, you deserve a whole lot more than that!

I am not prepared for marriage right now, but I would hope I would be honorable enough to give my Bride a beautiful wedding with all the trimmings and I would hope for you to find someone who would do the same for you.

Jake, I SO appreciate the fact that my husband protected MY reputation by marrying me! He gave me his name, which I wore so proudly all those years! And it gave my children that same name!

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 03:05 AM
Aviyah, honestly I can not imagine marrying someone as you describe - on-line? Serious? I don't know you but I can tell you, you deserve a whole lot more than that!

Might seem weird to an outsider, but it may be the trend in a few decades. I probably won't be a part of that, though LOL.


I am not prepared for marriage right now, but I would hope I would be honorable enough to give my Bride a beautiful wedding with all the trimmings and I would hope for you to find someone who would do the same for you.

Yes, hopefully.

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 03:10 AM
Might seem weird to an outsider, but it may be the trend in a few decades. I probably won't be a part of that, though LOL.
I don't think either of us will be part of it. I hope you're wrong about the trend, seems cold. We'd be finding mates with the concept and not the real person, how does one really get to know another on-line? Perhaps it's possible.

I see it this way, God is preparing us for our future mates and He is preparing our mates for us.;)

adampjr
Nov 20th 2013, 03:13 AM
You're argument about why a dictionary definition is required for understanding falls short. If may not be possible to define a way that covers it all, but you certainly know what isn't marriage.

You know, for example, that two hormonal teenagers (that wanna bang in the girls bedroom behind her parents' backs) deciding that they are married "accordign the Genesis account" is not marriage - but perhaps plenty of other marriages that DO fit YOUR definition ARE marriage we would both acknowledge. Your definition has the same problems mine does (for you - what is "agree"? what is "sincere"? what about all these contingencies?; for me - how many is public? what is the nature of authority? contingencies for mine as well). You apparently do not object as viciously to your own definition as to mine despite their similar limitedness. Why do you give yours a pass?

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 03:15 AM
Not according to Scripture. Adam and Eve were married, yet they had no official ceremony - so surely a marriage does not require a ceremony. I believe it requires a licensed person and 2 witnesses, that would be considered the ceremony. Oh, forgot: it requires the bride and groom, too. ha




True, but as you said, divorce rate is already at about 50%. The commitment aspect is the responsibility of the husband and wife - not the ceremony itself. I don't see why two Christians cannot commit themselves. True. 2 Christians do have to commit, if they want the state to recognize their marriage, then adhere to the law. If you just say your married, your children will be born out of wedlock, can they even take the father's last name?

Honestly, this all was a struggle for me a few months ago. It was a tough time for me.

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 03:19 AM
Jake, I SO appreciate the fact that my husband protected MY reputation by marrying me! He gave me his name, which I wore so proudly all those years! And it gave my children that same name!

That's awesome DD, you had something many wished they had.

My family's marriages are awful and the thought of marriage is terrifying, but God is working on me and softening my heart towards the concept. Some day - a long time from now. haha

Sojourner
Nov 20th 2013, 03:35 AM
Sojourner - I think what Aviyah and I are saying, is that defining "sex" as "physical intimacy involving the genitalia" requires a source.
I disagree. I think it only requires intellectual honesty and common sense. Sexual intimacy is not something we need to consult a reference book for. If one is seeking to justify sex outside of marriage--attempting to circumvent the relevant prohibitions found in Scripture by playing word games--they are free to do so. But fornication is fornication, no matter how modern society chooses to spin it.


Consider this theoretical conversation:

Unbeliever: "My boyfriend and I have "oral sex" but it's not really sex because it's not penetration, so it isn't fornication."
You: "Sex is defined as any physical intimacy involving the genitalia, so if you are doing that, it is fornication."
Unbeliever: "Is that definition from the Bible?"
You: "No, it's just generally known."
Unbeliever: "So you are interpreting a Biblical term by societal rules?"
You: [what would you say?]

Well, I guess I would say, "No, I'm interpreting societal rules by Biblical standards of morality and holiness." (I would also suggest that any sexual intimacy involving male genitalia does in fact, require penetration).

To my knowledge, the Bible does not actually define fornication at all, just as it does not define adultery. Nor does it delve into the topic of oral sex. Apparently, those who penned the Scriptures felt that sexual immorality was adequately understood by rational people without being legally defined. If one believes God is okay with sex between unmarried persons--as long as it does not involve "penetration," one lacks the sensibilities to personally apply Biblical standards.

Diggindeeper
Nov 20th 2013, 03:35 AM
That's awesome DD, you had something many wished they had.

My family's marriages are awful and the thought of marriage is terrifying, but God is working on me and softening my heart towards the concept. Some day - a long time from now. haha

Fifty-five years, Jake. And he was the love of my life! I will miss him till my last breath.
He, being my husband, was truly what the Bible shows me that a 'husband' should be.
He should be the 'Priest/Pastor' of his family.
He should be the 'Provider' for the family. (God told man he would WORK by the sweat of his brow'. God NEVER told woman that, although we do work now outside the home, to help him provide.)
He should be the 'Protector' of the family.
He should be the head of the household, but not as a master/slave. The family can trust his decisions and his leadership!

The Bible says plainly that husbands should love their wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her.
The Bible NEVER says that a 'man' should love his woman as Christ loved the church.

And most of all, Jake. I am the voice of experience telling you what I am about to say here........its not a hard thing at all for a woman to be willingly in submission to a Godly man!

That would be a man who cares enough to marry her! He's protecting her reputation. She won't have children who are ever called 'Bastards', who are born our of wedlock. (And on a lighter, more modern note....he gives her the right to draw his Social Security check if she outlives him!)

Marriage, to me, is VERY serious business, Jake! Last year on April 20th, it was a difficult day for me. It was our first anniversary date with him not here, by my side.

BrianW
Nov 20th 2013, 03:44 AM
I'm probably going to get smacked for this but....I believe that marriages are sanctioned by God not the state. I believe that a couple can be joined in holy matrimony without any state or government sanctions what so ever. I believe a couple can be married by presenting themselves before God and pledging themselves to Him and each other and asking God to join them together. No other parties needed.
If you lived somewhere and the governing authority said you could not be legally married if both the male and the female were Christian would you just accept that or would you put God first and not be unequally yoked? There is no scripture that says that a pastor, preacher etc, etc and a ceremony is required for a couple to be married. Tradition does not dictate doctrine it just dictates tradition.

Please don't think I take marriage lightly. I don't. It's a promise before God and it is for life. A promise before God is the most serious thing you can make and breaking your word to God is one of the most serious mistakes you can make.

As far as sex goes: We all have a conscious and the Holy Spirit guiding us and if we are living as we should we don't need any silly definitions made up by the church when none have been given in scripture. What does scripture say? The sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom. Have a good read of the entire books of Corinthians and Romans and then pray about it. Then if some people want to look for loopholes and grey area's down here feel free. None of us can stop you.

Just remember that there will be a judgement day and on that day there will be no loopholes or grey areas. You want to take a chance? Go ahead. You just may be right. Me? I don't take foolish chances like that.

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 03:51 AM
I'm probably going to get smacked for this but.

Consider yourself smacked....:(



:lol:

Jake
Nov 20th 2013, 03:59 AM
Fifty-five years, Jake. And he was the love of my life! I will miss him till my last breath.
He, being my husband, was truly what the Bible shows me that a 'husband' should be.
He should be the 'Priest/Pastor' of his family.
He should be the 'Provider' for the family. (God told man he would WORK by the sweat of his brow'. God NEVER told woman that, although we do work now outside the home, to help him provide.)
He should be the 'Protector' of the family.
He should be the head of the household, but not as a master/slave. The family can trust his decisions and his leadership!

The Bible says plainly that husbands should love their wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her.
The Bible NEVER says that a 'man' should love his woman as Christ loved the church.

And most of all, Jake. I am the voice of experience telling you what I am about to say here........its not a hard thing at all for a woman to be willingly in submission to a Godly man!

That would be a man who cares enough to marry her! He's protecting her reputation. She won't have children who are ever called 'Bastards', who are born our of wedlock. (And on a lighter, more modern note....he gives her the right to draw his Social Security check if she outlives him!)

Marriage, to me, is VERY serious business, Jake! Last year on April 20th, it was a difficult day for me. It was our first anniversary date with him not here, by my side.

Thanks for sharing your wisdom, DD. You can be sure I will take all of what you have said to heart - serious, too.

You are blessed in many ways. God bless you.

psyche643
Nov 20th 2013, 09:17 AM
1 Corinthians 6:18

Friends, we are not dogs! Why act like them?

Are you saying we're acting like dogs?! We all agree fornication is a sin.

Does anyone here understand what the term "devil's advocate" means? It is showing a theoretical "other side" to an argument. We can all sit and talk about how bad fornication is, but to a young believer, or to a Christian looking to find a loophole, how do we defend this idea?

If a Christian says, "It isn't sex unless it's vaginal penetration, so I can perform fellatio on him, and not be sinning," what do we tell her? I believe fellatio outside of marriage is equal to fornication, but since she defines "sex" differently because she is looking for a loophole, how do I use the Bible to confront her sin?

Boo
Nov 20th 2013, 10:11 AM
If one provides sexual gratification to another, it is a sexual act. I would think that it can be termed "sex." I guess I'd have to call my lawyer and see what he thinks?

However, in case we have forgotten, Jesus closed the word-game loop when He told us that lusting after another is adultery. If it is, is our emotional desire for sex with another to be taken the same way?

Relative to what my view of marriage is according to scripture, we look at marriage as two people "God has joined together." In that view, government is not required. However, in that view, people knew when a couple committed themselves to each other. The only way they can know is if they are told that. I would suppose then that the marriage is made public and not kept in secret.

Governments set up definitions for legal boundaries for married couples. Legal protections and authorizations are given by those governments. We are told in the bible to submit to the authorities placed over us.

It would seem, then, that we can be joined as man and wife by God, but we also need to make our commitments public and we need to be established as husband and wife by the government that has authority over us. That same government system declares how the marriage is enacted according to the law. We comply with that government's procedure. I know of no government that mandates that a person within a church must perform the vows. It is permitted, but not mandated.

I guess the quick answer is marriage is defined by God. He joins the man and woman together and their vow to each other constitutes the marriage. There is no sexual act permitted prior to that vow.

We are to ensure that we obey our governing authorities as well. If someone wants to play games with that part of it, good luck. Most states have their own peculiarities as far as ages, tests, licenses, etc. In Florida, they even recognize those who "live together as if they are married" for court cases. I'd have to check to see if that requires that the woman start using the last name of the man as part of that. I really don't know if they chose to ever separate and one or the other claimed some kind of rights afforded in a divorce when there is no certificate from a state showing that they were ever married legally.

Bnjmn
Nov 20th 2013, 10:56 AM
Yes, Christ said (I believe, in other words) lusting after a woman/man who is not your wife/husband is adultery.

But, when a man asks out a woman, because he is interested in her, could that not be considered lusting after her?

jayne
Nov 20th 2013, 12:03 PM
Are you saying we're acting like dogs?! We all agree fornication is a sin.

Does anyone here understand what the term "devil's advocate" means? It is showing a theoretical "other side" to an argument. We can all sit and talk about how bad fornication is, but to a young believer, or to a Christian looking to find a loophole, how do we defend this idea?

If a Christian says, "It isn't sex unless it's vaginal penetration, so I can perform fellatio on him, and not be sinning," what do we tell her? I believe fellatio outside of marriage is equal to fornication, but since she defines "sex" differently because she is looking for a loophole, how do I use the Bible to confront her sin?

As someone who has known and taught many young women who perform oral sex for their boyfriends under the "it ain't sex" loophole - it was never her that was looking for the loophole. It was him. She's the one who has to "defend" the loophole, because she is the only one who bears the social consequence for it - judgment. He doesn't have to defend it or even acknowledge it - because he bears no social stigma for it.

As far a telling young girls about oral sex being genuine sex, the answer can be found - ironically enough - in the Song of Solomon.

God tell us three time not to awaken "love" before it's time.


Song of Solomon 2:7 Young women of Jerusalem, I charge you by the gazelles and the wild does of the field: do not stir up or awaken love until the appropriate time.

Song of Solomon 3:5 Young women of Jerusalem, I charge you by the gazelles and the wild does of the field: do not stir up or awaken love until the appropriate time.

Song of Solomon 8:4 Young women of Jerusalem, I charge you: do not stir up or awaken love until the appropriate time.

There an entire series of sermon - for both women AND men in those three verses.

As far as my answer - it's a little more crude and very clinical. I've had this discussion with many a young person.

If a girl is stimulating a boy - with ANY part of her body - to the point of his arousal and/or ejaculating, that's sexual activity.

mailmandan
Nov 20th 2013, 12:18 PM
Marriage, to me, is VERY serious business, Jake! Last year on April 20th, it was a difficult day for me. It was our first anniversary date with him not here, by my side.

In marriage, we pledge our LOVE and LOYALTY for a lifetime "until death do we part." It's not for better or for worse, "until something better comes along." The problem is, many people see marriage as a "contract" when God
sees it as a "covenant." A contract is an agreement between two parties that may be broken because it is based on certain "terms" and "conditions" being met. Marriage is a "civil union" recognized by government, but more importantly, it's a "spiritual union" created by God. The husband/wife relationship is intended by God to reflect the covenant relationship between Christ and His bride—the Church.

ChristianCoffee
Nov 20th 2013, 12:36 PM
Yes, Christ said (I believe, in other words) lusting after a woman/man who is not your wife/husband is adultery.

But, when a man asks out a woman, because he is interested in her, could that not be considered lusting after her?

Yes: I think in a way there is lust involved, because no matter what, men are attracted to physical "beauty" which is defined by their own standards.

Now, as to a definition of fornication, I will define it from a biblical view as well as a world view (in the dictionary according to CC): these definitions will try to be worded in such a way that I am not trying to offend anyone, but will include "common" terms. Same thing with marriage.

Fornication

Biblical view: lusting and fantasizing after a member of the opposite sex, spilling your seed on the ground, intimate relations between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

World view: Masturbation (male and female, using yourself or some object to assist you), sexual intercourse between a man and a man, a man and a woman(outside of marriage), or a woman and a woman, intimate relations between a man or a woman and an animal.

Intimate relations: Having some sort of stimulation of a sexual member of a human body (male or female) that results in gratification for the man (ejaculation) or the woman (orgasm).


Marriage

Marriage in a Biblical view: is recognized by God and is a covenant between one man and one woman. It is for support, procreation and to form a relationship that is supposed to resemble the marriage between Christ and His bride (the church, or Christians). It is supposed to last until death parts it.

Marriage in a world view (based on US ideas, because this is where I live. Your mileage may vary according to the country you live in): It is agreed by law that marriage in most states is between one man and one woman, though there are some states now that agree it can be between two people of the same sex. The way marriage is designed now, it is an ability to have a tax write off, to procreate, and to have a legal standing in the US courts. It must always be accompanied by some sort of state license that must be paid for ahead of time, and signed by a legal Representative of the state you reside in.


So, is pre-marital sex permissible? By Biblical definition, no it is not. It is called fornication and is a sin. By world view interpretation, well, that is a gray area to be honest. However, with the "modern teachings" that "kids will do it anyway", and with the plethora of television shows that "promote" pre-marital sex, as well as "hook ups", "friends with benefits" etc, I would say that the "modern" society here in the United States does promote pre-marital sex.

Now the dilemma exists: Jesus told us to obey the ones in charge, obey the law of the land, so to speak. But we also must obey His commands. We are set apart to be holy. We are supposed to be imitators of Christ. So what it boils down to is, which do you wish to be? Of the world, or of Christ?


I have been married since 1988 to my wife. I was not a Christian when we first married. I will admit to both the Biblical view of adultery as well as the world view of adultery. I will admit that even now, after being a Christian for 14 years, I still commit the Biblical view of adultery (lusting after the flesh), though I believe my wife is the most beautiful woman ever created. I always have to ask Him to guard my heart and eyes, and ask for forgiveness from both my wife and the Lord when I do sin, as we all are supposed to do. Being married is the easiest and hardest thing I have ever undertaken: and I praise God He provided me a wife as he did. Because I have no doubt that if I were single right now I would be a fornicator, as well as an adulterer in every sense of the term.

So, for those seeking a definition of fornication and marriage, there is my point of view based upon my study of what the Bible teaches as well as what the world teaches on it. But in the end, it still comes down to this: if you are a Christian, and God himself declares something detestable in His Holy eyes, do you really, honestly, wish to try to find a "legal loophole" so you can continue in your ways of this world? And if you are not a Christian, have you truly asked yourself why you are not?

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 02:01 PM
I know we have dictionaries. You know if you ever read one that they can't perfectly define all concepts. If you are capable of abstract thinking like any eight-year old, you know that concepts are intelligible without bulletproof definitions. Unless "go to bed" is confusing to you? Does that send you for a loop and a quest for black and white meaning?

My four year old knows that if she's trying to get away with something when I say "go to bed", she is already in the wrong. The same applies to God and marriage. If you're trying to justify some situation you might have been in or plan to be in, you are wrong. I don't even have to know what it is - if you have to throw up "what is marriage and what is sex?" you are already trying to get around something and are already wrong.

We know, scripturally, that extramarital sex is wrong. If you are a Christian you do not believe Scripture to meaningless. So you already have told me (unless you are not a Christian) that you do believe that marriage and sex both have intelligible meanings. neither of us have a "definition." The difference is, you for whatever reason feel a black and white, verbal one is necessary in order to understand it. But you said you don't have a definition, yet you believe (if you believe scripture) certain things about marriage. Somehow you manage to do this without a definition. Which is fine. If you can believe things about marriage without a ready definition, you could allow others the same.


Amen. Your discernment is spot on.

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 02:09 PM
Aviyah, honestly I can not imagine marrying someone as you describe - on-line? Serious? I don't know you but I can tell you, you deserve a whole lot more than that!

I am not prepared for marriage right now, but I would hope I would be honorable enough to give my Bride a beautiful wedding with all the trimmings and I would hope for you to find someone who would do the same for you.

Jesus made sure of that in Cana. I honor your commitment to God and your life. You will be greatly blessed. More than I, but I do not envy, I mourn often that I did not make the decision you have made. But I rejoice in yours. God bless you.

***On edit. Jake, you really made my day a great joy in the Lord, I didn't know a provokative thread about marraige could wind up edifying the Lord's work in another person, but your post is like a light unto the world. I don't mean to embarrass you, but our faith is visible when God's servents surrender their carnal impulses to Him without compromise. People in our faith and outsied of our faith will be a stumbling block. Stay strong in the Lord.***

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 02:17 PM
Does anyone here understand what the term "devil's advocate" means?

The devil isn't worthy of an advocate. Especially a Christian advocate.

psyche643
Nov 20th 2013, 04:20 PM
The devil isn't worthy of an advocate. Especially a Christian advocate.


Wow.

....................

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 04:25 PM
Wow.

....................

Galatians -

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Diggindeeper
Nov 20th 2013, 04:36 PM
Galatians -

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Thank you for reminding everyone about fruit of the Spirit!
Galatians -22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control...

Self control............

Slug1
Nov 20th 2013, 04:43 PM
The devil isn't worthy of an advocate. Especially a Christian advocate.Hooah... the devil is quit capable in advocating himself... through false teaching ( a means of temptation), such as teaching that premarital sex is NOT sinful and people following the teaching and thus... are sinning but feel they are justified due to the false teaching(s).

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 04:56 PM
Hooah... the devil is quit capable in advocating himself... through false teaching ( a means of temptation), such as teaching that premarital sex is NOT sinful and people following the teaching and thus... are sinning but feel they are justified due to the false teaching(s).

Those fires need to be quenched real fast.

As far as reasoning with the unsaved goes, I don't think we are called to disciple unbelievers, but to first be advocates for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, by our words and by our deeds. To be an advocate for The Way of Christ, then to water down His standards with gray scales and loopholes that justify what every Christian should know is sin is the peak of hypocrasy and is a stumbling block to the weak.

Sojourner
Nov 20th 2013, 08:32 PM
Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Cor 6:18-20 NASB)

Maybe we should insert 'except oral sex.'

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 08:39 PM
Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Cor 6:18-20 NASB)

Maybe we should insert 'except oral sex.'

Amazing how some will apply the legalistic letter of the law when they search for a work-around, but complain about legalism if they can't find a work-around.

Jesus said it better though - (of course, He's God)

"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."

Slug1
Nov 20th 2013, 08:46 PM
Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Cor 6:18-20 NASB)

Maybe we should insert 'except oral sex.'Can't make that exception, the chapters of the "Song of Solomon" pretty much define SEX and oral sex is detailed between a man and his wife in those scriptures.

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 09:07 PM
Does a hug constitute immorality?

Slug1
Nov 20th 2013, 09:23 PM
Does a hug constitute immorality?hmmm, if so I'm guilty for hugging both women and men.

So... do you feel that hugging is immoral based on scripture?

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 10:26 PM
Does a hug constitute immorality?


Thank you for reminding everyone about fruit of the Spirit!
Galatians -22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control...

Self control............

I almost bolded self control in my post. Thanks for picking that up for me.

Aviyah
Nov 20th 2013, 10:42 PM
hmmm, if so I'm guilty for hugging both women and men.

So... do you feel that hugging is immoral based on scripture?

I'm not sure, I just like hearing opinions.

keck553
Nov 20th 2013, 10:48 PM
hmmm, if so I'm guilty for hugging both women and men.

So... do you feel that hugging is immoral based on scripture?

Knowing you, I assume there is no lust (sin) in your heart when you hug people.

ChristianCoffee
Nov 20th 2013, 10:52 PM
Does a hug constitute immorality?

In a way I suppose it could: I am sure there are some deviant people in the world that "get off" on that act. Just like there are surely some deviant people that "get off" on tying another persons shoes. Or touching the hand of a waitress that serves them.

Personally, I think you are now doing one of three things:

1) Trying to somehow, someway convince people that everything to do with any physical contact must now be immoral behavior

2) Trying to make it appear ludicrous that any physical behavior is immoral because it can all lead to immorality

3) Your trying to troll to make people, in time, contradict themselves so you or someone else may say "See, I told you so"

I will admit the topic of this discussion has brought out several good points, and it is something that needs to be discussed. However, to myself at least, all it appears that you are doing now is trying to "stir things up". I stand by what I stated in post 89: however, I tend to doubt that much if anything more can be added to this discussion that already has been stated.



The devil isn't worthy of an advocate. Especially a Christian advocate.

And I fully agree with Keck on this statement: there are enough ways to discuss different topics without someone trying to play on his side. That truly is the way of the world we live in. I honestly do not believe that should be included in a Christian perspective.

Diggindeeper
Nov 20th 2013, 11:09 PM
There is an interesting thread that just started this afternoon in the Young Adults forum. It pertains to the discussion here!

I pray there will be some committed Christians who cannot condone pemarital sex that will go to this thread and give this young person some helpful, Christian advise. One thing this new young person said was this, and it sure caught my attention:

What this new, young Christian said:

I finally became a Christian after all the heartbreak due to failing my promises to myself of being good. But I still have doubts. Because I came across Christians with strong background of faithful family who say they take the Bible seriously and believe the Bible is the word of God and still have sex before marriage, and one night stands.
Shame on those 'Christians'. Like I said, we are NOT dogs and should not act like them.

Here's the link to that thread:
I'm new here and I have a question
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/252073-I-m-new-here-and-I-have-a-question

Slug1
Nov 21st 2013, 01:48 AM
Knowing you, I assume there is no lust (sin) in your heart when you hug people.The people in the church God has me serving call the hugs a "Hug Ministry" because of how they are left feeling after I hug them.

If you've read my testimony and the battle with sexual fantasy lust and masturbation... God does what He does through the worse of us to His glory and for the edification of others.

Jake
Nov 21st 2013, 01:55 AM
Jesus made sure of that in Cana. I honor your commitment to God and your life. You will be greatly blessed. More than I, but I do not envy, I mourn often that I did not make the decision you have made. But I rejoice in yours. God bless you.

***On edit. Jake, you really made my day a great joy in the Lord, I didn't know a provokative thread about marraige could wind up edifying the Lord's work in another person, but your post is like a light unto the world. I don't mean to embarrass you, but our faith is visible when God's servents surrender their carnal impulses to Him without compromise. People in our faith and outsied of our faith will be a stumbling block. Stay strong in the Lord.***

Hey keck, thanks for the encouraging words.

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 01:59 AM
1) Trying to somehow, someway convince people that everything to do with any physical contact must now be immoral behavior
2) Trying to make it appear ludicrous that any physical behavior is immoral because it can all lead to immorality
3) Your trying to troll to make people, in time, contradict themselves so you or someone else may say "See, I told you so"


I just want a concrete definition of marriage, because there is a concrete command against pre-marriage actions. Then once "pre-marriage" is established, going into what sex actually is Biblically would be more profitable - because if something as simple as kissing can be considered fornication, there have been huge problems with our interpretation. Is dating even possible without sinning?

ChristianCoffee
Nov 21st 2013, 02:16 AM
I just want a concrete definition of marriage, because there is a concrete command against pre-marriage actions. Then once "pre-marriage" is established, going into what sex actually is Biblically would be more profitable - because if something as simple as kissing can be considered fornication, there have been huge problems with our interpretation. Is dating even possible without sinning?

I do believe there has been a concrete definition of marriage given. If you wish to go by Old Testament laws/rules, then marriages should be preset and you should never see your proposed spouse until the wedding day. And no, I do not believe dating (as it is now) is completely possible without sinning because modern society has so badly influenced both men and women with movies, television and so called literature. However, I do believe it is possible to date in a Christian manner that can be glorifying to God, if you have 2 Christian people together who have decided to make Christ the foundation of their relationship. But if you expect the world (the unsaved, and the saved who allow the world to influence their decisions) to follow Biblical principals, then you are "barking up the wrong tree."

Bnjmn
Nov 21st 2013, 02:18 AM
However, I do believe it is possible to date in a Christian manner that can be glorifying to God, if you have 2 Christian people together who have decided to make Christ the foundation of their relationship. But if you expect the world (the unsaved, and the saved who allow the world to influence their decisions) to follow Biblical principals, then you are "barking up the wrong tree."

How do you believe you could go about this? In your opinion?

adampjr
Nov 21st 2013, 02:24 AM
Dating is not a Christian concept, I don't think Christians need to date. Dating now has often become synonymous with sexual relations or at least serious physical intimacy. When I was 19 considering dating a 17 year old, I was informed by associates that that would be statutory rape.

Dating is foolish. It's a failed system from the perspective of Christian morality and I think it should be rejected because of how much bad it leads to.

Bnjmn
Nov 21st 2013, 02:29 AM
Dating is not a Christian concept, I don't think Christians need to date. Dating now has often become synonymous with sexual relations or at least serious physical intimacy. When I was 19 considering dating a 17 year old, I was informed by associates that that would be statutory rape.

Dating is foolish. It's a failed system from the perspective of Christian morality and I think it should be rejected because of how much bad it leads to.

So, if Christians do not need to date, are you suggesting an arranged marriage?

adampjr
Nov 21st 2013, 02:35 AM
So, if Christians do not need to date, are you suggesting an arranged marriage?

No, although there's nothing wrong with the option of arranged marriage. Or at least suggested marriage. There's no reason that I can see that the only two opinions on a match should be the two would-be partners. But people came together and married in many various ways other than arrangement before the modern advent of dating.

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 02:43 AM
No

If not arranged marriage, and not dating, what else is there?

Sojourner
Nov 21st 2013, 05:37 AM
Can't make that exception, the chapters of the "Song of Solomon" pretty much define SEX and oral sex is detailed between a man and his wife in those scriptures.

I agree. Yet it seems that some seeking a loophole see oral sex as the exception to the rule. Guess they are in accord with Bill Clinton that it doesn't count as actually having sex--which makes no sense at all to me.

Boo
Nov 21st 2013, 10:17 AM
If not arranged marriage, and not dating, what else is there?

You might find this shocking, but I'll attempt to speak to this:

If we understood what a marriage commitment is, we would know that each side works together to establish a permanent partnership and they both surrender their own desires for the good of the other. This is failure number one in our all-for-me way of thinking.

If we know that, and we find that there is someone that makes our hearts stir and distract us from daily life, we can contemplate asking that person to join you in life. For a Christian, that person must also be a Christian.

You can get to know that person without doing what "the world" suggests. The world says that perhaps we should try shacking up and see if we are compatible. The world says that we should find out if we are exciting enough in bed "to establish a lasting relationship." Societies goals are not in line with the idea of a Godly marriage.

Dating, as the term is used today, has nothing to do with finding a mate. It has a lot to do with finding a bed partner for a little while.

Get to know the person you are interested in while at group functions. Stay in the crowd and be in the public view as you and the person you are interested in share your thoughts. Let your spirit decide if the person is really a believer and is trustworthy. Meet up at church and attend classes together. If you decide to go to a movie or whatever, you can control your own mind and body - do so.

Just do not do dating as society has defined it. Society's method of finding a mate has worked so well that half of them end up divorced.

mailmandan
Nov 21st 2013, 11:41 AM
Can't make that exception, the chapters of the "Song of Solomon" pretty much define SEX and oral sex is detailed between a man and his wife in those scriptures.

Amen! Oral sex is still sex. Difference in style but still mission accomplished. I find it interesting that in Joseph Smith's translation of the bible (Inspired Version) he deleted the Song of Solomon. That bible only has 65 books. Maybe it was too erotic for him. :hmm:

ChristianCoffee
Nov 21st 2013, 11:56 AM
How do you believe you could go about this? In your opinion?

I have to be honest and state I like Boo and his input on how a Christian should "date". I was thinking along the exact same lines in regards to meeting, going out in public, trying to limit the time spent alone and secluded with one another. Going to Bible study and pre marriage classes. Praying with each other, for each other and families. Allowing God through the Holy Spirit to lead the relationship instead of feelings and hormones.

As to how practical that is, I cannot answer to that. I know my wife and I did all we could to give our children the proper upbringing, and when my daughter met her husband we did all we could to insure they were not alone as much as possible. But we are not perfect, and nor were his parents, and I will not ask if they had premarital sex or not. But they both knew it was not what God wanted for them. And, amazingly enough, on their wedding night, they conceived a little girl: the one in my pic here.


Just do not do dating as society has defined it. Society's method of finding a mate has worked so well that half of them end up divorced.

Boo has hit the nail on the head with this statement: instead of conforming the world to a Christian view of marriage, we have done the inverse. And now our society is heading down a dark, dark road.


Amen! I find it interesting that in Joseph Smith's translation of the bible (Inspired Version) he deleted the Song of Solomon. That bible only has 65 books. Maybe it was too erotic for him.

Maybe because it only allowed for one wife, Dan? :lol:

Kalahari
Nov 21st 2013, 12:21 PM
I think that the responsibility of the Father in the process of dating are surely lacking today. The Dad is still responsible for the health and well being of his daughter and nowadays you are just a bystander in the process of finding a partner for your child. If you had such a relationship with your daughter that you will look out for her and protect her, and you have shown by experience that you can be trusted in this, she will be happy to submit to your guidance. Unfortunately most Dads are not involved and not taking up their spiritual responsibility and the dating scene is one of the disastrous consequences. Today when you do warn your child, you are seen as the enemy. If however you took care of your responcibility since birth and walk in the guidance of the Lord, I beleive that the outcome would be far different.

Slug1
Nov 21st 2013, 12:56 PM
I agree. Yet it seems that some seeking a loophole see oral sex as the exception to the rule. Guess they are in accord with Bill Clinton that it doesn't count as actually having sex--which makes no sense at all to me.Hooah... someone posted about balance between a "Biblical" view of sex compared to a "worldly" view of sex. Passion leading to sex is for those who are married and the fulfillment is on ALL THREE levels of our being, physical (flesh feels good), emotional (our feelings are good to go) and spiritual... which only those who are married can experience.

Worldly, it's only lust which is limited to feeling good physically and emotionally but spiritually... leads to death due to the SIN of the act of sex, when NOT married.

keck553
Nov 21st 2013, 01:36 PM
I do believe there has been a concrete definition of marriage given. If you wish to go by Old Testament laws/rules, then marriages should be preset and you should never see your proposed spouse until the wedding day. And no, I do not believe dating (as it is now) is completely possible without sinning because modern society has so badly influenced both men and women with movies, television and so called literature. However, I do believe it is possible to date in a Christian manner that can be glorifying to God, if you have 2 Christian people together who have decided to make Christ the foundation of their relationship. But if you expect the world (the unsaved, and the saved who allow the world to influence their decisions) to follow Biblical principals, then you are "barking up the wrong tree."

Most dating these days is just practicing for divorce.

keck553
Nov 21st 2013, 01:39 PM
Hooah... someone posted about balance between a "Biblical" view of sex compared to a "worldly" view of sex. Passion leading to sex is for those who are married and the fulfillment is on ALL THREE levels of our being, physical (flesh feels good), emotional (our feelings are good to go) and spiritual... which only those who are married can experience.

Worldly, it's only lust which is limited to feeling good physically and emotionally but spiritually... leads to death due to the SIN of the act of sex, when NOT married.

What is that icon of yours?

keck553
Nov 21st 2013, 01:51 PM
I agree. Yet it seems that some seeking a loophole see oral sex as the exception to the rule. Guess they are in accord with Bill Clinton that it doesn't count as actually having sex--which makes no sense at all to me.

Sometimes the younger folks who come up with all these age old excuses / sarcasms assume we all just fell off the yo-yo truck yesterday.....

Everyone knows what sexual sin is, Its no mystery. There is nothing new under the sun.

Slug1
Nov 21st 2013, 02:01 PM
What is that icon of yours?Icon? Kech, I don't know what you mean.

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 21st 2013, 02:03 PM
Icon? Kech, I don't know what you mean.

BBQ Sandwich .

Slug1
Nov 21st 2013, 02:09 PM
Icon? Kech, I don't know what you mean.


BBQ Sandwich .Hahaha the avartar, concider this a duuuhhhh moment :lol:

That was my lunch the other day. While I set it on the dash of the car, I heard my camera callign out... TAKE a photo!! That's a BK Angry Burger!

Sojourner
Nov 21st 2013, 02:24 PM
Hooah... someone posted about balance between a "Biblical" view of sex compared to a "worldly" view of sex. Passion leading to sex is for those who are married and the fulfillment is on ALL THREE levels of our being, physical (flesh feels good), emotional (our feelings are good to go) and spiritual... which only those who are married can experience.

Worldly, it's only lust which is limited to feeling good physically and emotionally but spiritually... leads to death due to the SIN of the act of sex, when NOT married.

Modern society is redefining the sacred institution of marriage to include same sex "partners." Gender itself is becoming a mix and match where one can choose to live as a male or female, or even switch back and forth. Now some would even redefine what constitutes sexual activity outside the bounds of matrimony. People are free to do whatever they want, right up until the day of judgment. But whether they like it or not, ultimately, it's God way, or the highway....to hell.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. (Proverbs 16:25)

Jake
Nov 21st 2013, 03:25 PM
You might find this shocking, but I'll attempt to speak to this:

If we understood what a marriage commitment is, we would know that each side works together to establish a permanent partnership and they both surrender their own desires for the good of the other. This is failure number one in our all-for-me way of thinking.

If we know that, and we find that there is someone that makes our hearts stir and distract us from daily life, we can contemplate asking that person to join you in life. For a Christian, that person must also be a Christian.

You can get to know that person without doing what "the world" suggests. The world says that perhaps we should try shacking up and see if we are compatible. The world says that we should find out if we are exciting enough in bed "to establish a lasting relationship." Societies goals are not in line with the idea of a Godly marriage.

Dating, as the term is used today, has nothing to do with finding a mate. It has a lot to do with finding a bed partner for a little while.

Get to know the person you are interested in while at group functions. Stay in the crowd and be in the public view as you and the person you are interested in share your thoughts. Let your spirit decide if the person is really a believer and is trustworthy. Meet up at church and attend classes together. If you decide to go to a movie or whatever, you can control your own mind and body - do so.

Just do not do dating as society has defined it. Society's method of finding a mate has worked so well that half of them end up divorced.

These are really good points, Boo.

There are parents out there who will not allow their teens to date, but when they find someone who they 'like', then they hang out together, supervised and let the relationship mature with 100% accountability. Teens of the opposite sex should not be left alone, regardless if it's 'on a date' or not.

keck553
Nov 21st 2013, 05:24 PM
Hahaha the avartar, concider this a duuuhhhh moment :lol:

That was my lunch the other day. While I set it on the dash of the car, I heard my camera callign out... TAKE a photo!! That's a BK Angry Burger!

ahhh....LOL That's great because I bought a PITA sandwich a couple of weeks ago and it was so good I tool a pic of it with my iphone and used it as a screen background.

I

smell

B A C O N

Diggindeeper
Nov 21st 2013, 05:30 PM
Hahaha the avartar, concider this a duuuhhhh moment :lol:

That was my lunch the other day. While I set it on the dash of the car, I heard my camera callign out... TAKE a photo!! That's a BK Angry Burger!

They burned your bun, it looks like! LOL

keck553
Nov 21st 2013, 05:33 PM
The people in the church God has me serving call the hugs a "Hug Ministry" because of how they are left feeling after I hug them.

If you've read my testimony and the battle with sexual fantasy lust and masturbation... God does what He does through the worse of us to His glory and for the edification of others.

Speaking of God's Glory, I believe defeat in self but victory is Christ is very much underrated, by the way. Victory over sin in Jesus is as much a supernatural phenomenom as healing a blind man from birth - in my opinion.

"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Those of us who have struggled with defeat but tasted victory when we surrendered ourselves to Jesus truely have seen our faith. I do not know which is the greater blessing or the greater witness - freedom from sin in Christ or seeing our faith.

keck553
Nov 21st 2013, 05:35 PM
They burned your bun, it looks like! LOL

No, that's a 'classic' bun. As you know everything that is worthy of being 'classic' is in black and white.

Slug1
Nov 21st 2013, 05:51 PM
They burned your bun, it looks like! LOL


No, that's a 'classic' bun. As you know everything that is worthy of being 'classic' is in black and white.Yep... I did a black-and-white layer and then painted the color back into the burger and fixin's portion of the photo. I put a larger photo for viewing in the Photo Album in my profile.

Slug1
Nov 21st 2013, 05:52 PM
Speaking of God's Glory, I believe defeat in self but victory is Christ is very much underrated, by the way. Victory over sin in Jesus is as much a supernatural phenomenom as healing a blind man from birth - in my opinion.

"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Those of us who have struggled with defeat but tasted victory when we surrendered ourselves to Jesus truely have seen our faith. I do not know which is the greater blessing or the greater witness - freedom from sin in Christ or seeing our faith.Amen !

the Seeker
Nov 21st 2013, 06:18 PM
I apologize for taking this opportunity to set up a soap box, but I believe that it is time that we all come to grips with a very important topic that is related to the OP. Sex. It is enjoyable. It is necessary to reproduce. There are plenty of people, due to the Christian stance on marriage, fornication, and divorce, reject Christianity altogether. That may be their problem, but I noticed that not very many people will listen to, "because God said so", anymore.

I contend that we must find the reasons why the Lord placed so many restrictions on the act of intercourse.

For starters, why is homosexuality wrong? Is it just because God said it was an abomination, or is there more to it? Well, AIDS sort-of gave me the idea that God has placed restrictions on some things that seem to be fun for some very serious reasons. If we, as believers, search through the science that we already know, including Psychology, we can give more comprehensive answers that would cause the reckless generations to give pause before committing the error of fornication.

For example.

Fornication is wrong because the act leads to pregnancy, and it takes two people to raise one child. (typically).
Fornication is bad due to chlamydia, a disease that causes the woman to become barren, and the results are the loss of the ability to have children.
Fornication is wrong because there is no guarantee that the partner one is sleeping with now is the person you are going to spend the rest of your life with; how do you know that this person will respect, admire, cherish, and love you the way you want to be loved? Did you take the time to know who you are dealing with before committing the act of intercourse? What if that person is a child rapist, and you are fornicating with him? What about that child, having to live with the fact that his dad is a child rapist.

I believe that it is time to move away from just settling with, "Because God said so", and look at the honest reasons why God said no. The results could change this nation, if I am correct.

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 07:13 PM
I never really liked secular explanations for why we shouldn't fornicate because none of them are really exclusive to non-married couples. What's the difference between a committed couple and a married couple? The same reasons against the unmarried can be used against the married:

"There is no guarantee that the partner one is sleeping with now is the person you are going to spend the rest of your life with; how do you know that this person will respect, admire, cherish, and love you the way you want to be loved? Did you take the time to know who you are dealing with before committing the act of intercourse? What if that person is a child rapist, and you are fornicating with him? What about that child, having to live with the fact that his dad is a child rapist."

Getting married does not negate/confirm any of these possibilities. It's really only possible to argue this against one-night stands and the like, not committed relationships.

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 07:17 PM
You might find this shocking, but I'll attempt to speak to this:

It wasn't that shocking, actually. It seems you agree with the idea of dating, just with a Christian perspective. :yes:

Slug1
Nov 21st 2013, 07:34 PM
It wasn't that shocking, actually. It seems you agree with the idea of dating, just with a Christian perspective. :yes:Even in modern days, the Biblical "perspective" is present and people wait for the one who they will marry and experience sex for the first time with their wedded spouse, after they are wed.

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 08:06 PM
Even in modern days, the Biblical "perspective" is present and people wait for the one who they will marry and experience sex for the first time with their wedded spouse, after they are wed.

I have never personally met someone from my generation with this view - not once.

Diggindeeper
Nov 21st 2013, 08:18 PM
I have never personally met someone from my generation with this view - not once.

I have! One was my own son, who came to me and told me he and his wonderful girlfriend of 6 years had decided to set a wedding date, although her mom and dad had required they wait till after they graduated college. They had already told her parents, and had gotten a boiling rant that 'you will never graduate', 'you said you would wait', etc.

But he told me, "Mom, we made a promise to each other and we have kept that promise to stay virgins until we married. But Mom," he confided, "it is really getting hard for both of us. We will graduate, but we don't want to wait 2 more years. I don't think we can." I told him I had known all along that she would be his bride. Their love was so evident. Both me and my husband gave them our blessing and told them God would honor that commitment they had made and kept.
And He has greatly blessed them in the 18 years they have been together. He is a highly respected Physician's Assistant in the radiation dept. at a large hospital and she is an eye, ear, nose and throat doctor. They have 2 wonderful Christian children.

Their mother called me the day after the 'rant' and asked me if they had told me about it. I said that he had. She had apologized to them and wanted to apologize to me. We are good friends.

People do wait! Even in this day and time.

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 21st 2013, 08:39 PM
I have never personally met someone from my generation with this view - not once.

This is very sad, for then all your Christian friends must also believe the lie that sex outside of marriage is acceptable to God

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 08:48 PM
I have! One was my own son, who came to me and told me he and his wonderful girlfriend of 6 years had decided to set a wedding date, although her mom and dad had required they wait till after they graduated college. They had already told her parents, and had gotten a boiling rant that 'you will never graduate', 'you said you would wait', etc.

But he told me, "Mom, we made a promise to each other and we have kept that promise to stay virgins until we married. But Mom," he confided, "it is really getting hard for both of us. We will graduate, but we don't want to wait 2 more years. I don't think we can." I told him I had known all along that she would be his bride. Their love was so evident. Both me and my husband gave them our blessing and told them God would honor that commitment they had made and kept.
And He has greatly blessed them in the 18 years they have been together. He is a highly respected Physician's Assistant in the radiation dept. at a large hospital and she is an eye, ear, nose and throat doctor. They have 2 wonderful Christian children.

Their mother called me the day after the 'rant' and asked me if they had told me about it. I said that he had. She had apologized to them and wanted to apologize to me. We are good friends.

People do wait! Even in this day and time.

That's great! Looks like the kids will be unbreakable. :D

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 08:50 PM
This is very sad, for then all your Christian friends must also believe the lie that sex outside of marriage is acceptable to God

I don't think any of us really believe it is acceptable, we just don't care that it's a sin because the stigma and frustration associated with virginity/singleness is much more miserable than disapproving looks from grey-haired preachers. (I use "we" as in my generation, not necessarily me included).

shepherdsword
Nov 21st 2013, 08:55 PM
Question: Premarital Sex: is it a sin or not?
Answer : Yes


It's very simple actually :)

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 09:02 PM
It's very simple actually :)

It's the application of this knowledge which complicates things.

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 21st 2013, 09:18 PM
I don't think any of us really believe it is acceptable, we just don't care that it's a sin because the stigma and frustration associated with virginity/singleness is much more miserable than disapproving looks from grey-haired preachers. (I use "we" as in my generation, not necessarily me included).

Still very sad, for it's not true belief, but worldly embracing. Do your Christian friends realize that they may not understand the Gospel of salvation as they continue in sin, and thus may be fooling themselves that they are a child of the King, when in reality, are an imitation?

[And before you comment, I am not a preacher, but have grey hair and grew up in and through the Woodstock generation, so your generation hasn't created the notion of free sex and stigma and frustration, but was pure to God and my wife 30+ years ago... so all that is is an excuse to do and not a desire to know Christ.]

[And another before you comment, my wife and I loved upon our children all through their school and have also loved upon their mates of the time and showed them why serving Christ in waiting offers greater reward in life.]

2 Timothy 3:1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.
2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,
3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,
4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

6 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses,
7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith.
9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes's and Jambres's folly was also.

10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance,
11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!
12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

shepherdsword
Nov 21st 2013, 09:39 PM
It's the application of this knowledge which complicates things.

The application is simple. Do not engage in it.:)

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 09:48 PM
Still very sad, for it's not true belief, but worldly embracing. Do your Christian friends realize that they may not understand the Gospel of salvation as they continue in sin, and thus may be fooling themselves that they are a child of the King, when in reality, are an imitation?

I'm not sure where they stand now, because they are no longer my friends. But in attending several high-schools and several colleges, I've still not found someone who claims to be Christian and also practices abstinence. That's a lot of imitators considering I went to a Christian private school at one point.


[And before you comment, I am not a preacher, but have grey hair and grew up in and through the Woodstock generation, so your generation hasn't created the notion of free sex and stigma and frustration, but was pure to God and my wife 30+ years ago... so all that is is an excuse to do and not a desire to know Christ.]

True, this isn't new but it seems like it has gotten worse since the previous generations.


The application is simple. Do not engage in it.:)

I'd love to not engage in it if I knew what it was.

ScienceNut
Nov 21st 2013, 10:00 PM
First, Aviyah, I'd just like to say that I am 18 years old, and I share this view of abstinence, as do a few of the people I know. I don't know how many of them hold to this, I've never asked any of them up front.

Secondly, I think people are underestimating the complexity of this topic. Sex outside of TRADITIONAL marriage is a sin. What is traditional marriage, you ask? It is, like the blog says, the sale of a daughter to a man for money. It's as simple as that. Now, was this law put in the Bible because of the culture of the time? Probably. Is it still relevant? Possibly, there is not enough information on this to be sure. No one can make the assertion that extramarital sex is irrefutably wrong, and if they do, they are already mistaken. The fact is that there is simply not enough information known about the original translation's meaning, and the contrast to today's culture.

Yes, this view does go against the mainstream view of modern Christianity, and YES, that is perfectly okay. The fact that some people recoil against the mere suggestion that extramarital sex is okay is why it needs to be brought up. All possibilities must be explored, all evidence presented. Only then can a proper decision be made.

EDIT: I'd like to add some new thoughts. What is marriage? Is it the modern government institution known as holy matrimony? What if 3 people are stuck on an island, 1 priest, and one couple wanting to be together forever. If they are "married" by the priest, but no-one is around to be a witness to it, are they still sinning in having sex?

What if it's JUST the couple, with no priest? Is it still a sin? What if they are stuck on the island alone, forever? With no hope of anyone else knowing about their marriage but God...still a sin?

Pbminimum
Nov 21st 2013, 10:10 PM
There is more than enough information in the whole counsel of God's word to say that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Therefore, the matter is settled, at least in God's eyes and in His word.
When we try to justify our own particular sin , we have iniquity in our heart. You see , the covenant of marriage is a spiritual one, and not a financial one. It's there to protect our spirit, not just our bodies. Until people wrap their mind around that, they will be chasing their own tails.

ScienceNut
Nov 21st 2013, 10:14 PM
There is more than enough information in the whole counsel of God's word to say that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Therefore, the matter is settled, at least in God's eyes and in His word.
When we try to justify our own particular sin , we have iniquity in our heart. You see , the covenant of marriage is a spiritual one, and not a financial one. It's there to protect our spirit, not just our bodies. Until people wrap their mind around that, they will be chasing their own tails.

1. Define marriage.

I am not trying to justify anything, I am merely trying to expose all sides of the argument. As my now edited post above says, we do not know what kind of marriage the Bible is referring to, therefore, no, the matter is not "Settled."

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 21st 2013, 10:22 PM
I'm not sure where they stand now, because they are no longer my friends. But in attending several high-schools and several colleges, I've still not found someone who claims to be Christian and also practices abstinence. That's a lot of imitators considering I went to a Christian private school at one point.

Sure is... for by ones fruit they are known... Mental assent without a heart of faith is just mental assent, thus if these friends think sex outside of marrige is acceptable, then they can go to 3 Christian schools and still be living a lie.

2 Peter 1:4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.
10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;
11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.




True, this isn't new but it seems like it has gotten worse since the previous generations.

I think the shock value is gone. Sin is sin and sometimes through entertainment, the values first get challenged, then comes acceptance of sin as being normal. Unless one holds fast to biblical values, then those values will change, just as you have testified.

Pbminimum
Nov 21st 2013, 11:04 PM
1. Define marriage.

I am not trying to justify anything, I am merely trying to expose all sides of the argument. As my now edited post above says, we do not know what kind of marriage the Bible is referring to, therefore, no, the matter is not "Settled."

I assure you it's settled.

Biblical marriage is when MAN AND WOMAN enter into a covenant relationship with God. This means several things.....No sex outside of marriage (fornication). No sex with any other person than your husband or wife (adultery).

There is more than enough scripture that outlines the do's and dont's of sex , and what marriage is that it shouldn't be hard for you to find. But, you'll have to look for it because frankly, I'm too tired to debate but I'll give you a hint or two.

On sexual morality
1 Cor 7 1-40
Hebrews 13 vs 4
Mathew 5 vs 28
1 Cor 6 vs 18
1 Thes 4 3-5

On marriage
Genisis 2 vs 25 ( this was pretty early in the deal )
Mathew 19 vs 6
Eph. 5 vs 31

I could go on and on and on and do the research for you , but I'm not. Take it from the hundreds of bible scholars on this board when they say that marriage is a holy covenant between God, man, and wife. God takes it seriously , so we should too. He also takes fornication seriously (like any other sin) and we should too.

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 11:06 PM
Awesome. Another teenager "confused" about marriage. Why is it always teenagers that up and decide they don't know what marriage is?

1. Neither of us are teenagers.
2. Marriage is a complex issue as proven by the length of this thread.
3. This post and your previous one were unbelievably rude. I don't know if that's how it was intended, but there it is.

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 11:09 PM
ITake it from the hundreds of bible scholars on this board when they say that marriage is a holy covenant between God, man, and wife.

Granted, understood, and agreed.

How does one establish a "holy covenant between God, man, and wife?"

adampjr
Nov 21st 2013, 11:11 PM
1. Neither of us are teenagers.
2. Marriage is a complex issue as proven by the length of this thread.
3. This post and your previous one were unbelievably rude. I don't know if that's how it was intended, but there it is.

He said he was a teenager.

adampjr
Nov 21st 2013, 11:16 PM
As for the previous post being I wasn't meaning to call you a baby, only those who let the "stigma of virginity" be a remotely important factor in their life. I don't like the significant majority of your opinions, but I would never Assur that of you

I mean assume, but iPad wanted me to say Assur.

As for the other post being rude, it was to guy who said that anyone who believed in Christian sexual ethics was "already mistaken" A weak response would be uncalled for

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 11:17 PM
First, Aviyah, I'd just like to say that I am 18 years old, and I share this view of abstinence, as do a few of the people I know. I don't know how many of them hold to this, I've never asked any of them up front.

Awesome :D


Secondly, I think people are underestimating the complexity of this topic. Sex outside of TRADITIONAL marriage is a sin. What is traditional marriage, you ask? It is, like the blog says, the sale of a daughter to a man for money. It's as simple as that.

This raises a good point, because for most of human history, the woman has had no say in the matter (this type of marriage is even present today). Does God still consider purely legal contracts marriage? If so, can two people get married on accident for example?

Sojourner
Nov 21st 2013, 11:24 PM
Folks, the rhetoric is turning ugly. The kind of insulting, personal remarks seen in the last few posts is both not befitting brothers and sisters in the Lord, a bad representation to visitors, and a clear violation of the rules of this board. If you cannot keep the invective out of your posts, don't post.

ScienceNut
Nov 21st 2013, 11:32 PM
Folks, the rhetoric is turning ugly. The kind of insulting, personal remarks seen in the last few posts is both not befitting brothers and sisters in the Lord, a bad representation to visitors, and a clear violation of the rules of this board. If you cannot keep the invective out of your posts, don't post.

Agreed. I apologize for my retaliatory remarks against adampjr, they were unbecoming.

amazzin
Nov 21st 2013, 11:33 PM
Its sin, don't do it and if you are a mature cHRISTIAN YOU WOULD ALREADY KNOW THAT

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 11:34 PM
Its sin, don't do it and if you are a mature cHRISTIAN YOU WOULD ALREADY KNOW THAT

What is marriage, in your opinion?

Bnjmn
Nov 21st 2013, 11:38 PM
Wow. I did not think this topic would get so heated.

ScienceNut
Nov 21st 2013, 11:45 PM
Do we know enough about the bible to say it is talking about selling daughters, or do we not know enough to pass judgement?

1. The culture at the time defined marriage as the sale of women to a man as property, and that is a fact.

2. We CAN say that sex outside TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE (defined above) is sinful. However, we do not have enough info to decide whether sex outside MODERN marriage (the obtaining of a legal document by 2 people, presumably in love, which renders them "married" in the eyes of the government.) is wrong.


In what situation is one outside marriage and inside traditional marriage?

1. Again, what is marriage?

2. traditional marriage is, as defined above, no longer practiced in the majority of the civilized world. With the exception of China, per usual.


Also, you did say that anyone who says sex before marriage is irrefutably wrong is already mistaken. That premarital sex is wrong is THE Christian sexual ethic.

1. No. Again, the Bible teaches that pre-traditional-marriage sex is wrong. It never refers to the modern notion of marriage through the legal system.

2. No, I didn't. I said anyone who says that pre-MODERN-marriage sex is irrefutably wrong is mistaken.

Diggindeeper
Nov 21st 2013, 11:50 PM
The book of Hosea and elsewhere in scriptures, its called 'whoredoms' and children of those 'whoremongers' are referred to as 'children of whoredoms'. A whore is not wife and a wife should not be a whore. If that guy REALLY loves the girl, he WILL marry her.

Its this simple. Some people, regardless of age, are just going to do what they see as 'right in their own eyes.'

The word of God cannot be any more clear than these scriptures! I offer them for your consideration, because its a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Revelations 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Revelations 22:15
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(Meaning, outside the New Jerusalem.)

Its all a game. A game where a girl and her guy are 'playing' (pretending) they are married. They can pretend they don't understand, but deep inside, this thread is going to start troubling those playing that game. Wait and see.

adampjr
Nov 21st 2013, 11:57 PM
1. The culture at the time defined marriage as the sale of women to a man as property, and that is a fact.

2. We CAN say that sex outside TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE (defined above) is sinful. However, we do not have enough info to decide whether sex outside MODERN marriage (the obtaining of a legal document by 2 people, presumably in love, which renders them "married" in the eyes of the government.) is wrong.



1. Again, what is marriage?

2. traditional marriage is, as defined above, no longer practiced in the majority of the civilized world. With the exception of China, per usual.



1. No. Again, the Bible teaches that pre-traditional-marriage sex is wrong. It never refers to the modern notion of marriage through the legal system.

2. No, I didn't. I said anyone who says that pre-MODERN-marriage sex is irrefutably wrong is mistaken.
Okay. The question remains. If sex outside traditional marriage is wrong, that means it is wrong for anyone to have sex if they are not traditionally married, including people who are not yet modern married right? Do you see the contradiction?

Aviyah
Nov 21st 2013, 11:59 PM
Its all a game. A game where a girl and her guy are 'playing' (pretending) they are married. They can pretend they don't understand, but deep inside, this thread is going to start troubling those playing that game. Wait and see. [/COLOR]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that it is a sin, but if a couple desires whatever degree of physical intimacy, what is the Biblical requirement for it? Marriage. So what is marriage and how can a couple be 100% certain they are married? And would the same definition fit any couple?

Noeb
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:03 AM
Its sin, don't do it and if you are a mature cHRISTIAN YOU WOULD ALREADY KNOW THATMaturity doesn't have anything to do with it. Having The Law and the Spirit has everything to do with it. I knew it was sin before I was born again, and not because I was taught it, because I wasn't. I knew it because I was born in His Image having His Law, and when I engaged in anything sexual I found myself guilty. The first time it happened I was 5 years old and I didn't reject the truth. For those that do, they are renewed when they are born again, and they know.

ScienceNut
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:10 AM
Okay. The question remains. If sex outside traditional marriage is wrong, that means it is wrong for anyone to have sex if they are not traditionally married, including people who are not yet modern married right? Do you see the contradiction?

This is not a contradiction in my argument, it is a contradiction in your own, and it is the one I was trying to point out before I was attacked by you, and TWO moderators.

The flaw in the current christian ethic is that due to this lack of defined marriage, wedded couples may be just as sinful as single "players."

Diggindeeper
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:10 AM
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that it is a sin, but if a couple desires whatever degree of physical intimacy, what is the Biblical requirement for it? Marriage. So what is marriage and how can a couple be 100% certain they are married? And would the same definition fit any couple?

You don't have to reply to this, but I'm wondering why he won't marry you. I've seen you in other forums here and I KNOW you know the Bible quite well. There is some reason you are pretending not to understand this. I offer this is the reason:

John 3:19
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

shepherdsword
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:13 AM
1. The culture at the time defined marriage as the sale of women to a man as property, and that is a fact.

2. We CAN say that sex outside TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE (defined above) is sinful. However, we do not have enough info to decide whether sex outside MODERN marriage (the obtaining of a legal document by 2 people, presumably in love, which renders them "married" in the eyes of the government.) is wrong.



1. Again, what is marriage?

2. traditional marriage is, as defined above, no longer practiced in the majority of the civilized world. With the exception of China, per usual.



1. No. Again, the Bible teaches that pre-traditional-marriage sex is wrong. It never refers to the modern notion of marriage through the legal system.

2. No, I didn't. I said anyone who says that pre-MODERN-marriage sex is irrefutably wrong is mistaken.

It is very clear that every culture has well defined rules defining what marriage is. It is a public vow between a man and a women to stay exclusively devoted to one another whether that vow be in a religious or civil context. It is also very clear that fornication is any sexual activity outside that union. The scripture forbids such activity and this mandate is one of only three burdens they early church laid on gentile believers.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:15 AM
How many of these can be taken away, and the relationship still be considered a marriage?

I. Mutual agreement to be in a committed relationship, and be known as husband/wife.
II. Approval by the parents of the bride.
III. Approval by the parents of the husband.
IV. A legal document / acknowledgement via the secular government.
V. A formal wedding ceremony.
a) Lead by a church leader
b) Witnessed by family members
c) Expressed vows
d) Wedding rings

Add/edit requirements if you wish.

ScienceNut
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:17 AM
It is very clear that every culture has well defined rules defining what marriage is. It is a public vow between a man and a women to stay exclusively devoted to one another whether that vow be in a religious or civil context. It is also very clear that fornication is any sexual activity outside that union. The scripture forbids such activity and this mandate is one of only three burdens they early church laid on gentile believers.

HAve you ever seen the movie BraveHeart with Mel Gibson? There is actually a plot point in the movie that is very relevant to the topic at hand.

From the wikipedia page for the movie's plot:

"Years later, Longshanks grants his noblemen land and privileges in Scotland, including the right of the lord to have sex with a woman subject on her wedding night. When he returns home, Wallace (Mel Gibson) falls in love with his childhood friend, Murron MacClannough (Catherine McCormack), and they marry in secret so she does not have to spend a night in the bed of the English lord."

So, are Wallace and Murron really married? After all, they did it in secret, just the two of them, so that the English lord wouldn't come to take her away as per the law. No one saw them do this, but it was necessary. Are they sinning?

Diggindeeper
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:21 AM
HAve you ever seen the movie BraveHeart with Mel Gibson? There is actually a plot point in the movie that is very relevant to the topic at hand.

From the wikipedia page for the movie's plot:

"Years later, Longshanks grants his noblemen land and privileges in Scotland, including the right of the lord to have sex with a woman subject on her wedding night. When he returns home, Wallace (Mel Gibson) falls in love with his childhood friend, Murron MacClannough (Catherine McCormack), and they marry in secret so she does not have to spend a night in the bed of the English lord."

So, are Wallace and Murron really married? After all, they did it in secret, so that the English lord wouldn't come to take her away as per the law. No one saw them do this, but it was necessary. Are they sinning?

ScienceNut, I don't like your user name, because I don't like calling you a 'Nut', but please stop trying to justify whoredoms. That just does not go well in this place that is dedicated to the glory of God!

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:22 AM
You don't have to reply to this, but I'm wondering why he won't marry you. I've seen you in other forums here and I KNOW you know the Bible quite well. There is some reason you are pretending not to understand this. I offer this is the reason:

We'd most likely not be able to afford anything which you and others consider requirements, and improvisations would be seen as inadequate to most here.

Bnjmn
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:22 AM
HAve you ever seen the movie BraveHeart with Mel Gibson? There is actually a plot point in the movie that is very relevant to the topic at hand.

From the wikipedia page for the movie's plot:

"Years later, Longshanks grants his noblemen land and privileges in Scotland, including the right of the lord to have sex with a woman subject on her wedding night. When he returns home, Wallace (Mel Gibson) falls in love with his childhood friend, Murron MacClannough (Catherine McCormack), and they marry in secret so she does not have to spend a night in the bed of the English lord."

So, are Wallace and Murron really married? After all, they did it in secret, just the two of them, so that the English lord wouldn't come to take her away as per the law. No one saw them do this, but it was necessary. Are they sinning?

(note: the "right of the lord to have sex with a woman subject" thing was a very real thing back then, so it is very likely that this scenario actually happened. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur)

It has been a while since I have seen the movie, so I might be mistaken. But did they not have a priest marry them? If so, it would not be a true secret as a third party did know.

ScienceNut
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:27 AM
ScienceNut, I don't like your user name, because I don't like calling you a 'Nut', but please stop trying to justify whoredoms. That just does not go well in this place that is dedicated to the glory of God!

Don't worry, I AM a nut! :) Please, point out to me where I justified "whoredoms." It would be much appreciated.


It has been a while since I have seen the movie, so I might be mistaken. But did they not have a priest marry them? If so, it would not be a true secret as a third party did know.

I'm not sure, I don't remember it either. So, than, if there are 3 people total present it qualifies as a marriage? What if there aren't 3 people? What if there are only 2, but they love each other very much?

I'm going to post a disclaimer here, just to be safe. DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE IS OKAY, NOR DO I TAKE PART IN IT. HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF MARRIAGE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. I AM MERELY TRYING TO PRESENT ALL THE EVIDENCE, LOGICAL AND OTHERWISE, FOR CONSIDERATION. Sorry for all caps, just trying to make sure everyone sees it.

shepherdsword
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:35 AM
HAve you ever seen the movie BraveHeart with Mel Gibson? There is actually a plot point in the movie that is very relevant to the topic at hand.

From the wikipedia page for the movie's plot:

"Years later, Longshanks grants his noblemen land and privileges in Scotland, including the right of the lord to have sex with a woman subject on her wedding night. When he returns home, Wallace (Mel Gibson) falls in love with his childhood friend, Murron MacClannough (Catherine McCormack), and they marry in secret so she does not have to spend a night in the bed of the English lord."

So, are Wallace and Murron really married? After all, they did it in secret, just the two of them, so that the English lord wouldn't come to take her away as per the law. No one saw them do this, but it was necessary. Are they sinning?
I did see the movie and it wasn't just the two of them. A priest performed the ceremony.

What I find ironic is that you can ask almost any worldly unbelieving person and they can tell you what marriage is. In fact,even homosexuals recognize the distinction between legal marriage and a civil union and have been fighting for this right for decades. I cannot find a truer application for this verse than this present discourse.

Luk 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

Jake
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:36 AM
We'd most likely not be able to afford anything which you and others consider requirements, and improvisations would be seen as inadequate to most here.

Would you be more specific?

Why would you suggest our requirements would be different than yours? Why would improvisations be seen as inadequate to us?

ScienceNut
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:38 AM
What I find ironic is that you can ask almost any worldly unbelieving person and they can tell you what marriage is.

And yet, after asking several times, no one here has given a solid definition that stands to logical scrutiny, opting instead to pass judgement.

Diggindeeper
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:39 AM
We'd most likely not be able to afford anything which you and others consider requirements, and improvisations would be seen as inadequate to most here.

I was married at my parent's home. Didn't cost hardly anything. My Pastor will marry anyone and not charge them. I know you would be allowed to use our church, if you did not want a big, fancy temple type wedding. Its nice and pretty, but nothing elegant. (Well, I'm sure he would marry you and your boyfriejd after he could talk with you and counsel you and your groom.) And if you lived near me, I'm certain I could ask and get permission for you to have a reception (if you wanted one) in our church fellowship hall. I even bet the women of the church would gladly bring and serve the food, including the cake!

We believe the Bible should be lived, not just talked about. You would not even be required to attend our church after you were married!

So, what other reasons can you find to avoid marriage, Sweetie!

adampjr
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:45 AM
This is not a contradiction in my argument, it is a contradiction in your own, and it is the one I was trying to point out before I was attacked by you, and TWO moderators.

The flaw in the current christian ethic is that due to this lack of defined marriage, wedded couples may be just as sinful as single "players."

But you said we can't say pre modern marriage sex is wrong. But you said we can say that sex outside of selling daughter marriage is wrong. So it is by YOUR argument that pretty much all modern sex is wrong. That is not my pisition

ScienceNut
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:46 AM
Actually, if the definition of marriage requires there be more than 2 total people present, would that not mean Adam and Eve were doomed to sin even before the fall, as there were no other people but them?


But you said we can't say pre modern marriage sex is wrong. But you said we can say that sex outside of selling daughter marriage is wrong. So it is by YOUR argument that pretty much all modern sex is wrong. That is not my pisition


No. You claim that sex outside of the biblical view of marriage is wrong. The Biblical view of marriage is traditional marriage. A+B, Sex outside of traditional marriage is wrong, period. This is your own argument, taken to its logical conclusion.

Diggindeeper
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:50 AM
Actually, if the definition of marriage requires there be more than 2 total people present, would that not mean Adam and Eve were doomed to sin even before the fall, as there were no other people but them?

There choices were extremely small, I say. EXTREMELY SMALL! And yet, God said they were 'husband' and 'wife'! I personally am glad they married and started having children.

BrianW
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:51 AM
I've deleted a few posts that contained unnecessary rudeness and insults. There have been warnings in this thread already. If a mod posts a message saying to cool it then cool it. If you ( general usage of the word here) don't cool it then your posting privileges could be revoked. Let me put some emphasis on that. Posting Privileges.They can and will be taken away if someone repeatedly goes too far over the line. Whats over the line? Glad you asked

III. Conduct

As this is a Christian message board, conduct becoming a Christian is what is expected. We all come from different backgrounds and convictions and each member has their own different personalities and style of communicating through the written word. Remember first and foremost that we come together because of Christ and stand under Him and are accountable in all you say and do. We do not have to agree but allow anothers disagreement to drive you into the Word for answers. Nobody has all the answers, and even in debates with gusto and passion remember that we cannot find the bottom of the knowledge of God in the flesh. We are called into fellowship in order to share, uplift and grow in our shared faith. Name calling, belittling, cutting down anothers beliefs, sour attitude or general conduct not becoming a brother or sister in the faith will not be tolerated. Keep your words well salted, in love and centered in the Light.

This is a very good topic and some people have asked very good sincere questions and are hungering and thirsting for the truth. Let's help them as best we can while keeping our words well salted, in love and centered in the Light. If anyone can't do that just move on to another topic.

If anyone wants further explanation about what I've written here feel free to start a thread in the chat to mods section and I'll be very happy to elaborate.

Nick
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:53 AM
1 Corinthians 7:1–9 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.


Galatians 5:19–21

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

ScienceNut
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:55 AM
There choices were extremely small, I say. EXTREMELY SMALL! And yet, God said they were 'husband' and 'wife'! I personally am glad they married and started having children.

Actually, thank you, this helps out a lot. The Bible refers to Adam and Eve as husband and wife, therefore, the Bible disproves the "more than 2 people there to witness it" definition.

Nick, we recognize that premarital sex is wrong. The problem is, what is marriage? What kind of marriage are we talking about here?

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:08 AM
What I find ironic is that you can ask almost any worldly unbelieving person and they can tell you what marriage is.

THEN PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT MARRIAGE IS!

shepherdsword
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:09 AM
And yet, after asking several times, no one here has given a solid definition that stands to logical scrutiny, opting instead to pass judgement.

Please see post #175. I think your previous response to dispute this was a scene from a braveheart movie. Wasn't there a priest in that scene performing the ceremony? In any case I hardly find your response to that post "logical scrutiny". I think the reason why many are complicating the issue is that they want a one size fits all definition for the ceremony or ritual involved in conducting the wedding. Those may vary from culture to culture but the salient and crucial element is that it is a vow between a man and a woman for singular devotion that is recognized by God himself. He is the one doing the joining. Since we as Christians are to avoid all appearance of evil I suggest that it is also best to adhere to whatever other requirements our culture and legal system demand.

Diggindeeper
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:12 AM
THEN PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT MARRIAGE IS!

I can tell you what it is NOT...........
It is not just moving in together and playing married.
He needs to marry you.

Eyelog
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:14 AM
I can tell you what it is NOT...........
It is not just moving in together and playing married.
He needs to marry you.

Oops, I thought this was the premillennial sex thread.

I'll say it elsewhere.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:20 AM
Why would you suggest our requirements would be different than yours? Why would improvisations be seen as inadequate to us?

For example, is it possible to establish a marital union simply through prayer, fasting, and an expression of vows?

keck553
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:20 AM
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that it is a sin, but if a couple desires whatever degree of physical intimacy, what is the Biblical requirement for it? Marriage. So what is marriage and how can a couple be 100% certain they are married? And would the same definition fit any couple?

That's backwards. A couple should desire marriage before desiring physical intimacy.

ScienceNut
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:21 AM
Please see post #175.

Your definition means Adam and Eve were not married, and HAD To have sinned in having their first child. The Bible refers to them as husband and wife, so this definition does not stand. 2 people can be alone and still be married.

Marriage, in my opinion, is best defined by this phrase:"Are you both, this day and before all present, ready to accept each other in marriage?" It is something that the two of you must do together, with your whole soul and being being thrown into it. You have to really mean it together, to each other. No other definition makes sense int he light of the evidence.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:22 AM
Oops, I thought this was the premillennial sex thread.

LOL!!!


That's backwards. A couple should desire marriage before desiring physical intimacy.

Marriage only applies to ugly people?

keck553
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:24 AM
HAve you ever seen the movie BraveHeart with Mel Gibson? There is actually a plot point in the movie that is very relevant to the topic at hand.

From the wikipedia page for the movie's plot:

"Years later, Longshanks grants his noblemen land and privileges in Scotland, including the right of the lord to have sex with a woman subject on her wedding night. When he returns home, Wallace (Mel Gibson) falls in love with his childhood friend, Murron MacClannough (Catherine McCormack), and they marry in secret so she does not have to spend a night in the bed of the English lord."

So, are Wallace and Murron really married? After all, they did it in secret, just the two of them, so that the English lord wouldn't come to take her away as per the law. No one saw them do this, but it was necessary. Are they sinning?

God didn't write Braveheart.

ScienceNut
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:24 AM
Marriage only applies to ugly people?

Hahaha, perfect delivery.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:24 AM
I can tell you what it is NOT...........
It is not just moving in together and playing married.
He needs to marry you.

There are a lot of things marriage is not, but this doesn't answer the question of what it is unless we exclude every conceivable possibility. It would be simpler just to give a definition for it, IMO. I think most of this thread has been about what marriage isn't - but I feel that my question has not been answered at all.

Jake
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:24 AM
For example, is it possible to establish a marital union simply through prayer, fasting, and an expression of vows?

I believe in traditional weddings in the majority of scenarios where people are able to participate.

Is it possible for you and your boyfriend to participate in a traditional wedding?

ScienceNut
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:25 AM
God didn't write Braveheart.

You're right, He wrote the tale of Adam and Eve. Two people, alone, called husband and wife. Two people who had no-one else around.

Jake
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:27 AM
Marriage only applies to ugly people?

Well.....have you seen the majority of married people? :lol:

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:28 AM
I believe in traditional weddings in the majority of scenarios where people are able to participate.

Oh yes, I remember you saying that - but just to clarify, is this a yes or no answer?

keck553
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:30 AM
You're right, He wrote the tale of Adam and Eve. Two people, alone, called husband and wife. Two people who had no-one else around.

They were not alone. God was there, in the Garden, with them. They were without sin. Those circumstances no longer exist. No one on planet earth is in any condition to play Adam and Eve.

Bottom line:

If someone is a reborn Christian than The Holy Spirit will let them know if they are living in sin. There is no need to beat around the bush about whether shacking up with someone is marriage. They know and there is no gray area to play in and no excuses. Living a sinful lifestyle while proclaiming Christ is hypocrisy at best.

If they are not a reborn Christian, they need Christ before any discipleship can even occur.

Jake
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:32 AM
Oh yes, I remember you saying that - but just to clarify, is this a yes or no answer?

I asked you a yes or no question - but I will answer, there might be a small percentage of exceptions who are unable to perform or logistically do traditional marriages.

Your turn:
Are you and your boyfriend able to both participate in a traditional marriage? Both of you in the same location, saying vows in front of a licensed person?

Diggindeeper
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:34 AM
Nick, in post #188 answered any and all honest and sincere questions bout getting married.

POST #188.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:37 AM
I asked you a yes or no question - but I will answer, there might be a small percentage of exceptions who are unable to perform or logistically do traditional marriages.

Okay, marriage would then be contingent upon circumstances? For example, if a couple has the resources to be married traditionally, though they opt for less "features" to the ceremony, is the marriage still valid Biblically?


Your turn:
Are you and your boyfriend able to both participate in a traditional marriage? Both of you in the same location, saying vows in front of a licensed person?

I'd imagine so hypothetically, but wouldn't the minimum for this be drive-thru certificates? Also, would God honor the legal document above the hearts?

amazzin
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:40 AM
Where is your faith and when did God ever change His mind on this topic?

It seems to me you got yourself into a whole lot of mess (financial or otherwise) that has trapped you in a sin. There is a way and you are mature enough to know the answer to that without me spelling it out sister. Respect yourself enough to stop this now and get right with God. even if it means living homeless and destitute. Its simply not worth it.


We'd most likely not be able to afford anything which you and others consider requirements, and improvisations would be seen as inadequate to most here.

Jake
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:42 AM
Okay, marriage would then be contingent upon circumstances? For example, if a couple has the resources to be married traditionally, though they opt for less "features" to the ceremony, is the marriage still valid Biblically?



I'd imagine so hypothetically, but wouldn't the minimum for this be drive-thru certificates? Also, would God honor the legal document above the hearts?

If this were the case, then you should be married per your state laws of marriage. How much is a wedding license? $35? Can't a person save this up? How much does a ceremony cost? Not much. The clothes on your back, the license, how much does a clergyman charge?

It's a cop-out to say 'we've prayed', so now we're married.

It's just like a person who says 'the sinner's prayer' and claims now he's Christian.

They both lack substance on the part of the participators. If you love someone and want to marry them, then it should publicly be noted and state laws should be followed. As Christians, we pray for that marriage which God has ordained, when it's time, the two become One in a wedding ceremony - like the one Jesus attended.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:47 AM
It seems to me you got yourself into a whole lot of mess (financial or otherwise) that has trapped you in a sin.

Not at all, it is getting out of a sin which has caused strife.

amazzin
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:49 AM
Sin becomes a part of you. It gets grafted into you. That's why it hurts when you want to let it go or rid of. When hasn't an amputation not been painful. Amputate it, feel the pain enough to never do it again

amazzin
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:53 AM
I perform weddings all the time. Seriously don't patronize me


What is marriage, in your opinion?

Oh I think you knew exactly what you were doing. Just be honest and all will be well with you

Wow. I did not think this topic would get so heated.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:54 AM
If this were the case, then you should be married per your state laws of marriage. How much is a wedding license? $35? Can't a person save this up? How much does a ceremony cost? Not much. The clothes on your back, the license, how much does a clergyman charge?

It's a cop-out to say 'we've prayed', so now we're married.

It's just like a person who says 'the sinner's prayer' and claims now he's Christian.

They both lack substance on the part of the participators. If you love someone and want to marry them, then it should publicly be noted and state laws should be followed. As Christians, we pray for that marriage which God has ordained, when it's time, the two become One in a wedding ceremony - like the one Jesus attended.

Well, you said yourself that "there might be a small percentage of exceptions." I took this to mean, "yes it would be valid sometimes." My question is, what is the Biblical basis for one form of marriage becoming invalid due to opportunity/resources?


I perform weddings all the time. Seriously don't patronize me

Well, then you would be the perfect person to ask what a marriage is Biblically.

shepherdsword
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:55 AM
Your definition means Adam and Eve were not married, and HAD To have sinned in having their first child. The Bible refers to them as husband and wife, so this definition does not stand. 2 people can be alone and still be married.

Marriage, in my opinion, is best defined by this phrase:"Are you both, this day and before all present, ready to accept each other in marriage?" It is something that the two of you must do together, with your whole soul and being being thrown into it. You have to really mean it together, to each other. No other definition makes sense int he light of the evidence.

No....my definition doesn't. Since there was no established ceremony or ritual and they didn't have to worry about the appearance of evil to others, the crucial elements would have been enough...that being their singular devotion to one another coupled with God's recognition of their union. While I think your definition is a good one,our situation is a bit different because we have to be a light to those around us. We need to avoid any appearance of evil. This is why even if the critical aspects of matrimony are fulfilled we should still submit to the social and legal requirements of our particular culture.

amazzin
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:57 AM
Simply put its a union between a man and a women which becomes the foundation for a home and family

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 01:59 AM
Simply put its a union between a man and a women which becomes the foundation for a home and family

Okay, what is the Biblical requirement for establishing a "union between a man and woman?"

BrianW
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:06 AM
THEN PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT MARRIAGE IS!

Start with Genesis 2 18-24

Move on to Ephesians 5 1-33 and then Matthew 19 4-9 and then on to John 4 1-26

But let us also not forget John 2 1-11 where Jesus was at a very famous wedding ceremony.

Then remember or look up some history. It wasn't until the Catholic church wanted to institute the right of marriage under their authority that questions of recognition and legality before God ( and State ) ever came into play. Before the middle ages marriages were either arranged or two people ( male and female ) agreed to a union of marriage and so became man and wife. No religious or secular authority had to give any sort of approval what so ever. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Sometimes there were elaborate ceremonies that would last for days and some times there would just be a dinner with the families coming together to celebrate the union. It depended upon culture, economics and if the families could get along or stop work long enough to do it.
In other words the Catholics brought about the traditions that we have today. Tradition! As I wrote before, Tradition does not dictate doctrine.

So, is a preacher, pastor, state license, huge ceremony and a prenuptial agreement required for two people to be married? Well...that depends. If you live in America depending on the state you reside in the laws are different. Why would the laws matter? Because Scripture tells us to obey the laws of the land. ( Romans 13 1-14 )
So if you live in America depending on the state you face minimum age requirements, capacity to consent, blood tests and maybe other requirements and restrictions too. Other countries have other laws or maybe no laws at all. But as far as I know there is no scriptural way to state that according to scripture:
X + Y= Z (doing this and this makes you married. )

There's plenty of scripture that tells us how to have a Godly marriage but not how marriage MUST be done for a couple to have a holy covenant relationship with God. If anyone says that anything more than a agreement by a couple to have a union of marriage under God is required to become married I'd like them to please spell out the what, why and how out with a
1
2
3

and include the scripture to back it up.

But you live in the states right so-I'm sure you can scrape enough for a marriage license and I know more than one Pastor that will come to a couples home to marry them and won't ask for a penny if he knows they haven't got one. Look up your states laws and requirements for marriage and just do the minimum. Most times it's just going to the courthouse, paying a few bucks for a license, waiting a couple of days for it to go through and then saying I do in front of a witness. ( A pastors wife works just fine. Cook up a pot of spaghetti, have 'em over, say I do, eat and then bada bing bada boom. You're married.

Just please, please, do a study on what God expects of us when we're married before you do. Getting married is the easy part. Having a God centered, till death do us part honesty, respect and willing to work hard, hard, hard at is isn't so easy.

So, did that help or just confuse you more?

amazzin
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:06 AM
Okay, what is the Biblical requirement for establishing a "union between a man and woman?"



I love this question because people usually baulk at the thought that in the OT the parents chose the mate for their son. The primary OT reason was so the bride could become part of the clan. Although romance before marriage was not unknown in the OT times, it actually played a minor role in the life of people of that era. They did not marry the person they loved, they learned to love the mate they married. Love began at marriage. Rebecca and Isacc story is a good place to study this

So to answer your question, a betrothal for marriage was required. It was a binding agreement that set the young women apart for the young man.

adampjr
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:07 AM
Actually, if the definition of marriage requires there be more than 2 total people present, would that not mean Adam and Eve were doomed to sin even before the fall, as there were no other people but them?




No. You claim that sex outside of the biblical view of marriage is wrong. The Biblical view of marriage is traditional marriage. A+B, Sex outside of traditional marriage is wrong, period. This is your own argument, taken to its logical conclusion.

No. That's never anything I said ever. I have never asserted that sex is only permitted in traditional marriage, that concept was introduced by you.

I affirm sex is for marriage. I have not said that that only means your false definition of traditional marriage.

amazzin
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:13 AM
Adendum to post #219.....

I hit post too quickly

Marriage is the joining together of two people so they become one flesh.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:19 AM
Start with Genesis 2 18-24

Move on to Ephesians 5 1-33 and then Matthew 19 4-9 and then on to John 4 1-26

But let us also not forget John 2 1-11 where Jesus was at a very famous wedding ceremony.

Then remember or look up some history. It wasn't until the Catholic church wanted to institute the right of marriage under their authority that questions of recognition and legality before God ( and State ) ever came into play. Before the middle ages marriages were either arranged or two people ( male and female ) agreed to a union of marriage and so became man and wife. No religious or secular authority had to give any sort of approval what so ever. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Sometimes there were elaborate ceremonies that would last for days and some times there would just be a dinner with the families coming together to celebrate the union. It depended upon culture, economics and if the families could get along or stop work long enough to do it.
In other words the Catholics brought about the traditions that we have today. Tradition! As I wrote before, Tradition does not dictate doctrine.

So, is a preacher, pastor, state license, huge ceremony and a prenuptial agreement required for two people to be married? Well...that depends. If you live in America depending on the state you reside in the laws are different. Why would the laws matter? Because Scripture tells us to obey the laws of the land. ( Romans 13 1-14 )
So if you live in America depending on the state you face minimum age requirements, capacity to consent, blood tests and maybe other requirements and restrictions too. Other countries have other laws or maybe no laws at all. But as far as I know there is no scriptural way to state that according to scripture:
X + Y= Z (doing this and this makes you married. )

There's plenty of scripture that tells us how to have a Godly marriage but not how marriage MUST be done for a couple to have a holy covenant relationship with God. If anyone says that anything more than a agreement by a couple to have a union of marriage under God is required to become married I'd like them to please spell out the what, why and how out with a
1
2
3

and include the scripture to back it up.

But you live in the states right so-I'm sure you can scrape enough for a marriage license and I know more than one Pastor that will come to a couples home to marry them and won't ask for a penny if he knows they haven't got one. Look up your states laws and requirements for marriage and just do the minimum. Most times it's just going to the courthouse, paying a few bucks for a license, waiting a couple of days for it to go through and then saying I do in front of a witness. ( A pastors wife works just fine. Cook up a pot of spaghetti, have 'em over, say I do, eat and then bada bing bada boom. You're married.

Just please, please, do a study on what God expects of us when we're married before you do. Getting married is the easy part. Having a God centered, till death do us part honesty, respect and willing to work hard, hard, hard at is isn't so easy.

So, did that help or just confuse you more?

Very, very helpful! Thanks for the thorough answer :D I'll be re-reading those passages tonight before bed.

Jake
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:19 AM
Well, you said yourself that "there might be a small percentage of exceptions." I took this to mean, "yes it would be valid sometimes." My question is, what is the Biblical basis for one form of marriage becoming invalid due to opportunity/resources?
.

Along the lines of a terminally ill girlfriend whose boyfriend is serving in a war in the middle east. Her desire is to be married before her death and the only way to do this is on-line, so they Skype and perform the ceremony in this way.

Rare exceptions.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:23 AM
I love this question because people usually baulk at the thought that in the OT the parents chose the mate for their son. The primary OT reason was so the bride could become part of the clan. Although romance before marriage was not unknown in the OT times, it actually played a minor role in the life of people of that era. They did not marry the person they loved, they learned to love the mate they married. Love began at marriage. Rebecca and Isacc story is a good place to study this

So to answer your question, a betrothal for marriage was required. It was a binding agreement that set the young women apart for the young man.

I have a rough idea of OT marriage (I actually prefer arranged in retrospect), but I was wondering if this was the standard and anything less did not constitute marriage. It didn't seem to be so, but the topic is very complex considering the number of cultures, traditions, laws, and interpretations.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:26 AM
Along the lines of a terminally ill girlfriend whose boyfriend is serving in a war in the middle east. Her desire is to be married before her death and the only way to do this is on-line, so they Skype and perform the ceremony in this way.

Rare exceptions.

I see, but this still implies that a valid marriage can be done online. It may not be preferable for family members etc, but if a couple decides to marry online, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. It seems that following tradition is what matters - which I have trouble finding a Biblical basis for.

BrianW
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:34 AM
I don't see how an online marriage would happen. How would it become consummated and the "Two become one flesh" ????

I mean, tradition vs scripture is one thing but that's pretty much a given isn't it? The two have to become one flesh through the old badaa bang bada bing?

Jake
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:37 AM
I don't see how an online marriage would happen. How would it become consummated and the "Two become one flesh" ????

It's only the ceremony.

What if a highly devoted Christian is unable to have sex due to physical limitations and this persons marries another highly devoted Christian and is unable to have sex with his/her partner? Are they still not married in the eyes of God?

BrianW
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:37 AM
I don't know. That's why the questions.

Diggindeeper
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:41 AM
I see, but this still implies that a valid marriage can be done online. It may not be preferable for family members etc, but if a couple decides to marry online, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. It seems that following tradition is what matters - which I have trouble finding a Biblical basis for.

And there is 'scriptural basis' for just moving in together? Pretending to be married? Sleeping together, playing like you're married? Causing your children to be born out of wedlock?

keck553
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:48 AM
Marriage only applies to ugly people?

That would be subjective. But I would characterize sin as much uglier than any of God's creations. Even sight unseen.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:54 AM
And there is 'scriptural basis' for just moving in together? Pretending to be married? Sleeping together, playing like you're married? Causing your children to be born out of wedlock?

I'm not suggesting we do any of these things. There are very few people, if any, who live together and consider themselves married. I don't see what would be wrong with Christians considering themselves married by vows to each other and God, then assuming the responsibilities laid out for married couples in Scripture. I would not view this couple as "pretending."

BrianW
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:54 AM
Aviyah, I just thought of this. While you're doing your reading tonight add in John 4 1-42 if you've got the time.

shepherdsword
Nov 22nd 2013, 02:58 AM
THEN PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT MARRIAGE IS!

Ok,relax sister. I am not your enemy. I pray for you, prompted by a real burden. I know what it is to struggle.

I think a commitment between two people for lifelong fidelity and support that is recognized by God is the crucial element. However we are to be a light to others and we should avoid all appearance of evil. This requires us to conform to the social and legal requirements of our culture as well as the sanction of the people we are in fellowship with. This ,to me, is a practical explanation for all of the scriptures that have been given concerning this topic. Sexual activity outside of these boundaries is outright sin. It incurs the displeasure of the one who bought us with His own blood. If you are in such a situation then it is time to repent.


1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Whatever the cost...flee. I speak from experience not judgmental indifference.If you have fallen into immorality with this young man then he is not the one for you. There is no grace in it. I was in this place 25 years ago and I did exactly what I am telling you. I fled.

Reynolds357
Nov 22nd 2013, 03:03 AM
Everything isn't gray...

Yes, but unfortunately relativism has crept into "the Church."

keck553
Nov 22nd 2013, 03:23 AM
I'm not suggesting we do any of these things. There are very few people, if any, who live together and consider themselves married. I don't see what would be wrong with Christians considering themselves married by vows to each other and God, then assuming the responsibilities laid out for married couples in Scripture. I would not view this couple as "pretending."

God would though. I made the mistake myself, so I am not without empathy. I seriously do not wish for you or anyone to mourn like I have over the loss of a full life lived for Jesus. The years I left left to serve my Master are much less than the years I did not serve Him. And that hurts because God didn't create me to be a rebellious and insolent punk. Surely I was the only one impressed by my own character.

I pray you listen to some of the people who have tried to counsel you on this matter. We all have different ways to express ourselves, I just hope one person has done so in a way you can accept.

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 22nd 2013, 03:23 AM
It's only the ceremony.

What if a highly devoted Christian is unable to have sex due to physical limitations and this persons marries another highly devoted Christian and is unable to have sex with his/her partner? Are they still not married in the eyes of God?

There is value to God's ceremonies though. Look to the Jew and to the feasts, how God prescribes ways of doing things. Now look to believer's baptism. It's not being baptized that saves, but is the obedience of Jesus' command. Same too with communion. And same with marriage. Do you not think when Christ returns there will not be a marriage ceremony that the whole universe will witness, some as guests, some from afar in remorse?

Jake
Nov 22nd 2013, 04:10 AM
There is value to God's ceremonies though. Look to the Jew and to the feasts, how God prescribes ways of doing things. Now look to believer's baptism. It's not being baptized that saves, but is the obedience of Jesus' command. Same too with communion. And same with marriage. Do you not think when Christ returns there will not be a marriage ceremony that the whole universe will witness, some as guests, some from afar in remorse?

I don't mean to downplay the importance of the ceremony, it was in the context of the subject of my post.

Can a marriage be complete in the eyes of God if the flesh is unable to become one?

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 04:11 AM
Post edited by BrianW

Attitudes like this are exactly why very few of us come to elders for any sort of counseling - especially on marital matters. Luckily there have been a few in this thread who understand the issue and have offered wise insight. You on the other hand, have done nothing but insult, assume, and demonize harmless questions (which I was under the impression was the entire point of this forum). Carless remarks like this discourage me from asking questions about Christianity and Biblical lifestyle - because it makes them feel like stupid questions when I have put a great deal of thought into them. But I have enough love for this site that I always return to learn more (it's like an abusive relationship). So unfortunately, I'm going to have to ignore you from this point forward. Goodbye.

Jake
Nov 22nd 2013, 04:19 AM
Post edited by BrianW.

Normally I would answer this with a complaint about our liberal public education in America, for the most part, it doesn't encourage individual creative thinking, it's usually a matter of conforming and brainwashing. In this case, I will complain about how we are taught to justify our bad behavior by finding loopholes and claiming there is a better way so that we can continue in the way we are living. We, all of us, are experts at self justifying and trying to find that one short cut that will make our lives a little easier, even if we have to compromise our beliefs.

Unfortunately, much of my generation has watched your generation and has rejected the way in which you do things. The goals of my generation is not a white house, picket fence and 2 kids. I am generalizing here. I'm not sure there has ever been 2 generations that have rejected one another in the history of the world as is happening right now.

Aviyah
Nov 22nd 2013, 04:22 AM
No postmodernists/relativists in my church? Well I'd hope so. That's the point. As the saying goes, "how many sheep without, how many wolves within." We want the sheep in, but we also need to expose and expel the wolves.

You call me a wolf because I ask questions I don't have the answer to? Yeah, goodbye. And if this is allowed by the mods, I'm leaving this forum altogether.

adampjr
Nov 22nd 2013, 04:23 AM
Normally I would answer this with a complaint about our liberal public education in America, for the most part, it doesn't encourage individual creative thinking, it's usually a matter of conforming and brainwashing. In this case, I will complain about how we are taught to justify our bad behavior by finding loopholes and claiming there is a better way so that we can continue in the way we are living. We, all of us, are experts at self justifying and trying to find that one short cut that will make our lives a little easier, even if we have to compromise our beliefs.

Unfortunately, much of my generation has watched your generation and has rejected the way in which you do things. The goals of my generation is not a white house, picket fence and 2 kids. I am generalizing here. I'm not sure there has ever been 2 generations that have rejected one another in the history of the world as is happening right now.

I'm not much older than you man. Most people my age are ungrounded too. They think its cool to move the ancient landmarks our fathers have set, for no other apparent reason than just to move them.

Jake
Nov 22nd 2013, 04:28 AM
I'm not much older than you man. Most people my age are ungrounded too. They think its cool to move the ancient landmarks our fathers have set, for no other apparent reason than just to move them.

Oh, sorry, bro I didn't realize we were around the same age.

In that case, you know exactly what I'm saying. In the early 1800's families remained together, wisdom of the older generations were passed down to the younger, traditions were set and the younger learned from the older. Is this not Biblical? Yes.

As times went on, people moved away from their families, wisdom was lost, younger generations thought they knew better than their parents, grandparents, after all, all they knew were the small world of their communities they lived their entire lives. Progression, liberalism came and wisdom went out the door. I think we've suffered far greater than we realize (at least for myself).

BrianW
Nov 22nd 2013, 04:37 AM
OK. Third warning in this thread. Do we need to start serving coffee to people for ignoring the warnings and code of conduct? I would hate to do that but will if forced.

People are allowed to ask questions here! If you don't like the questions report the post and then move on!

I reiterate


I've deleted a few posts that contained unnecessary rudeness and insults. There have been warnings in this thread already. If a mod posts a message saying to cool it then cool it. If you ( general usage of the word here) don't cool it then your posting privileges could be revoked. Let me put some emphasis on that. Posting Privileges.They can and will be taken away if someone repeatedly goes too far over the line. Whats over the line? Glad you asked

III. Conduct

As this is a Christian message board, conduct becoming a Christian is what is expected. We all come from different backgrounds and convictions and each member has their own different personalities and style of communicating through the written word. Remember first and foremost that we come together because of Christ and stand under Him and are accountable in all you say and do. We do not have to agree but allow anothers disagreement to drive you into the Word for answers. Nobody has all the answers, and even in debates with gusto and passion remember that we cannot find the bottom of the knowledge of God in the flesh. We are called into fellowship in order to share, uplift and grow in our shared faith. Name calling, belittling, cutting down anothers beliefs, sour attitude or general conduct not becoming a brother or sister in the faith will not be tolerated. Keep your words well salted, in love and centered in the Light.

This is a very good topic and some people have asked very good sincere questions and are hungering and thirsting for the truth. Let's help them as best we can while keeping our words well salted, in love and centered in the Light. If anyone can't do that just move on to another topic.

If anyone wants further explanation about what I've written here feel free to start a thread in the chat to mods section and I'll be very happy to elaborate.

Kalahari
Nov 22nd 2013, 05:12 AM
I think that the question about what marriage is, is important today. It is also important because marriage as according to the Bible are being threatened by civil society through allowing same sex marriages.

Marriage according to the Bible is the union of one man and one woman before God. It is not a contract that you sign, but a covenant that you make until death do you part and God as your witness. Marriage is not a man made invention, but was ordained by God when He created man and woman and joined them together. Marriage is also a sign of the marriage between God and His bride the church. As God is faithful, so you must be faithful, as God is forgiving so you must be forgiving, as God gave his life for his bride, so you must do the same. Marriage show us practical the love of God and it is through marriage that we can fullfill the fulness of one's love through the consemation of the marriage.

You can stand in a church and have a ceremony of marriage, but if God is not in your marriage, then you do not have a marriage. Marriage is from Him for you, because He wants the best for you. That is why you pray and ask Him if the person you are marrying is the person He wants you to marry. You need His blessing on your marriage and through it you give Him the honor and glory.

Marriage is not just the physical act but also the spiritual union of two people. Marriage is the becoming of one flesh, you are not seperate anymore just as we are not seperate anymore from God through Christ.

You must comply with the necessary requirements in your area for a marriage to be recognised. All the legalities are necessary, but it is not a marriage if God is not in your marriage, because then it is man made and marriage is not from man but from God. Through marriage is also the way God want his children to be born and raised with a father and mother. This is the way of the Bible.

Greetings
Kalahari

luigi
Nov 22nd 2013, 12:00 PM
Marriage between a man and a woman is portrayed as both good and bad in the bible.
The good is the joining of the two in both flesh and spirit.
The bad is the joining of the two solely in the flesh.

When mankind at the end of this age will be giving and taking of each other in marriage just as in the days of Noah, the context is to quick fleshly (non loving) encounters.

Noeb
Nov 22nd 2013, 09:56 PM
It's only the ceremony.


What if a highly devoted Christian is unable to have sex due to physical limitations and this persons marries another highly devoted Christian and is unable to have sex with his/her partner? Are they still not married in the eyes of God?Would a ceremony make them married? No. Their desire is to be marrird. Its enough.

Jake
Nov 23rd 2013, 12:06 AM
Would a ceremony make them married? No. Their desire is to be marrird. Its enough.

Are you saying that if you simply desire to be married to someone, then you are?

BrianW
Nov 23rd 2013, 01:39 AM
Let's not get too helter skelter and throw everything to the wind. Even I believe that it takes more than two peoples desire depending on the situation. Context man! Where do they live? What are the laws where they live? What does scripture tell us about obeying the laws of the land? Are they in full understanding of what a Holy union ( marriage) under God entails?

This is a serious thing. Marriage is not a try it before you really buy it thing. It's a commitment and a promise not only to each other but also with and to our most holy God! It is not something to be entered into lightly. People have this insane idea that if the marriage doesn't work out, oh well, I'll just get divorced and find someone else.
That is a deception and a tool of the evil one that has proliferated in the church today. And some pastors participate in it! People in their congregations switch partners multiple times and they marry them instead of kicking them out until they come to their senses and get right with God. And other people still sit under these guy's.
No! No! No! That isn't being holy! That isn't being in God's will! That is pleasing man so the offering plate gets filled up every week instead of trusting in God our Father to meet and exceed our needs!

Remember the woman at the well? What did Jesus say to her? What would Jesus say about the state of the church and the divorces and remarriages that go on today? Do you think He would be nice about it or do you thing He would come in and slap some hides with a whip?
I think the whip.

No sir. It takes more than a simple desire.

Jake
Nov 23rd 2013, 01:48 AM
Let's not get too helter skelter and throw everything to the wind. Even I believe that it takes more than two peoples desire depending on the situation. Context man! Where do they live? What are the laws where they live? What does scripture tell us about obeying the laws of the land? Are they in full understanding of what a Holy union ( marriage) under God entails?

This is a serious thing. Marriage is not a try it before you really buy it thing. It's a commitment and a promise not only to each other but also with and to our most holy God! It is not something to be entered into lightly. People have this insane idea that if the marriage doesn't work out, oh well, I'll just get divorced and find someone else.
That is a deception and a tool of the evil one that has proliferated in the church today. And some pastors participate in it! People in their congregations switch partners multiple times and they marry them instead of kicking them out until they come to their senses and get right with God. And other people still sit under these guy's.
No! No! No! That isn't being holy! That isn't being in God's will! That is pleasing man so the offering plate gets filled up every week instead of trusting in God our Father to meet and exceed our needs!

Remember the woman at the well? What did Jesus say to her? What would Jesus say about the state of the church and the divorces and remarriages that go on today? Do you think He would be nice about it or do you thing He would come in and slap some hides with a whip?
I think the whip.

No sir. It takes more than a simple desire.
If desire was the only requirement, I'd be a polygamist. :lol:

I agree with your post, btw.

Noeb
Nov 23rd 2013, 04:43 AM
Are you saying that if you simply desire to be married to someone, then you are?other than consummation what else biblically is required of two?