[.eXe]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Slightly confusing, how can it ban what it has never permitted in the first place and continues to stand firm on that?

Well no don't get caught up on the actual content of the analogy..doesn't have to be homosexuality it can be anything.

The point I was making was that just because a belief system does something that society also ascribes to..it doesn't automatically mean that the belief system did it BECAUSE of society. And it also doesn't mean that there was no divine inspiration involved.

[StartSomething]

Urmmmmm
Well I don't think my parents are too bothered by it either

[butter_god]

I'm not Christian, to begin with, and it is against my religion to have sex outside of a marriage. But the verses ect fail to take into account that people are getting married later in life, and that divorces are a common occurrence. So, what is better, going to the altar while barely knowing your future husband/wife just to have sex only to find out you are not compatible in any way- or to 'test drive the car' before commitment?

I choose not to follow a religion strictly, but I am spiritual. You don't have to be religious to be spiritual. Choose what is right for you and you'll be surprised at how much happier you'll be.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by .eXe)
You can't say that with certainty.

Let's say a church today bans homosexual marriage because it goes against the Bible. in 2000 years will you tell me that the church banned it because it was an artefact of the culture today or because it was actually a result of follow biblical scripture?

Answer: you wouldn't know either way.

Thus, you cannot say with absolute certainty that the only reason it's in the bible is because it was a societal norm and not a command of God, or divinely inspired. Best you can do is say you don't know.

Er, if we still have the Bible in 2000 years time we will be able to tell if it is in Biblical scripture, and therefore determine if the banning was based upon the scripture or not.

I don't think your point is very strong.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Er, if we still have the Bible in 2000 years time we will be able to tell if it is in Biblical scripture, and therefore determine if the banning was based upon the scripture or not.

I don't think your point is very strong.

It's not meant to be. It's only there to show you that you point isn't as certain as you think it is.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by .eXe)
It's not meant to be. It's only there to show you that you point isn't as certain as you think it is.

Well, you can easily demonstrate that I am wrong if you find a piece of scripture that condemns premarital sex! I wonder why nobody will take on this simple task?!

[.eXe]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Well, you can easily demonstrate that I am wrong if you find a piece of scripture that condemns premarital sex! I wonder why nobody will take on this simple task?!

Lol are you serious?

1 Corinthians 7:2

English Standard Version (©2001)
"But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."

It is immoral to have sex with someone who is not your spouse.

Clarified?

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by .eXe)
Lol are you serious?

1 Corinthians 7:2

English Standard Version (©2001)
"But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."

It is immoral to have sex with someone who is not your spouse.

Clarified?

Sexual immorality in terms of incest, rape, was rampant in the population this letter was sent to. Being faithful to your spouse was a solution to this problem, because faithfulness would remove the problems named above, not a commandment or a condemnation of premarital sex.

Context, context, context, I am disappointed.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Sexual immorality in terms of incest, rape, was rampant in the population this letter was sent to. Being faithful to your spouse was a solution to this problem, because faithfulness would remove the problems named above, not a commandment or a condemnation of premarital sex.

Context, context, context, I am disappointed.

I know you're trying really hard to find some way to squirm away from the true intent of that verse but you asked for a quote and I gave you one. If you don't get it, that really isn't my problem. If you think it doesn't mean what it means..again, I could care less. I've done my job, the challenge wasn't to find a quote and explain it to a mentally incapable child.

Oh and news flash: The Bible cannot contain a verse of every possible eventuality. That's a logistical impossibility.

It won't have a specific quote outlining rape, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, etc etc etc so don't ask me ridiculous questions in the hopes of justifying your marginally coherent perspective.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by butter_god)
But the verses ect fail to take into account that people are getting married later in life, and that divorces are a common occurrence. So, what is better, going to the altar while barely knowing your future husband/wife just to have sex only to find out you are not compatible in any way- or to 'test drive the car' before commitment?

Interesting thinking, does the Bible condone "test driving" or "try before you buy"?

[aurao2003]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
I don't want to continue this discussion. This link explains my opinion and contains links that you will find interesting and reliable.

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/premaritalsex.html

The preconception that premarital sex is condemned in the Bible is an artefact of the culture at the time of writing.

Well, I proposed we end the discussion about 10 posts ago!!! And the bible is not written based on a culture. It applies to all and sundry. Thats why its the worlds best seller, most widely distributed and read book in history.

Did I not suggest that we agree to disagree? Some discussions fall into that category. I have learnt from it and hope you have to.

[aurao2003]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
You didn't read your own text, it supports my opinion!

The text says that porneia has a range of meanings and that we need to use the context to determine what the meaning was intended to be. In this case, one particular verse was examined and the conclusion was that in that case, porneia was used to refer to premarital sex (and that conclusion, in your own text, was disagreed by some) - however, premarital sex is not considered a sin in this passage, but a legitimate reason to divorce a woman if the man desires it. (Hence allowing scope for more oppression of women's rights in the bible, and making them the property of their husbands, by the way ... there is no way to prove to a person living in the first century that a man had premarital sex).

That passage therefore clearly doesn't condemn premarital sex or call it a sin. Condemning something as a sin is something completely different to naming it as a reasonable excuse for divorce. Hence you need to look at the context of any passage containing "porneia", and its meaning is NEVER specifically premarital sex, rather "sexual immorality", a general term. This is therefore down to individual interpretation and hence the decision on premarital sex is, based on passages using porneia, down to the individual's understanding of scripture and their personal relationship with their own sexuality, morality and spirituality.

You are right that it has a range of meanings. And as I earlier stated, one of them is sex before marriage.

Here is a typical example of how Mr. Armstrong’s understanding is discredited. Mr. Frank Nelte, writing in The Journal of 30 November 2001, states:



“So porneia includes all forms of sexual transgressions, including sex between unmarried people and adultery and homosexuality and other perversions. It is not a specific and limited term, AS MR. ARMSTRONG USED TO BELIEVE, WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO LIMIT PORNEIA TO SEX BETWEEN TWO UNMARRIED PEOPLE.”
“It is vital to understand that IN NO WAY can porneia be limited to sex before marriage.”
“Porneia … MOST EMPHATICALLY CANNOT BE LIMITED TO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE, AS MR. ARMSTRONG ATTEMPTED TO DO.”


These comments by Mr. Nelte are, however, inaccurate. Mr. Armstrong NEVER attempted to LIMIT the meaning of porneia to “sex before marriage.” Mr. Armstrong happily acknowledged that porneia has a number of different meanings, but stated that, IN THE CONTEXT OF MATTHEW 5 & 19, it could ONLY mean fornication — as any other meaning in Matthew 5 and 19 would CONTRADICT the many scriptures relating to the permanence of marriage.



Here is what Mr. Armstrong actually wrote:



“The Greek word porneia has a BROAD RANGE OF MEANINGS. It means sexual immorality in general, sexual intercourse by an unmarried person, harlotry. It includes sexual deviations, homo sexuality, bestiality, perversion.” Marriage and Divorce booklet, 1973.
“Granted the Greek word porneia has MORE THAN ONE MEANING …we determine by its use in the sentence, IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT SENTENCE, which meaning of the word applies.”

Well, as the good book says ' Speech is silver but silence is golden.' Do have a nice day.

So, as far as the meaning of the word porneia is concerned, Mr. Armstrong is in complete agreement with the Greek lexicons. He is in complete agreement with Mr. Nelte, as far as the technical meaning of the word is concerned.


The dispute is about Mr Armstrong inisisting that sex before marriage is the only meaning. Thats why the word limited is used.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by .eXe;38718208[B)
]I know you're trying really hard to find some way to squirm away from the true intent of that verse[/B] but you asked for a quote and I gave you one. If you don't get it, that really isn't my problem. If you think it doesn't mean what it means..again, I could care less. I've done my job, the challenge wasn't to find a quote and explain it to a mentally incapable child.

Oh and news flash: The Bible cannot contain a verse of every possible eventuality. That's a logistical impossibility.

It won't have a specific quote outlining rape, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, etc etc etc so don't ask me ridiculous questions in the hopes of justifying your marginally coherent perspective.

Your post is very ironic. In the first place, the passage isn't a command from God or Jesus, but a human. Hence his opinions are influenced by culture. Do you even know what Corinthians as a book is?

Secondly, the advice was directed at a specific population which was experiencing a time of incest and rape and other sexual crimes. These were, reasonably, deigned undesirable. The solution proposed was fidelity within marriages. Does this says anything about the legality, illegality, or status as sin (or not) of premarital sex? I think not. How about you explain how the verse condemned premarital sex? From reading it, doesn't it seem to simply suggest that sex inside a marriage is better than rape and incest? That doesn't mention premarital sex, does it? Does suggesting that fidelity once in a marriage is good imply that sexual relations outside a marriage is bad? Does it even mention people outside a marriage? I think not. If anything, the verse specifically mentions adultery and never premarital sex.

Finally, the passage notes "I say this as a concession, not as a command", proving that the concept provided of being faithful within marriages in this one, very limited arena is not able to be interpreted in any way as condemnation of premarital sex.

Try harder next time.

[callum9999]

I think it's rather obvious to pretty much everyone nowadays that Christians are allowed to pick and choose what they believe in. As long as you are vaguely following some broken resemblance of Christianity you can label yourself as such.

[Mequa]

(Original post by ufo2012)
To a genuine Christian - premarital sex, whether it be of the heterosexual or homosexual variety would still be considered a sin.

Google the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[resentment.]

(Original post by aurao2003)
The Sabbath and the ten commandments were tenets given to the Jews. Remember, the Hebrew Aramaic scriptures are a record of Gods dealings with the Isrealites. Christians today are not under the 10 commandments. Why? This is because Jesus came to fulfill and ablolish the Mosaic Law. Some examples are circumcision, having a blue fringe, interacting with non Isrealites etc. They were given as a guide for the Isrealites.

huh?

[aurao2003]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Your post is very ironic. In the first place, the passage isn't a command from God or Jesus, but a human. Hence his opinions are influenced by culture. Do you even know what Corinthians as a book is?

Secondly, the advice was directed at a specific population which was experiencing a time of incest and rape and other sexual crimes. These were, reasonably, deigned undesirable. The solution proposed was fidelity within marriages. Does this says anything about the legality, illegality, or status as sin (or not) of premarital sex? I think not. How about you explain how the verse condemned premarital sex? From reading it, doesn't it seem to simply suggest that sex inside a marriage is better than rape and incest? That doesn't mention premarital sex, does it? Does suggesting that fidelity once in a marriage is good imply that sexual relations outside a marriage is bad? Does it even mention people outside a marriage? I think not. If anything, the verse specifically mentions adultery and never premarital sex.

Finally, the passage notes "I say this as a concession, not as a command", proving that the concept provided of being faithful within marriages in this one, very limited arena is not able to be interpreted in any way as condemnation of premarital sex.

Try harder next time.

[QUOTE=Hypocrism;38722542]Your post is very ironic. In the first place, the passage isn't a command from God or Jesus, but a human. Hence his opinions are influenced by culture. Do you even know what Corinthians as a book is?
Lets consider this statement. What culture influenced Apostle Paul? Well, the Corinthians were Greek. What was their view on rape, incest, paedophilia and pre marital sex? It was the norm in their society. This was evidenced through their worship and day to day living. So,Paul would not advocate this culture to Christians back then. Also, 2 Tim 3: 16 staes that all scriptures is inspired by God. This implies that biblical statements uttered by his servants would be evidence of God thoughts and feelings. 1 Cor 1: 1 corroborates this idea.

Secondly, the advice was directed at a specific population which was experiencing a time of incest and rape and other sexual crimes. These were, reasonably, deigned undesirable. The solution proposed was fidelity within marriages.
What does the opening lines of 1 Cor 7: 1 state? Well it says a man should not touch a woman. Since the whole chapter is regarding sexual activities this is very interesting. The proceeding statement encourages everyone to marry. Paul would not have made the former statement if pre marital sex was condoned. That opening line would be meaningless. That would also apply to the admonition to marry to avoid temptation. Well, if pre marital sex was advocated, there would be no need to avoid temptation.
But verse 8 is even more interesting. Unmarried individuals were encouraged to marry if they couldnt control their sexual desires. This would be unecessary if pre marital sex was condoned.

The solution proposed was fidelity within marriages. Does this says anything about the legality, illegality, or status as sin (or not) of premarital sex? I think not. How about you explain how the verse condemned premarital sex? From reading it, doesn't it seem to simply suggest that sex inside a marriage is better than rape and incest? That doesn't mention premarital sex, does it? Does suggesting that fidelity once in a marriage is good imply that sexual relations outside a marriage is bad? Does it even mention people outside a marriage? I think not. If anything, the verse specifically mentions adultery and never premarital sex.
Well, a clear perusal of the chapter shows references to both married and ummarried.

Finally, the passage notes "I say this as a concession, not as a command", proving that the concept provided of being faithful within marriages in this one, very limited arena is not able to be interpreted in any way as condemnation of premarital sex.
In vs 39 Paul as a final exhortation advocated remaining single and marriage side by side. But this was on the basis of being to control sexual activities. Controliing sexual activites was not limited to married individuals.

So, this raises some questions.
Why would God provide a different standard of sex to married and unmarried individuals?
Why do bible accounts involving Joseph, Schechem and Tamar cast pre marital sex in a bad light?
Why would Paul enourage christians to adopt the same standards of sex (refering to pre marital sex) as the non christian society around them?
Since there was an issue of sexual immorality among the Corinthian christians, would effect would condoning pre marital sex have on the congregation?
How would there be a distinction between a christian and non christian if they shared the same standards on pre marital sex?
Why would God destroy Isrealites who had Pre Marital sex at Numbers 25:1-9 if the act was condoned?

To sincere individuals, the answers are clear. Pre marital sex is not a bible teaching. Never has and never will be.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by Bright.Inspiration.)
One of the commandments says adultery is wrong - so sex out of wedlock is wrong.

EDIT: The people negging me have clearly broken this commandment and will now be going to hell according to their own religion.

p.s. I'm an atheist, and have learnt this during the dire days of GCSE RE and through my many christian friends, so if I have misunderstood this rather clear commandment then do let me know.

The commandment says more about coveting thy neighbour's wife and his ass being a sin (thoughtcrime, in effect). Debate is open on what the Lord says about coveting thy neihbour's wife's ass, however.

[`R92]

Why are you picking up on this part of the bible other than say......women speaking in churches?

'Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.'

[Dinnes]

(Original post by Really_Gonna_Rock_)
Where in the Bible does it say that having sex with your girlfriend or boyfriend is allowed? Look in the Bible. Nowhere does it say this is permitted.

It doesn't say that eating pineapples while on a beach in Barbados is allowed but we don't burn Christians who do it. This is where your argument falls slightly. You should highlight an instance where it explicitly says "you are not allowed to have sex before marriage" - I'm sure there is one, as this view is not uncommon.

I think the reason many Christians do have sex before marriage (even though it is [for argument's sake] explicitly forbidden in the bible) is that their interpretation of the bible is much looser than yours. I don't know if you read the Bible as literally true or as a representation of events, but I know most Christians read is as either partially-true or as a series of metaphors rather than believing in it literally.

Anyway, so yes, if it actually says it is forbidden by all means I think there is a possible hypocrisy, but be aware of the difference between the Bible saying something is actively forbidden and not mentioning something.