Topic: Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?

[quorum]

It is in the early fathers.

[The apostle], foreseeing the wicked speeches of unbelievers, has particularized the works which he terms carnal; and he explains himself, lest any room for doubt be left to those who do dishonestly pervert his meaning, thus saying in the Epistle to the Galatians: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are adulteries, fornications, uncleanness, luxuriousness, idolatries, witchcrafts, hatreds, contentions jealousies, wraths, emulations, animosities, irritable speeches, dissensions, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, carousings, and such like; of which I warn you, as also I have warned you, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”, etc. Thus does he point out to his hearers in a more explicit manner what it is [he means when he declares], “Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” For they who do these things, since they do indeed walk after the flesh, have not the power of living unto God. And then, again, he proceeds to tell us the spiritual actions which vivify a man, that is, the engrafting of the Spirit; thus saying, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, goodness, benignity, faith, meekness, continence, chastity: against these there is no law.” As, therefore, he who has gone forward to the better things, and has brought forth the fruit of the Spirit, is saved altogether because of the communion of the Spirit; so also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle testifies, saying to the Corinthians, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err,” he says: “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”. He shows in the clearest manner through what things it is that man goes to destruction, if he has continued to live after the flesh; and then, on the other hand, [he points out] through what things he is saved. Now he says that the things which save are the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xii.html

Thank you for this quote.  I'm interested in learning more about it.  

For the reasons stated above, I would like to know what the original word that this translator has translated to "fornication" was.  I've seen a lot of places where translators pick "fornication" more out of a desire to put forth their personal beliefs than out of a desire to be as faithful as possible to the original language.  If the word is the same one from the Corinthians quote above, a better translation would replace "fornication" with "illicit sex", IMO.

Is there somewhere I can look to find the original word used?

Unfortunately, the original Greek text of that book exists only in fragments. The Latin translation made shortly after it was originally published has survived intact, though. It looks like the only Greek left for Book V, Chapter XI is a small paragraph. You can read it here, and can see the Latin and Greek by clicking the blue page links. The two relevant ones are 346-347 and 348-349.

God bless.

[acts420]

Dear Acts,

If you are seriously looking for Patristic sources, there are a few.  But, you can't look for them under 'pre-marital sex,' but rather under 'virginity.'  Remember, the terminology of the ancients is different.

Here are a few sources:

St. Gregory of Nyssa
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2907.htm

St. Augustine of Hippo
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1310.htm

St. Ambrose of Milan
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34071.htm

There is a book on the topic by St. John Chrysostom, but it is not available for free:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_j60PgAACAAJ&dq=john+chrysostom+virginity&source=gbs_book_similarbooks

As you review these sources, you will see that the saints bewailed the loss of virginity outside marriage, and even St. Paul recommended abstinence if such a gift is given.

Thank you.   I read these writings prayerfully, with an open heart and mind.  I have haven't found where any of them "bewail the loss of virginity outside marriage" as you say they do.  What part of which source do you find does that?

As far as I can tell, they are simply expounding on the benefits of virginity for those who choose it (or, rather, for those who are gifted to be able to choose it).   Nonetheless, marriage is also wonderful for those gifted to enjoy it.  As St. Ambrose says in ch. 6 of the source you gave, "I am not indeed discouraging marriage, but am enlarging upon the benefits of virginity."

Those who choose to pursue marriage have not sinned, rather they are enjoying a gift given to them.  And from what I can read in Scripture, the loss of virginity that comes with choosing marriage can occur even before the "ceremony" of a wedding.  Look at the Song of Solomon.  The couple share's a bed in that book before the actual wedding, while they are courting. As to these particular writings, I have found no passages that say such sex in courtship is sin. 

If you can provide particular passages that actually say sex before marriage is a sin I will reconsider my opinion.

Pre-marital sex is the loss of virginity, first and foremost.  No Fathers recommend it, especially outside marriage.

No Fathers that I've seen recommend that couples wait until after the wedding ceremony either.  In fact, in Song of Solomon, the only book of the Bible dedicated entirely to the relationship between a man and a woman, the virginity happened to be lost in the courtship phase of the "marriage" (before a wedding).  I'm simply claiming that is okay; that was not a "sin" on the couple's part.  You're telling me such behavior is sin.  The fact that whoever taught you Christianity told you so may be enough for you to believe it.  That's not the case with me.  I've already been burned by relying on such things in my Baptist past.  From now on I rely on Scripture and the witness of the early Fathers for my Christian beliefs.  And I have yet to find your beliefs about the sinfulness of sex during courtship in either of those places.

Misrepresenting virginity was so important in the Old Testament is was punishable by death:

"If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, `I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, `I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, "I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity." And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. (Deuteronomy 22:13-22

Her 'harlotry' was merely not being a virgin at marriage.

I think you get where this is going, yes?

Non-virgins who were honest about their status were not killed.  The punished woman was killed for misrepresenting her virginity.  Her harlotry was lying about her sexual status in order to gain a husband.  She was taking advantage of a man's sexual desires for her own gain no in much the same way a prostitute does. 

I know you think I'm a "troll" because I disagree with you.  That's fine.  You don't know me nor my heart; I know I'm not a troll.  And in fact, I would say it is much more "troll-ish" to cite duet. 22 as support for the belief that sex in courtship is a sin.  The passage very obviously relates only to women who lied about being virgins.  No woman was ever killed or proscribed to be killed in the Old Testament for having sex before marriage.  They were only killed if they lied about it in order to gain a husband.

The closest the Old Testament comes to prohibiting sex before marriage is the command that a man must pay the father of a virgin he sleeps with her before marriage.  However, that passage is in the context of restitution.  It is in Exodus 22, and the passages before it are all about restitution.  In fact, the verse right before it says someone who borrows an animal that is then injured must pay the animal's owner.  The father deserved to be paid for his daughter's virginity: that was the custom then.  Granted, the man also had to marry the woman if the father wished for it.  However, the running assumption under the same code was that he could divorce her the next day if he wanted to.

The short of it is this: In Scripture, I see promiscuity and an "orgy" lifestyle forbidden (romans 13:13).  However, I don't see premarital sex ever forbidden when it is in the context of courtship.  In fact, in the Song it is celebrated.  Therefore, I've come to the conclusion that your beliefs about sex in courtship are based on traditions found neither in Scripture nor in the early Fathers.

Sex is dangerous.  It is also wonderful.  That is why young people must be taught the proper balance.  Teaching courting couples to abstain from the enjoyment of sexuality during courtship puts their marital sex-life at risk in the same way that teaching them not to talk during courtship would put their marital emotional-life at risk.  Just as there are couples that get along well emotionally and others that don't, there are couples that get along well sexually and others that don't.  The time to figure such things out is before sealing the relationship forever.  That is the model in the Song of Solomon, and that model is never condemned in Scripture or the Father's as far as I can tell. 

Plus it just plain makes sense.  My first marriage was destroyed in part by the false doctrine that sexual pleasure must be abstained from during courtship.  My ex wife and I did not even so much as look at one another sexually until after marriage.  We then found out that we were never able to enjoy sex together.  We simply did not find one another attractive sexually in any way.  We tried for four years.  Since being divorced, we have found others that we can and do enjoy sexuality with.

That is four years I cannot get back.  On top of that, how many years were wasted prior to my first marriage!  I spent my first 26 years being "pure", casting aside relationships simply because she wanted to be intimate before the wedding. Any number of them could've ended up being as wonderful as the Song of Solomon.   

I can not be a part of a Christian church that would teach my children that which has caused me so much pain, and, potentially, destroy so much of their lives and relationships.   But even more importantly, no early Father and no passage of Christian Scripture teaches what you're telling me, so I don't want my children to be taught it either.

False traditions teaching people to abstain from this or that when God never said so plagued Judaism and have long plagued Christianity.  I know orthodox priests that teach young people to even abstain from dating!  They think marriages should be arranged.  Sorry... if it isn't in Scripture and isn't in the early Father's... I"m not buying it. 

Call me a troll if you want.

[mike]

I know you think I'm a "troll" because I disagree with you.  That's fine.  You don't know me nor my heart; I know I'm not a troll.  And in fact, I would say it is much more "troll-ish" to cite duet. 22 as support for the belief that sex in courtship is a sin.

I'm sorry but you won't find martyrdom on the internet.

[acts420]

I know you think I'm a "troll" because I disagree with you.  That's fine.  You don't know me nor my heart; I know I'm not a troll.  And in fact, I would say it is much more "troll-ish" to cite duet. 22 as support for the belief that sex in courtship is a sin.

I'm sorry but you won't find martyrdom on the internet.

Say what?  I'm not a martyr or looking for it.  The guy called me a troll earlier.  I've been consistently defending what I see as the correct position, and I guess that is the definition of a troll in his eyes.  

And now your sarcasm.  Well... I can play that game too.  I'll tell you what ... you orthodox are super friendly to people exploring conversion, especially in this special section of this website for people with questions.  Keep fighting the good fight! 

I've had enough of this sort of attitude in my Baptist heritage.  I'm outa here.  Take care.

[Iconodule]

And now your sarcasm.  Well... I can play that game too.  I'll tell you what ... you orthodox are super friendly to people exploring conversion, especially in this special section of this website for people with questions.

That's right, it's for people with questions, not people looking for approval of their pre-determined answers.

If you look at questions asked by honest seekers, you can see people here are generally very friendly and helpful.

[Marat]

I know you think I'm a "troll" because I disagree with you.  That's fine.  You don't know me nor my heart; I know I'm not a troll.  And in fact, I would say it is much more "troll-ish" to cite duet. 22 as support for the belief that sex in courtship is a sin.

I'm sorry but you won't find martyrdom on the internet.

Say what?  I'm not a martyr or looking for it.  The guy called me a troll earlier.  I've been consistently defending what I see as the correct position, and I guess that is the definition of a troll in his eyes.  

And now your sarcasm.  Well... I can play that game too.  I'll tell you what ... you orthodox are super friendly to people exploring conversion, especially in this special section of this website for people with questions.  Keep fighting the good fight! 

I've had enough of this sort of attitude in my Baptist heritage.  I'm outa here.  Take care.

I have not read all pages of this thread, only the first and last. Forgive me if I have missed something. And forgive me if my words seem harsh. I mean to be helpful.

First, the people on this site are remarkable friendly. I've dealt with many over the years both on this site, through emails, and a few in person. They have been most helpful. However our different experiences may be due to our different approaches in coming to this site. You have come here with some established doctrines you seem to wish others to submit to. I have come here to learn from others who have more experience than I.

FatherGiryus is right in that you seem to have a lot of Baptist left in you. If you are looking to be persuaded through someone quoting you a text then you will be disappointed in Orthodoxy. This is not the way it works. Scripture is valued highly but also along with tradition and the writings/teachings of the Church Fathers. They are not separate sources in the in Orthodox mindset but one larger, greater source than any of them could be alone. The Baptist/Protestant mindset of finding a verse and then privately interpreting it outside of any historical interpretations or church history is what has led to the multitudes of denominations. It just won't work.

Your judgment of churches by the failures of individuals will always lead you to disappointment. The scandals with Catholics priests, the buying and selling of offices in the Orthodox church in times past - these things are not doctrines of the church. I do understand the concept of judging "by their fruits you will know them" since I've done that in the past myself. It is what led me to years in the Mormon Church. The Mormons have some wonderful fruit. It doesn't make their doctrine truth however.

I am sorry to read of the problems with your first marriage. While your experiences are individual, your challenges are not. What I mean by that is that many if not all of us face something we are challenged by in the Orthodox Church. I do. I know some other posters do on here as well and I am willing to guess almost everyone does. It would make my life easier if a certain doctrine was changed. I have written on here in the past that I am gay (which I still am). I am celibate and have been for many years. I could find a church which approves (MCC). I could be bitter talking about wasted years as you have. I could try to convince those on this board that church doctrine should be changed to accommodate any well reasoned arguments I compose. It would be time and energy wasted on something fruitless when instead I could use that time on bettering myself. And there are amazing things to learn from tradition, the Church Fathers, and those alive in the faith today with more experience to guide us.

I gave up the notion sometime back that I know best. Many of us have that problem. We each become our own little "pope" in that we define infallible interpretation of scriptures and use logic and reasoning, along with modern day science to come up with our own set of religious beliefs. If that is what you are after, admit it. That is why some think you are a troll. You post on this site about joining but argue how unbiblical core beliefs are.

If I have misrepresented the Orthodox faith in any way, please correct me posters. I am a Catholic with a great interest in Orthodoxy.

I wish you the best in your journey.

[PeterTheAleut]

Those who choose to pursue marriage have not sinned, rather they are enjoying a gift given to them.  And from what I can read in Scripture, the loss of virginity that comes with choosing marriage can occur even before the "ceremony" of a wedding.  Look at the Song of Solomon.  The couple share's a bed in that book before the actual wedding, while they are courting. As to these particular writings, I have found no passages that say such sex in courtship is sin.

No Fathers that I've seen recommend that couples wait until after the wedding ceremony either.  In fact, in Song of Solomon, the only book of the Bible dedicated entirely to the relationship between a man and a woman, the virginity happened to be lost in the courtship phase of the "marriage" (before a wedding).

I must say... that's certainly an interpretation of the Song of Solomon I've never heard before.

[Veniamin]

Those who choose to pursue marriage have not sinned, rather they are enjoying a gift given to them.  And from what I can read in Scripture, the loss of virginity that comes with choosing marriage can occur even before the "ceremony" of a wedding.  Look at the Song of Solomon.  The couple share's a bed in that book before the actual wedding, while they are courting. As to these particular writings, I have found no passages that say such sex in courtship is sin.

No Fathers that I've seen recommend that couples wait until after the wedding ceremony either.  In fact, in Song of Solomon, the only book of the Bible dedicated entirely to the relationship between a man and a woman, the virginity happened to be lost in the courtship phase of the "marriage" (before a wedding).

I must say... that's certainly an interpretation of the Song of Solomon I've never heard before.

That's probably because acts420 just now made it up.

[NicholasMyra]

Does this "premarital courtship sex" you believe in bond the pair for life, or can one still back out to sexually "try on" others? If the latter, what differentiates this "backing out" to have sex with other people from, say, adultery?

Nicholas,

One can still back out.

...I think they should do as they feel led and comfortable.  

Arch-blasphemy. Imagine if your system were condoned, and one person in a couple was "dissatisfied" with his or her partner sexually; this person backs out, and leaves his or her partner, who is loving and committed to them, in the dust; a soul is crushed while this person searches out his or her idol, the ideal match for their fleshly preferences.

I have done things outside of marriage, Lord have mercy; I am not talking down to you in any way. But what you have tried to preach as doctrine spits on the longsuffering Love that Christ has for his Bride, and it transforms romantic love into a sort of love that even the demons possess.

[FatherGiryus]

Dear Acts,

You have already made up your mind, so nothing that I have for you will be helpful.

I can see that you are still stinging from my 'troll' characterization of your posting, and I still think you are cruising for a fight rather than genuinely seeking conversion.  It is a common mistake for people seeking to enter the Church in part to justify their own opinions.  But, that really isn't 'converting,' but merely 'joining.'  The Orthodox Church requires genuine conversion, when we lay aside all prior opinions and beliefs to become part of the Body of Christ.

You went on a Convert Issues forum, that means you want to know what we teach in order to convert.  I think you know now.

Your questions have been answered and you know what the Church stands for.  You can call us wrong, but they you are not really interested in converting and your your purpose has changed.  You want to convert us.  That ain't happening.

Most of us have survived the opinions you now hold, and have no interest in going back.  I spent more of my live outside the Orthodox Church than in it.  I am no stranger to the ideas you have because I once held them.  Experience taught me otherwise.  You are young and will learn the hard way.  I pray that God protects you from some of what you are opening yourself up to, and heals you from your present torment.

The essays I shared with you discuss virginity.  As I said before, the Fathers aren't going to use your terminology, so you can think you are justified but you are really missing the whole point.

The fact is that most of human history has been lived out with arranged marriages, and somehow multiple societies found that they work.  Right now, we have all the sexual freedom we could imagine and people are just as unhappy as ever.

Sorry, but sometimes life is not fair no matter by what 'rules' you play.  Sometimes bad things happen.  Something bad happened to you, but that does not mean that the whole world is going to change.  The Church certainly isn't.

Go on with your life, and hate us if that's what you must do, though I don't recommend it.  You can look down on us and mock our beliefs, but we will not be upset.  More of us than you know have thought as you have and acted accordingly and reaped the sorrows in great sheaves.  In this day and age, the harvest is rich because the fields are wide.

If you are ever ready to return, the Church will still be here and still be the same.  Whether you like it or not, the Church does not change.

Meanwhile you can enjoy this: http://books.google.com/books?id=cMxzdmLEL8UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Proverbs,+Ecclesiastes,+Song+of+Solomon+By+John+Robert+Wright,+Thomas+C.+Oden&source=bl&ots=pgC37hCnZH&sig=V5CMm7dbQylCtrYaYdHu_9acqS0&hl=en&ei=Mb_YS-_iHpCS8gTh0KGoBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=where&f=false

God be with you!

[SolEX01]

In fact, in Song of Solomon, the only book of the Bible dedicated entirely to the relationship between a man and a woman,

Have you ever heard of allegory?  The Song of Solomon is an allegory in that the relationship between a man and a woman is analogous to the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church.  If we look at Song of Solomon (aka Song of Songs) Chapter 1, Verse 1, the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible says....

Thus, Solomon is a type of the King of Peace, Christ, throughout this allegory.  Christ Himself is portrayed by the Bridegroom (Isaiah 62:5), and the song is that of the marriage of the Lamb (Revelations 19:7-9)

Let's look at Chapter 1, Verse 2:

The Holy Church, long awaiting the Lord's coming, proclaims here her desire for intimacy with God.

Both footnotes are found on page 882 of the Orthodox Study Bible

Let me define allegory for you:

Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.
Thus an allegory is a story with two meanings, a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning.

Right now, you're dealing with what you think is the literal meaning of the Song of Solomon; however, you're missing out on the symbolic meaning and how the Old Testament pre-figures the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church.

When you calm down and feel ready to discuss the Song of Solomon as a symbolic prefiguring of Jesus Christ, then we can talk....  

[akimori makoto]

Arch-blasphemy. Imagine if your system were condoned, and one person in a couple was "dissatisfied" with his or her partner sexually; this person backs out, and leaves his or her partner, who is loving and committed to them, in the dust; a soul is crushed while this person searches out his or her idol, the ideal match for their fleshly preferences.

Hi all,

I have been lurking for a while now but felt a need to comment on this.

The situation Nicholas described happened to me after five years with a girl who I was convinced I would marry. Well, it wasn't so much that she was dissatisfied with me sexually -- she just found someone else to lust after.

I can say without any melodrama that the whole episode robbed me of all happiness and will to live. Three years on and I am still picking up the pieces of my broken heart. Only by God's grace and visitation am I alive this day.

For what it's worth, my view is that, by becoming Christians, we sign up for a life of suffering and faithfulness (and suffering in our faithfulness). Where does this try before you buy mentality Acts is speaking of fit in with that bigger picture?

[SolEX01]

Welcome to the forum akimori makoto!   

[akimori makoto]

Welcome to the forum akimori makoto!   

Thank you very much!

I should probably get back to work now after hijacking this thread, hah.

[PeterTheAleut]

Right now, you're dealing with what you think is the literal meaning of the Song of Solomon; however, you're missing out on the symbolic meaning and how the Old Testament pre-figures the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church.

Is he really? Cannot one focus on the literal meaning of the Song of Solomon without forgetting, but also without discussing, its allegorical meaning?

When you calm down and feel ready to discuss the Song of Solomon as a symbolic prefiguring of Jesus Christ, then we can talk....  

But that's not being debated here. Let's not confuse things by insisting that acts420 engage us in a study of the allegorical meaning of the Song of Solomon. His already spurious interpretation of the literal meaning of the Song is what we're questioning, so let's remain focused on that.

[SolEX01]

Right now, you're dealing with what you think is the literal meaning of the Song of Solomon; however, you're missing out on the symbolic meaning and how the Old Testament pre-figures the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church.

Is he really? Cannot one focus on the literal meaning of the Song of Solomon without forgetting, but also without discussing, its allegorical meaning?

If acts420 is unable to reconcile the literal meaning of the Song of Solomon with what others have cited from Patristics regarding virginity, then discussing the allegorical meaning will help give him a different perspective and perhaps persuade him that the Song of Solomon should not be taken literally like any other sola scriptura interpretations of Scripture.

When you calm down and feel ready to discuss the Song of Solomon as a symbolic prefiguring of Jesus Christ, then we can talk....  

But that's not being debated here. Let's not confuse things by insisting that acts420 engage us in a study of the allegorical meaning of the Song of Solomon. His already spurious interpretation of the literal meaning of the Song is what we're questioning, so let's remain focused on that.

Maybe if I had said "the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church" rather than Jesus Christ alone?     My comments were intended to debunk the literal meaning of the Song of Solomon, which is even confusing from a Patristic perspective, and mention the allegorical meaning.  Mentioning the allegory doesn't detract from the thread since a convert ought to know about the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church that He founded.     

[acts420]

And now your sarcasm.  Well... I can play that game too.  I'll tell you what ... you orthodox are super friendly to people exploring conversion, especially in this special section of this website for people with questions.

That's right, it's for people with questions, not people looking for approval of their pre-determined answers.

If you look at questions asked by honest seekers, you can see people here are generally very friendly and helpful.

That sounds an awful lot like you're accusing me of being a liar (of not being honest) because I asked about theology, received your answer, and nonetheless decided to maintain a theological position that is different from yours.  In other words, it sounds an awful lot like you're a bigot.

I'm not looking for approval.  I'm looking for information.  And a little Christian charity wouldn't hurt either.

[acts420]

Those who choose to pursue marriage have not sinned, rather they are enjoying a gift given to them.  And from what I can read in Scripture, the loss of virginity that comes with choosing marriage can occur even before the "ceremony" of a wedding.  Look at the Song of Solomon.  The couple share's a bed in that book before the actual wedding, while they are courting. As to these particular writings, I have found no passages that say such sex in courtship is sin.

No Fathers that I've seen recommend that couples wait until after the wedding ceremony either.  In fact, in Song of Solomon, the only book of the Bible dedicated entirely to the relationship between a man and a woman, the virginity happened to be lost in the courtship phase of the "marriage" (before a wedding).

I must say... that's certainly an interpretation of the Song of Solomon I've never heard before.

It isn't really an interpretation.  It is more like a fact.  In the order of the book the couple lies with one another (they share a bed) after they begin courting but before they have a wedding ceremony.  I suppose you could call it an interpretation based on the assumption that the book is in chronological order.  However, we assume chronological order for pretty much every story in the Bible. Additionally, the story itself seems to be following the couple from the beginning of their love on through a wedding and beyond.

[acts420]

Arch-blasphemy. Imagine if your system were condoned, and one person in a couple was "dissatisfied" with his or her partner sexually; this person backs out, and leaves his or her partner, who is loving and committed to them, in the dust; a soul is crushed while this person searches out his or her idol, the ideal match for their fleshly preferences.

I have done things outside of marriage, Lord have mercy; I am not talking down to you in any way. But what you have tried to preach as doctrine spits on the longsuffering Love that Christ has for his Bride, and it transforms romantic love into a sort of love that even the demons possess.

It's called a broken heart.  It happens all the time, even to people who have not had sexual intimacy.  I know a man who's heart remained broken for 7 years after a breakup with a girl he dated for two years and never had any sort of sexual intimacy with.  I know another who got dumped after 3 years by a girl he was sleeping with and was over her in much less time.  Hopefully you see my point.

I would instead say blasphemy is the belief that the order of the Song of Solomon "transforms romantic love into a sort of love that even the demons possess."  But to each his own.

[acts420]

In fact, in Song of Solomon, the only book of the Bible dedicated entirely to the relationship between a man and a woman,

Have you ever heard of allegory?  The Song of Solomon is an allegory in that the relationship between a man and a woman is analogous to the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church.  If we look at Song of Solomon (aka Song of Songs) Chapter 1, Verse 1, the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible says....

Thus, Solomon is a type of the King of Peace, Christ, throughout this allegory.  Christ Himself is portrayed by the Bridegroom (Isaiah 62:5), and the song is that of the marriage of the Lamb (Revelations 19:7-9)

Let's look at Chapter 1, Verse 2:

The Holy Church, long awaiting the Lord's coming, proclaims here her desire for intimacy with God.

Both footnotes are found on page 882 of the Orthodox Study Bible

Let me define allegory for you:

Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.
Thus an allegory is a story with two meanings, a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning.

Right now, you're dealing with what you think is the literal meaning of the Song of Solomon; however, you're missing out on the symbolic meaning and how the Old Testament pre-figures the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church.

When you calm down and feel ready to discuss the Song of Solomon as a symbolic prefiguring of Jesus Christ, then we can talk....  

Yes I understand the metaphor.  However, it is also a story in and of itself that celebrates marriage.  In that story, the couple lies with one another before the wedding. 

[acts420]

I apologize if I seemed to dismiss the many people who have provided me helpful information in a kind manner.  My distress is at only those who have sarcastically insulted my character, namely FatherGiryus, Iconodule, and any one else who has publicly accused me of being dishonest.  A few bad apples are no reason for me to avoid the entire grove, so I'll continue to try to look at this thread in the future.  I simply will not converse with people who demean me.  Hopefully they will remain few.

I felt like I needed to have my mind made up on this issue as best as possible before pursuing the orthodox faith any further.   That may seem extreme, but this particular "theological" topic has caused an extreme amount of damage in my life.... that's just the way it is.  So, again to those who have kindly helped answer my questions... thank you.  I now feel comfortable enough to talk to a local priest about my Christian faith and about joining the orthodox church, and I look forward to learning more in person.

God Bless,
Jason

P.S. - Hopefully the priest I see won't be FatherGiryus.  And if it is, hopefully he won't take a picture of me, photoshop it with a troll hat, and then pass it around the church so everyone can laugh. "Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent--the LORD detests them both."  Proverbs 17

[SolEX01]

In fact, in Song of Solomon, the only book of the Bible dedicated entirely to the relationship between a man and a woman,

Have you ever heard of allegory?  The Song of Solomon is an allegory in that the relationship between a man and a woman is analogous to the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church.  If we look at Song of Solomon (aka Song of Songs) Chapter 1, Verse 1, the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible says....

Thus, Solomon is a type of the King of Peace, Christ, throughout this allegory.  Christ Himself is portrayed by the Bridegroom (Isaiah 62:5), and the song is that of the marriage of the Lamb (Revelations 19:7-9)

Let's look at Chapter 1, Verse 2:

The Holy Church, long awaiting the Lord's coming, proclaims here her desire for intimacy with God.

Both footnotes are found on page 882 of the Orthodox Study Bible

Let me define allegory for you:

Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.
Thus an allegory is a story with two meanings, a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning.

Right now, you're dealing with what you think is the literal meaning of the Song of Solomon; however, you're missing out on the symbolic meaning and how the Old Testament pre-figures the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church.

When you calm down and feel ready to discuss the Song of Solomon as a symbolic prefiguring of Jesus Christ, then we can talk....  

Yes I understand the metaphor.  However, it is also a story in and of itself that celebrates marriage.  In that story, the couple lies with one another before the wedding. 

¹In the night on my bed
I sought him on whom my soul loves;
I sought him, but did not find him.
I called him, but he did not hear me.
²I will rise now and go about the city,
In the marketplaces and the streets.
I will seek him whom my soul loves.
I sought him, but did not find him.
³The watchmen who do their rounds in the city
Found me, and I said to them,
"Have you seen him whom my soul loves?"
⁴ Scarcely had I departed from them
When I found him whom my soul loves,
I held him and would not let him go
Until I brought him into my mother's house,
Into the chamber of her who conceived me.
⁵I implore you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
By the hosts and powers of the field,
That you rouse not nor wake my love
Until he wishes.

Song of Songs (or Solomon) 3:1-5 as in the Orthodox Study Bible, page 885-886

Take a look at verse 4, a prophecy fulfilled when Mary Magdalene saw the Resurrected Jesus. (citing footnotes for Song of Songs 3:4 on page 886 of the Orthodox Study Bible)

Now look at verses 1-3 and imagine Mary Magdalene searching for Jesus following his crucifixion and ask yourself if there are any sexual connotations in those 5 verses.

[SolEX01]

¹¹I am by beloved's
And his desire is towards me.
¹²Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field;
Let us lodge in the villages;
¹³Let us rise early in the morning in the vineyards;
Let us see if the vine has flowered,
If the blossoms have appeared,
If the pomegranates have blossomed,
There I will give you my breasts.
¹⁴The mandrakes have put forth an aroma,
And fruits of all kinds, new and old,
Are at our doors.
O my beloved, I have kept them for you.

Song of Songs 7:11-14 on pages 890-891 of the Orthodox Study Bible

acts420, The footnotes for verses 12 and 14 (on page 890) indicate that the above passage is a prophetic description of evangelism by the apostles and the Church.  When a baby is born, even the baby is breastfed for the first couple of months of its life just as the early Church was breastfed by the successors to the Apostles, the martyrs, the Ecumenical Councils, early Patristic writings, et al.  Again, read the passages and ask yourself if there is really any sexual connotation in them.

[FatherGiryus]

Well, now you are just sounding hysterical!   

I would not know how to get a picture of you, and I certainly know nothing of Photoshop.  That would also presume that you meant enough to me to make it worth my while.  To be honest, I had entirely forgotten about you until I got a notification that the thread had booted up again.

Seriously, I mean you know ill will.  I do not think you are evil, but you are dishonest.  You are not being honest with yourself nor with the information that has been presented to you.  You accuse the Church of sinning against people by giving them false teachings, yet you bristle when someone hints that you are being less than honest in how you present your 'evidence.'

Perhaps this should have been said a bit earlier: Orthodoxy does not set out a bunch of rules that one is expected to perfectly keep.  In fact, the assumption is that the standard will always be out of grasp.  It is designed that way.  Why?  Because it keeps us from falling into the pride that we can 'will' our way into heaven without repentance.  Instead, we fall and ask for God's help.  he does not always help us maintain perfection, but He always accepts our return to Him when we fail.  If you think you can keep all of the Law, why would you need to repent?

Your problem is that you want a system that is perfectly suited to you.  It is selfish by nature.  We all do that when we hurt, because pain makes us self-oriented.  But, that does not give you the right to twist the Scriptures and Tradition just because you are wounded.  Truly I am sorry that things did not work out for you, but I don't think it has to be the end of the world and it certainly does not merit creating a whole new theology based on your bad experiences and modern culture.

We who pastor know full well the struggles people have with sex.  Most people, including a good many Orthodox Christians, fail to keep their virginity until marriage.  That does not mean that they are automatically condemned to hell and are to be hated.  But, it does mean that they have missed the mark and will have problems later if they do not repent and get back to a proper life.  That is where I come in: my job is to help people recognize the sin, confess it and be restored to the path towards Christ.

I have a very little tolerance when people accuse the Church of sin.  Sure, you are free to do what you want, and you certainly will do what you want.  But, your pain does not justify twisting the Apostolic inheritance.

By the way, before you have that chat with the local priest, do pick up an Orthodox Prayer Book and read our prayers.  We never talk about being innocent, but rather always accuse ourselves first.

I apologize if I seemed to dismiss the many people who have provided me helpful information in a kind manner.  My distress is at only those who have sarcastically insulted my character, namely FatherGiryus, Iconodule, and any one else who has publicly accused me of being dishonest.  A few bad apples are no reason for me to avoid the entire grove, so I'll continue to try to look at this thread in the future.  I simply will not converse with people who demean me.  Hopefully they will remain few.

I felt like I needed to have my mind made up on this issue as best as possible before pursuing the orthodox faith any further.   That may seem extreme, but this particular "theological" topic has caused an extreme amount of damage in my life.... that's just the way it is.  So, again to those who have kindly helped answer my questions... thank you.  I now feel comfortable enough to talk to a local priest about my Christian faith and about joining the orthodox church, and I look forward to learning more in person.

God Bless,
Jason

P.S. - Hopefully the priest I see won't be FatherGiryus.  And if it is, hopefully he won't take a picture of me, photoshop it with a troll hat, and then pass it around the church so everyone can laugh. "Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent--the LORD detests them both."  Proverbs 17

[NicholasMyra]

Song of Songs 7:11-14 on pages 890-891 of the Orthodox Study Bible

acts420, The footnotes for verses 12 and 14 (on page 890) indicate that the above passage is a prophetic description of evangelism by the apostles and the Church.  When a baby is born, even the baby is breastfed for the first couple of months of its life just as the early Church was breastfed by the successors to the Apostles, the martyrs, the Ecumenical Councils, early Patristic writings, et al.  Again, read the passages and ask yourself if there is really any sexual connotation in them.

Not to mention this:

¹¹I am by beloved's
And his desire is towards me.
¹²Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field;
Let us lodge in the villages;
¹³Let us rise early in the morning in the vineyards;
Let us see if the vine has flowered,
If the blossoms have appeared,
If the pomegranates have blossomed,
There I will give you my breasts.
¹⁴The mandrakes have put forth an aroma,
And fruits of all kinds, new and old,
Are at our doors.
O my beloved, I have kept them for you.

It's called a broken heart.  It happens all the time, even to people who have not had sexual intimacy.  I know a man who's heart remained broken for 7 years after a breakup with a girl he dated for two years and never had any sort of sexual intimacy with.  I know another who got dumped after 3 years by a girl he was sleeping with and was over her in much less time.  Hopefully you see my point.

I see that people make mistakes, I certainly have. I thank God that His Church does not attempt to sanctify them. When you fall, you get back up, you don't pretend you never fell.

[NicholasMyra]

It's called a broken heart.  It happens all the time, even to people who have not had sexual intimacy.  I know a man who's heart remained broken for 7 years after a breakup with a girl he dated for two years and never had any sort of sexual intimacy with.

Something doesn't have to be related to eating, drinking or sex to be fleshly, that would be a gnostic perspective. The Israelites whored against their Bridegroom by worshipping the Ba'alim, not by having human intercouse.

How does God treat the one He courts?

"I will betroth you to Me forever;
Yes, I will betroth you to Me
In righteousness and justice,
In lovingkindness and mercy;
I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness,
And you shall know the LORD."
-Hosea 2:19-20

How are we to love?

"And the LORD said to me, 'Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods..."
-Hosea 3:1

Glory to God! For His Mercy endures to the ages.

[PeterTheAleut]

And now your sarcasm.  Well... I can play that game too.  I'll tell you what ... you orthodox are super friendly to people exploring conversion, especially in this special section of this website for people with questions.

That's right, it's for people with questions, not people looking for approval of their pre-determined answers.

If you look at questions asked by honest seekers, you can see people here are generally very friendly and helpful.

That sounds an awful lot like you're accusing me of being a liar (of not being honest) because I asked about theology, received your answer, and nonetheless decided to maintain a theological position that is different from yours.  In other words, it sounds an awful lot like you're a bigot.

I'm not looking for approval.  I'm looking for information.  And a little Christian charity wouldn't hurt either.

Actually, I think you'll find that most people here ARE being charitable to you. They're being charitable by pointing out your un-Christian presuppositions and presumptuous behavior. Please don't take it personally, for no one here is truly trying to demean you as a person. (FatherGiryus has in fact shown himself to be consistently one of this forum's most thoughtful, charitable posters, which only makes your criticism of him look even more irrationally defensive.)

[acts420]

Actually, I think you'll find that most people here ARE being charitable to you. They're being charitable by pointing out your un-Christian presuppositions and presumptuous behavior. Please don't take it personally, for no one here is truly trying to demean you as a person. (FatherGiryus has in fact shown himself to be consistently one of this forum's most thoughtful, charitable posters, which only makes your criticism of him look even more irrationally defensive.)

I'm happy to converse with anyone who calls what I believe "un-Christian".  I didn't come here to hear people call me a Christian.  I came to engage in charitable discussion to find out:
1) what beliefs of mine are orthodox and what aren't according to the people here
2) whether or not the "orthodox" view on the role of sexual intimacy in courtship has actual roots in early Christian teaching or, instead, has just been passed down from generation to generation as a extra-apostolic tradition, and
3) if I want to join the orthodox church, and, if so, how to do it

I don't take it personally if someone says they think my beliefs about courtship are not "Christian".  That is fine, and we can charitably disagree.  When people start calling me dishonest and a troll that is when the discussion is no longer charitable (on their end).  So I simply won't converse with them.  I am not here to trade or receive personal insults; that is a waste of my time and energy.

The reaction of people like FatherGiryus and Iconodule says more to me than their words anyway.  If they feel the need to dismiss me personally as a liar and a fraud because of the ideas I hold, then that means they're having trouble dealing with my ideas logically.  They apparently must resort to ad hominem attacks in an attempt to bolster their position.  That says a lot.

The fact remains that I've not been presented with any strong evidence that the prohibition on sexual intimacy during courtship is apostolic.  It seems to be about as apostolic as the prohibition on marriage for bishops (in other words, not apostolic at all).  Many Orthodox Christians claim to rely on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition for their beliefs; they claim the Eastern Orthodox tradition is the one that has maintained the original Christian beliefs.  Well... Scripture says bishops can marry, and the Apostles taught that bishops can marry.  However, many "orthodox" today nonetheless reject those ideas and instead rely on the cultural realities of past generations for to forbid marriage.  Similarly, Scripture never prohibits sex as a part of courtship and, in fact, assumes it in the one and only book of Scripture devoted entirely to celebrating a story about courtship and marriage.  

It seems pretty obvious to me that many orthodox suffer from the same problem many Jews at the time of Christ did.  They elevated their grandparent's traditions over and above the traditions God and the Prophets had instituted.  I don't say that to insult anyone; it is just what I have observed.  In fact, it saddens me a bit.  I believed what I was told about orthodoxy, and I assumed many of the beautiful traditions I see during the liturgy were apostolic.  I felt like I was taking part in services the way the Apostles did.  Now all of that is out the window.  It is very obvious to me now that some very important aspects of orthodoxy are simply later inventions.  I just don't know how much.

All I want is the truth.  I want to live and believe what Christ and the Apostles taught was best for me, not what a group of later people decided was best for them.  That doesn't make me a fraud or a liar or a fake.  It simply makes me a Christian who, at this point, doesn't agree with the non-biblical, non-apostolic, rules many (if not most) orthodox have decided to impose on themselves with regards to sex and marriage.  I will continue to explore the orthodox church.  If one will have me, I will join because I do believe the orthodox have maintained Apostolic belief much more than my previous Baptist churches did, and I want to learn more about those beliefs.  However, I refuse to blindly accept whatever someone in supposed authority tells me.  Not even Paul expected the Bereans to do that.  I've already wasted too much of my life blindly following other people's invented traditions.  That way of life has caused me enough damage.  From now on, I follow Christ alone.  If that makes me "dishonest" in Mr. Giryus' eyes... then I'm proud to be.

[katherineofdixie]

Actually, I think you'll find that most people here ARE being charitable to you. They're being charitable by pointing out your un-Christian presuppositions and presumptuous behavior. Please don't take it personally, for no one here is truly trying to demean you as a person. (FatherGiryus has in fact shown himself to be consistently one of this forum's most thoughtful, charitable posters, which only makes your criticism of him look even more irrationally defensive.)

I'm happy to converse with anyone who calls what I believe "un-Christian".  I didn't come here to hear people call me a Christian.  I came to engage in charitable discussion to find out:
1) what beliefs of mine are orthodox and what aren't according to the people here
2) whether or not the "orthodox" view on the role of sexual intimacy in courtship has actual roots in early Christian teaching or, instead, has just been passed down from generation to generation as a extra-apostolic tradition, and
3) if I want to join the orthodox church, and, if so, how to do it

I don't take it personally if someone says they think my beliefs about courtship are not "Christian".  That is fine, and we can charitably disagree.  When people start calling me dishonest and a troll that is when the discussion is no longer charitable (on their end).  So I simply won't converse with them.  I am not here to trade or receive personal insults; that is a waste of my time and energy.

The reaction of people like FatherGiryus and Iconodule says more to me than their words anyway.  If they feel the need to dismiss me personally as a liar and a fraud because of the ideas I hold, then that means they're having trouble dealing with my ideas logically.  They apparently must resort to ad hominem attacks in an attempt to bolster their position.  That says a lot.

The fact remains that I've not been presented with any strong evidence that the prohibition on sexual intimacy during courtship is apostolic.  It seems to be about as apostolic as the prohibition on marriage for bishops (in other words, not apostolic at all).  Many Orthodox Christians claim to rely on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition for their beliefs; they claim the Eastern Orthodox tradition is the one that has maintained the original Christian beliefs.  Well... Scripture says bishops can marry, and the Apostles taught that bishops can marry.  However, many "orthodox" today nonetheless reject those ideas and instead rely on the cultural realities of past generations for to forbid marriage.  Similarly, Scripture never prohibits sex as a part of courtship and, in fact, assumes it in the one and only book of Scripture devoted entirely to celebrating a story about courtship and marriage.  

It seems pretty obvious to me that many orthodox suffer from the same problem many Jews at the time of Christ did.  They elevated their grandparent's traditions over and above the traditions God and the Prophets had instituted.  I don't say that to insult anyone; it is just what I have observed.  In fact, it saddens me a bit.  I believed what I was told about orthodoxy, and I assumed many of the beautiful traditions I see during the liturgy were apostolic.  I felt like I was taking part in services the way the Apostles did.  Now all of that is out the window.  It is very obvious to me now that some very important aspects of orthodoxy are simply later inventions.  I just don't know how much.

All I want is the truth.  I want to live and believe what Christ and the Apostles taught was best for me, not what a group of later people decided was best for them.  That doesn't make me a fraud or a liar or a fake.  It simply makes me a Christian who, at this point, doesn't agree with the non-biblical, non-apostolic, rules many (if not most) orthodox have decided to impose on themselves with regards to sex and marriage.  I will continue to explore the orthodox church.  If one will have me, I will join because I do believe the orthodox have maintained Apostolic belief much more than my previous Baptist churches did, and I want to learn more about those beliefs.  However, I refuse to blindly accept whatever someone in supposed authority tells me.  Not even Paul expected the Bereans to do that.  I've already wasted too much of my life blindly following other people's invented traditions.  That way of life has caused me enough damage.  From now on, I follow Christ alone.  If that makes me "dishonest" in Mr. Giryus' eyes... then I'm proud to be.

And what happens if you're wrong?
After all, you've invented your own traditions/interpretations, just like the people you are so angry with. They were wrong - so you could be. If you are honest, you will admit at least the theoretical possibility that you might get it wrong - and that the Church got it right.
You say you follow Christ alone - but you follow a Christ of your own making, a Christ who tells you to do what you want to do, that it won't hurt anyone, and you'll enjoy it, a Christ who wants you to be happy according to your standards and criteria.

[FatherGiryus]

Dear Acts,

I have presented plenty of logical arguments:

1) the Fathers of the Church do not state anywhere that sex before or outside of marriage is sanctioned by the Church.  Therefore, you are reading into them something that is not there.

2) the Scriptures (Old Testament) make allowance for 'pre-marital sex' so long as the couple marries afterwards and does not divorce.  This would preclude your 'test-sex' remedy.

3) the Song of Songs has never been interpreted as an ode to pre-marital intercourse.

4) even if you were to find a citation to your liking, the Church still would not admit you to Baptism if you claimed the sin of extra-marital sex is a good thing.

5) your view that the theology of the Church does not suite your needs and therefore must be changed is unreasonable, since your situation at best would be an exception rather than the norm.

6) perfect keeping of the morality of the Church is an impossibility to all but the saints, and so the Church accepts the repentance of us sinners so long as we admit the sin.  If you deny the sin, then you cannot be received back.  This is hardly a cruel standard as you have charged.

7) your accusation of the Church as holding to non-Apostolic teachings is thusly an accusation of sin against the Church.  This is not acceptable.

8 ) you never established a Biblically- or Patristically-based methodology for discerning when 'pre-marital sex' is being used simply for sex rather than for courtship.  This indicates that you are not certain there is one.

9 ) I sensed you were trolling for a fight (fishing simile) because you continue to argue even after you got the answers we gave you.  You are still trolling, because you already know that you cannot be received into the Church with such irregular opinions regarding basic morality, and yet you keep making like you are going to act on the conversion process.  This is either a lack of honest on your part with yourself (hence the dishonesty charge) or you are trolling for more fights.

If you were honest with yourself, you would realize that your opinions are not in keeping with the Church.  If the Church is sinning, as you claim, then you ought to want to have nothing to do with it.  You would run.  But, you are not.  You are conflicted, calling the Church sinful yet continuing to toy with the idea of 'joining' once you can find that one person in the Church who may agree with you.  It is, at its core, dishonest prima facie.  This is not an insult, but a rhetorical label describing your thinking.

Now, you appear to enjoy the fight and invoking your woundedness, which makes me suspicious as well.  Truly wounded people shrink fom such fights.  They want nothing to do with them.  They are hurt and want the pain to go away.  You are angry.  This is different.  You are spoiling for a fight, which indicates that the real hurt went away sometime back and now you are acting on the passions as a result.

I am spending time with you on this thread because I am trying to plant seeds into your insight that will sprout later.  You are too angry to back down, and I understand that.  I don't have to 'win' and get you to repent, because I knew from the beginning you are too angry to do that.  What I am doing is sowing seeds.  They will make sense later, when you are faced with your next round of spiritual growth-opportunity.  You are young, and if God permits, you will have many long years ahead.  This will make sense later, just as it did to many of us.

So, there you have it: this all beings and ends with your post title, 'Is my doctrine correct...?'  You can invent all the doctrines you want, but you can't call them 'Orthodox' because the Church has its own.

Actually, I think you'll find that most people here ARE being charitable to you. They're being charitable by pointing out your un-Christian presuppositions and presumptuous behavior. Please don't take it personally, for no one here is truly trying to demean you as a person. (FatherGiryus has in fact shown himself to be consistently one of this forum's most thoughtful, charitable posters, which only makes your criticism of him look even more irrationally defensive.)

I'm happy to converse with anyone who calls what I believe "un-Christian".  I didn't come here to hear people call me a Christian.  I came to engage in charitable discussion to find out:
1) what beliefs of mine are orthodox and what aren't according to the people here
2) whether or not the "orthodox" view on the role of sexual intimacy in courtship has actual roots in early Christian teaching or, instead, has just been passed down from generation to generation as a extra-apostolic tradition, and
3) if I want to join the orthodox church, and, if so, how to do it

I don't take it personally if someone says they think my beliefs about courtship are not "Christian".  That is fine, and we can charitably disagree.  When people start calling me dishonest and a troll that is when the discussion is no longer charitable (on their end).  So I simply won't converse with them.  I am not here to trade or receive personal insults; that is a waste of my time and energy.

The reaction of people like FatherGiryus and Iconodule says more to me than their words anyway.  If they feel the need to dismiss me personally as a liar and a fraud because of the ideas I hold, then that means they're having trouble dealing with my ideas logically.  They apparently must resort to ad hominem attacks in an attempt to bolster their position.  That says a lot.

The fact remains that I've not been presented with any strong evidence that the prohibition on sexual intimacy during courtship is apostolic.  It seems to be about as apostolic as the prohibition on marriage for bishops (in other words, not apostolic at all).  Many Orthodox Christians claim to rely on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition for their beliefs.  Scripture says bishops can marry, and the Apostles taught that bishops can marry.  Many "orthodox" today nonetheless reject those ideas and instead rely on the cultural realities of past generations for to forbid marriage.  Similarly, Scripture never prohibits sex as a part of courtship and, in fact, assumes it in the one and only book of Scripture devoted entirely to celebrating a story about courtship and marriage.  It seems pretty obvious to me that many orthodox suffer from the same problem many Jews at the time of Christ did.  They have elevated their grandparents traditions over and above the traditions God and the Prophets had instituted.

I don't say that to insult anyone.  I say it because it is what I have gathered from the responses to my questions here.  All I want is the truth.  I want to live and believe what Christ and the Apostles taught was best for me, not what a group of later people decided was best for them.  That doesn't make me a fraud or a liar or a fake.  It simply makes me a Christian who doesn't agree with the non-biblical, non-apostolic, rules many (if not most) orthodox have decided to impose on themselves with regards to sex and marriage.  

[acts420]

And what happens if you're wrong?
After all, you've invented your own traditions/interpretations, just like the people you are so angry with. They were wrong - so you could be. If you are honest, you will admit at least the theoretical possibility that you might get it wrong - and that the Church got it right.
You say you follow Christ alone - but you follow a Christ of your own making, a Christ who tells you to do what you want to do, that it won't hurt anyone, and you'll enjoy it, a Christ who wants you to be happy according to your standards and criteria.

I'm not angry at anyone for inventing traditions.  I'm angry at the people who have resorted to ad hominem attacks on my character, calling me a dishonest troll because I have decided against following their customs.  I'll happily converse with people who disagree with me, as most people here probably do.  I'll ignore only the people who insult me.  I know this is a sensitive topic.  So I want to be especially sure to try to keep it charitable.  If I don't ignore those who enjoy insulting and mocking me, then I may end up sinning against them in return.  The last thing I want is for this to turn into some sort of childish insult exchange.

As far as my "invention", I've simply noted the fact that the couple in the Song of Solomon shared a bed with one another in the story before they had a wedding ceremony.  That is a fact, not an invention nor a matter of opinion.  The opinion is that Christians can model their own courtship after the Song.  That opinion of mine could be wrong, sure.  Indeed, that is why I came here: to test my ideas against the knowledge and expertise of orthodox Christians.   Now, after reading more than a year's worth of responses, I feel like I've done that.

What if I'm wrong?  Well, if I am wrong, then God will judge me.  All I can do is follow my conscience to the best of my ability.

You say I follow a Christ of my own making.  However, you may want to look in a mirror.  Wasn't it Christ's very own Apostles that taught that bishops could marry?  Indeed it was, and it was later "orthodox" generations that decided to forbid their marriage.  I would wholly support a married bishop.  If that isn't "orthodox" then that aspect of orthodoxy is simply not Biblical nor Apostolic.  

Likewise, Scripture, in the Song, seems to allow and even celebrate sex during courtship.  No Apostolic Father or passage I've ever read forbids it.  If noting such facts makes me "unorthodox", then unorthodox I will proudly be.  I don't live my life according to my grandparents' opinions.  I want to know their opinions and take them into account.  However, ultimately I will live my life according to what I can best discern is God's opinion through the teachings of Scripture, of Christ, of the Apostles, and of the Apostolic Fathers.

[NicholasMyra]

You say I follow a Christ of my own making.  However, you may want to look in a mirror.  Wasn't it Christ's very own Apostles that taught that bishops could marry?  Indeed it was, and it was later "orthodox" generations that decided to forbid their marriage.

You've already been told that there is no theological reason why Bishops cannot marry. It is forbidden today because, considering the duties of a Bishop in the post-Apostolic Age, it is impractical and potentially abusive to wives and children.

You seem to be confusing Orthodoxy with some form of Reconstructionism; the fact is, the Orthodox Church does not reconstruct faith and praxis according to the early-church idols that men make in their minds; rather, it has preserved, defended and interpreted that faith for 1970 years.

[katherineofdixie]

Likewise, Scripture, in the Song, seems to allow and even celebrate sex during courtship.

For most people in earlier eras, there was no such thing as courtship, not as we understand it today, anyway. And not, though I may be wrong, as I think you are defining it. Marriages were arranged by families - the courtship was the negotiation between families.

 No Apostolic Father or passage I've ever read forbids it.

See answer above. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As many people have pointed out to you, the Fathers write about virginity. I've heard that it's rather difficult to maintain virginity while having sex.

 If noting such facts makes me "unorthodox", then unorthodox I will proudly be.

Those are not the beliefs and teachings of the historical Church. They are your own.

 I don't live my life according to my grandparents' opinions.

Neither do I - otherwise I would still be Lutheran.

 I want to know their opinions and take them into account.  However, ultimately I will live my life according to what I can best discern is God's opinion through the teachings of Scripture, of Christ, of the Apostles, and of the Apostolic Fathers.

While ignoring and discarding the beliefs, teachings and praxis of His Church, the Church of the Apostles and the Church of the Apostolic Fathers, in favor of your own opinions/interpretations.

Neat trick, btw.

[SolEX01]

As far as my "invention", I've simply noted the fact that the couple in the Song of Solomon shared a bed with one another in the story before they had a wedding ceremony.

Christ (e.g. the Bridegroom) was laid to rest in a tomb, a kind of chamber or bed.

That is a fact, not an invention nor a matter of opinion.  The opinion is that Christians can model their own courtship after the Song.

Christians can model their lives to constantly seek Christ; to evangelize; like what has already been said.

hat opinion of mine could be wrong, sure.  Indeed, that is why I came here: to test my ideas against the knowledge and expertise of orthodox Christians.   Now, after reading more than a year's worth of responses, I feel like I've done that.

What if I'm wrong?  Well, if I am wrong, then God will judge me.  All I can do is follow my conscience to the best of my ability.

Do you want to wait until the Last Judgment to be judged that pre-marital sex was not appropriate or do you want to absolve yourself of any sins of pre-marital sex before being received into the Orthodox Church?  To be received into the Orthodox Church, you would have to cast aside and denounce everything that is not Orthodox.

You say I follow a Christ of my own making.  However, you may want to look in a mirror.

I used to believe and state that pre-marital sex was justified (against my conscience) until I realized how wrong I was.  Thankfully, the Sacrament of Confession exists to receive absolution for these errors and their consequences.

Wasn't it Christ's very own Apostles that taught that bishops could marry?  Indeed it was, and it was later "orthodox" generations that decided to forbid their marriage.  I would wholly support a married bishop.  If that isn't "orthodox" then that aspect of orthodoxy is simply not Biblical nor Apostolic.

Did someone say that hereditary issues of Bishops passing down inheritances (especially titles) to male children Priests and Bishops are one reason that celibacy of Bishops became the norm?  The Church is allowed the flexibility to adapt to real-world circumstances even though the Church is not of this world.  Bishops who married in the USA absconded their sees and titles (which is why there are a bunch of vagante Bishops claiming "apostolic succession" from 2 or 3 Bishops who absconded their sees for the lovely diner waitress).

Likewise, Scripture, in the Song, seems to allow and even celebrate sex during courtship.  No Apostolic Father or passage I've ever read forbids it.  If noting such facts makes me "unorthodox", then unorthodox I will proudly be.  I don't live my life according to my grandparents' opinions.  I want to know their opinions and take them into account.  However, ultimately I will live my life according to what I can best discern is God's opinion through the teachings of Scripture, of Christ, of the Apostles, and of the Apostolic Fathers.

From the Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 1:1-5 and verse 13 from pages 893, 894 & 896 of the Orthodox Study Bible (Note that the Wisdom of Solomon was the last authored book of the canonical Old Testament).

¹Love righteousness, you who judge on the earth.
Think about the Lord in goodness
And seek him with sincerity of heart;
²Because He is found by those who do not tempt Him,
And He is manifest to those who do not disbelieve Him.
³For dishonest reasoning separates people from God,
And when His power examines someone,
It convicts the undiscerning;
⁴For wisdom will not enter the soul that plots evil,
Nor will it dwell in a body involved in sin.
⁵For a holy spirit of discipline flees from deceit
And sends away undiscerning reasoning;
It will put wrongdoing to shame when it comes near.
¹³Blessed is the undefiled barren woman
Who has not known sexual promiscuity;
She shall have fruit in the visitation of souls

[BoredMeeting]

If noting such facts makes me "unorthodox", then unorthodox I will proudly be.

Very well then, should the moderators lock the thread, seeing that you've reached a conclusion?

[acts420]

You've already been told that there is no theological reason why Bishops cannot marry. It is forbidden today because, considering the duties of a Bishop in the post-Apostolic Age, it is impractical and potentially abusive to wives and children.

You seem to be confusing Orthodoxy with some form of Reconstructionism; the fact is, the Orthodox Church does not reconstruct faith and praxis according to the early-church idols that men make in their minds; rather, it has preserved, defended and interpreted that faith for 1970 years.

Whether you call the rule theological or practical makes very little difference to me because I've already lost faith whatever generation created it.   Past generations have obviously been more than willing to implement restrictions that go against Apostolic teaching when it suits them and their culture.  They can make whatever distinction they wish to make, and I can see how the "theological/practical" distinction would make you more comfortable.  It must be a little unnerving to say you're faith has been preserved since Christ while at the same time admitting your rules concerning the marital rights of your faith's highest leaders were created long after Christ and are the exact opposite of the rules that the Apostles themselves taught!

I don't see how a married Bishop would be any more "abusive" to a wife now than it was in 80 A.D.  What is "potentially abusive to wives and children" though?  Teaching couples that it is a sin to court in the way the Scripture celebrates and, instead, telling them they must roll the dice with regards to whether or not they will get along well sexually.  That's what.  While Paul wrote that God-given sexual desires ("burning with passion", as he put it) are one very important reason to pursue marriage you're telling single people they might as well be pulling cards out of a hat with regards to whether or not they'll get along well with their spouse sexually.  You could end up pairing one person who's sex drive leads them to twice a year intimacy with someone who's drive is more like twice a day.  That would be fine if sexuality was a minor part of marriage... but it isn't!  It is a very important aspect of marriage and reason to get married, according to Paul!

I suppose next you could say the less sexually-interested spouse just gets the opportunity to sacrifice and serve the other one's desires or something along those lines, or visa versa.  But that is besides the point.  What if the more interested spouse desires to enjoy mutually-interested encounters.  He will get that twice a year while his inward, God-given passion burns for 350 times a year.  Meanwhile, he learns that the woman next door has a sex drive similar to his and... you see where that's going.  It isn't that you're rules are just non-apostolic.  It is that they are *opposite* of Apostolic teaching.  They set up the exact opposite situation that Paul was trying to alleviate, and they foster the exact temptations toward sin that he was trying to enable believers to avoid.  You might as well tell couples they have to refrain from talking during courtship and roll the dice with regards to how often the other wants to talk, how well they relate.  Then watch and see how many end up divorced a few years later because they don't get along personally either.

It seems rather obvious to me why the Song of Solomon celebrates pre-marital sex in courtship. And as far as I can gather at this point, neither Christ nor the Apostles nor the Apostolic Fathers ever taught anything to the contrary.

[SolEX01]

I don't see how a married Bishop would be any more "abusive" to a wife now than it was in 80 A.D.  What is "potentially abusive to wives and children" though?

I don't see why you are stuck on a married Episcopacy - the Anglicans^* have it; maybe you belong there?   

Teaching couples that it is a sin to court in the way the Scripture celebrates and, instead, telling them they must roll the dice with regards to whether or not they will get along well sexually.

Again, the Anglicans seem to have the correct answers in that department; maybe you belong there?   

That's what.  While Paul wrote that God-given sexual desires ("burning with passion", as he put it) are one very important reason to pursue marriage you're telling single people they might as well be pulling cards out of a hat with regards to whether or not they'll get along well with their spouse sexually.  You could end up pairing one person who's sex drive leads them to twice a year intimacy with someone who's drive is more like twice a day.  That would be fine if sexuality was a minor part of marriage... but it isn't!  It is a very important aspect of marriage and reason to get married, according to Paul!

Do you understand the context from where Paul is speaking or do you wish to retroactively apply what Paul said to "modern society?"

I suppose next you could say the less sexually-interested spouse just gets the opportunity to sacrifice and serve the other one's desires or something along those lines, or visa versa.  But that is besides the point.  What if the more interested spouse desires to enjoy mutually-interested encounters.  He will get that twice a year while his inward, God-given passion burns for 350 times a year.

Mine burns every day and yet I live alone having to "tend" to the temptation by prayer and fasting.  Gambling falls in the same category; I'd like to play the $1/$2 no-limit hold'em poker tables and yet, I play slots knowing that I would lose a lot of money playing poker.

Meanwhile, he learns that the woman next door has a sex drive similar to his and... you see where that's going.

A wise woman once told me that she didn't want to be the firecracker burning out at the Fourth of July celebration; she wanted her passions to always be simmering and she had a huge icon corner where she prayed to not give into temptation.

It isn't that you're rules are just non-apostolic.  It is that they are *opposite* of Apostolic teaching.  They set up the exact opposite situation that Paul was trying to alleviate, and they foster the exact temptations toward sin that he was trying to enable believers to avoid.  You might as well tell couples they have to refrain from talking during courtship and roll the dice with regards to how often the other wants to talk, how well they relate.  Then watch and see how many end up divorced a few years later because they don't get along personally either.

Studies from diverse groups show time after time that premarital sex and living together results in higher divorce rates.  If a study says otherwise, look at who paid for it.   

It seems rather obvious to me why the Song of Solomon celebrates pre-marital sex in courtship. And as far as I can gather at this point, neither Christ nor the Apostles nor the Apostolic Fathers ever taught anything to the contrary.

Go and sin no more - that doesn't mean anything to you?  That doesn't make it OK to engage in pre-marital sex; however, since your belief system sounds more Anglican then Orthodox; I think Anglicans have the sacrament of confession.

* I use the terms Anglican and Episcopalian interchangeably.

[acts420]

I don't see how a married Bishop would be any more "abusive" to a wife now than it was in 80 A.D.  What is "potentially abusive to wives and children" though?

I don't see why you are stuck on a married Episcopacy - the Anglicans^* have it; maybe you belong there?  

Teaching couples that it is a sin to court in the way the Scripture celebrates and, instead, telling them they must roll the dice with regards to whether or not they will get along well sexually.

Again, the Anglicans seem to have the correct answers in that department; maybe you belong there?  

That's what.  While Paul wrote that God-given sexual desires ("burning with passion", as he put it) are one very important reason to pursue marriage you're telling single people they might as well be pulling cards out of a hat with regards to whether or not they'll get along well with their spouse sexually.  You could end up pairing one person who's sex drive leads them to twice a year intimacy with someone who's drive is more like twice a day.  That would be fine if sexuality was a minor part of marriage... but it isn't!  It is a very important aspect of marriage and reason to get married, according to Paul!

Do you understand the context from where Paul is speaking or do you wish to retroactively apply what Paul said to "modern society?"

I suppose next you could say the less sexually-interested spouse just gets the opportunity to sacrifice and serve the other one's desires or something along those lines, or visa versa.  But that is besides the point.  What if the more interested spouse desires to enjoy mutually-interested encounters.  He will get that twice a year while his inward, God-given passion burns for 350 times a year.

Mine burns every day and yet I live alone having to "tend" to the temptation by prayer and fasting.  Gambling falls in the same category; I'd like to play the $1/$2 no-limit hold'em poker tables and yet, I play slots knowing that I would lose a lot of money playing poker.

Meanwhile, he learns that the woman next door has a sex drive similar to his and... you see where that's going.

A wise woman once told me that she didn't want to be the firecracker burning out at the Fourth of July celebration; she wanted her passions to always be simmering and she had a huge icon corner where she prayed to not give into temptation.

It isn't that you're rules are just non-apostolic.  It is that they are *opposite* of Apostolic teaching.  They set up the exact opposite situation that Paul was trying to alleviate, and they foster the exact temptations toward sin that he was trying to enable believers to avoid.  You might as well tell couples they have to refrain from talking during courtship and roll the dice with regards to how often the other wants to talk, how well they relate.  Then watch and see how many end up divorced a few years later because they don't get along personally either.

Studies from diverse groups show time after time that premarital sex and living together results in higher divorce rates.  If a study says otherwise, look at who paid for it.  

It seems rather obvious to me why the Song of Solomon celebrates pre-marital sex in courtship. And as far as I can gather at this point, neither Christ nor the Apostles nor the Apostolic Fathers ever taught anything to the contrary.

Go and sin no more - that doesn't mean anything to you?  That doesn't make it OK to engage in pre-marital sex; however, since your belief system sounds more Anglican then Orthodox; I think Anglicans have the sacrament of confession.

* I use the terms Anglican and Episcopalian interchangeably.

I've never looked into the Anglican church.  Maybe I should.  As to the "studies" you cite, many other studies have shown that premarital sex has no effect on the divorce rate if not decreasing it.  I cited one earlier in this thread when someone made a similar claim.  But regardless, "studies" can be manipulated quite easily.  I think common sense is the better approach here.

"Go and sin no more" is what Jesus said to the woman accused of adultery, never to anyone accused of modeling their courtship after Song of Solomon (bedding with their partner during courtship).  You may equate the two as "sinful", but Christ certainly never did.  As far as I can tell, neither did the Apostles nor the Apostolic Fathers.

[Iconodule]

Go and sin no more is what Jesus said to the woman accused of adultery, not to anyone accused of modeling their courtship after Scripture

Don't worry, no one will accuse  you of that.

[PeterTheAleut]

And what happens if you're wrong?
After all, you've invented your own traditions/interpretations, just like the people you are so angry with. They were wrong - so you could be. If you are honest, you will admit at least the theoretical possibility that you might get it wrong - and that the Church got it right.
You say you follow Christ alone - but you follow a Christ of your own making, a Christ who tells you to do what you want to do, that it won't hurt anyone, and you'll enjoy it, a Christ who wants you to be happy according to your standards and criteria.

I'm not angry at anyone for inventing traditions.  I'm angry at the people who have resorted to ad hominem attacks on my character, calling me a dishonest troll because I have decided against following their customs.

There's no ad hominem in saying that you're being dishonest and engaging in trolling behavior.

[katherineofdixie]

I suppose next you could say the less sexually-interested spouse just gets the opportunity to sacrifice and serve the other one's desires or something along those lines, or visa versa.  But that is besides the point.

Actually that is precisely the point. Marriage is a sacrament, a means of God's grace. With mutual love, compassion and consideration, married people have the opportunity to work out whatever problems arise in their relationship, with prayer and repentance and mutual submission, as they help each other achieve salvation.

[acts420]

For most people in earlier eras, there was no such thing as courtship, not as we understand it today, anyway. And not, though I may be wrong, as I think you are defining it. Marriages were arranged by families - the courtship was the negotiation between families.

 No Apostolic Father or passage I've ever read forbids it.

See answer above. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As many people have pointed out to you, the Fathers write about virginity. I've heard that it's rather difficult to maintain virginity while having sex.

I'm talking about courtship as expressed in the Song and as often expressed today.  In other words, the couple begins to enjoy one another's company, falls in love, begins to express that love physically, shares a bed, then gets married, then enjoys one another for the rest of their lives.  That is courtship as I read in the Song of Solomon and as I see creating many successful marriages today also.  There is no family negotiation involved.

I've already responded to the writings about virginity.  They contrasted people who decided to remain celibate with people who decided to pursue marriage.  At what point those who pursued marriage slept with their partner (whether before marriage as celebrated in the Song of Solomon or after as required by the modern orthodox church) is not made clear in any of the writings that have been provided to me.

[acts420]

I suppose next you could say the less sexually-interested spouse just gets the opportunity to sacrifice and serve the other one's desires or something along those lines, or visa versa.  But that is besides the point.

Actually that is precisely the point. Marriage is a sacrament, a means of God's grace. With mutual love, compassion and consideration, married people have the opportunity to work out whatever problems arise in their relationship, with prayer and repentance and mutual submission, as they help each other achieve salvation.

Then we should just arrange marriages by drawing straws and not letting couples meet first.  That way couples will get perhaps even more ample opportunity to work out even more problems!  Of course I'm not serious.  The point is that the modern orthodox prohibition on sexual intimacy in courtship simply creates the potential for marriages between people who don't get along sexually.  Marriage is hard enough.  There is no need to make it harder. 

All that logic is besides the point though.  The main point I'm making here is that the couple celebrated in the Song lies with one another before they get married.  I see no Scripture that ever calls such behavior sin in any clear sense whatsoever, nor do I see any writings of Apostolic Fathers that do the same. 

[acts420]

There's no ad hominem in saying that you're being dishonest and engaging in trolling behavior.

When the point being discussed in the thread is the fact that the couple celebrated in the Song of Solomon lies with one another before they get married, and when the primary discussion revolves around the fact that apparently no Scripture nor any writings of Apostolic Fathers ever calls such behavior sin, then responding with accusations that I'm a lying troll is pretty much the definition of ad hominem.

[Iconodule]

I suppose next you could say the less sexually-interested spouse just gets the opportunity to sacrifice and serve the other one's desires or something along those lines, or visa versa.  But that is besides the point.

Actually that is precisely the point. Marriage is a sacrament, a means of God's grace. With mutual love, compassion and consideration, married people have the opportunity to work out whatever problems arise in their relationship, with prayer and repentance and mutual submission, as they help each other achieve salvation.

Then we should just arrange marriages by drawing straws and not letting couples meet first.  That way couples will get perhaps even more ample opportunity to work out even more problems!  Of course I'm not serious.  The point is that the modern orthodox prohibition on sexual intimacy in courtship simply creates the potential for marriages between people who don't get along sexually.  Marriage is hard enough.  There is no need to make it harder. 

All that logic is besides the point though.  The main point I'm making here is that the couple celebrated in the Song lies with one another before they get married.  I see no Scripture that ever calls such behavior sin in any clear sense whatsoever, nor do I see any writings of Apostolic Fathers that do the same. 

When you pointed out that passage in the Song of Solomon a year ago, I said this:

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a couple of things before this passage prove your point. First, that the Song of Solomon is meant to be a literal guide to the marriage process, and that we are supposed to pattern our marriages on this poem. The Fathers saw it primarily as a spiritual allegory. Secondly, that this love poem follows a completely linear narrative from courtship until marriage, and that the passage refers not to the future and is not a phantasy. Thirdly, you have to show that the above passage is to be taken literally and referring necessarily to sexual intimacy before marriage, and that Christians are thereby exhorted to follow this pattern before marriage. You've got your work cut out for you.

You did not respond; instead, you left the forum for a year.