I noticed you made reference to the Middle Ages beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.
This is not a Roman Catholic website. What they did isn't going to be the guidepost here.
You do realize that we are NOT Roman Catholics?
We are not members of the Roman Catholic Church
I know. several people keep telling me that this is an 'Orthodox' site. and that, and I quote, "an Orthodox Christian considers the Orthodox Church to be THE Church of Jesus Christ
but my entire point
about bring up the Medieval Church was that, at the time, it was the
church. anything that went against the church, be that science or other denominations, was blasphemy. simple as that.
so that means the only reason that the 'Orthodox' church even exists
is because somewhere along the line some decided to question the teachings of 'the church'.
and I think we can all agree here that questioning the teachings of the church is exactly what I'm doing.
so if your denomination only exists because someone questioned the teachings of the church of the time. and now your telling me off for questioning the teachings of today... that sounds hypocritical
I am not saying that you are accountable for what some different denomination of Christians did a few hundred years. I am just arguing the point that a) the 'Orthodox Church' is just another denomination. and b) the teachings of the Orthodox church may not be any more accurate than the teachings of Medieval churches.
so please stop saying "the reason you shouldn't have premarital sex is because the Orthodox church says it is wrong".
start saying things like "the reason the Orthodox church says you shouldn't have premarital sex is because it raises the risk of STDs..."
you see? the second option gives a rational train of thought that can be applied to Christians of all denominations. or even people who are not christian. and best of all, it is TRUE. no-one in their right mind can argue with the Truth (oh... and the church's opinion is just that, an opinion. even if it is based on true facts)
@ Micha? Kalina
: it seems you of all readers are having a hard time understanding the point of what I was making with the medieval church. while others just passed the statements off as being directed to the wrong denomination, you seem to have done that as well as act as act as if the statements where in reference to the orthodox church.
so for you especially:
"do not miss interpret why post about the medieval church. reread this post to clarify what was said"
ROFL , I did not have a good lough like this in a long time hehehe, this is quite hilarious! forgive me but My goodness!!
good to hear.
the message will be the same, premarital sex is a sin,
*sigh* and where back to the same old stuff. lets follow the check list:
|I ask if premarital sex is a sin||Tick|
|you claim it is a sin. ||Tick|
|I ask you too prove it/ give reasons why, etc. ||Tick|
|repeat from step 2||Tick|
I am a little tempted to respond to the rest of your post, but it is all centred around the idea that premarital sex is
a sin. and that partaking in it would
be sinning. and as such you then go on to mention forgiveness and such... I know you are trying to save me (or whatever adjective you want to put there), and I know you mean well. but your responce is, as far as this thread is concerned, empty. it does not even address the key question of the thread. But its good to know you care enough to try
I do not understand what Christianity is if we persist in this idea that God is fine and stuff (y'know, whatever), the Bible is a good book to try and live by (well, as much as is reasonable...), but if we don't agree with part of it, then hold the phone there, Jesus, we're in control of this ship...!
I really do not understand.
nor would I.
but I am not like that, am I!
if there is part of the Bible I don't like... tough. being a sola scriptura sort of person, I follow what the Bible
says. it is what the Church says that I might kick up a fuss about.
it took me three tries to decide how to phrase this second paragraph. I have decided to skip to the point: I
do not understand what Christianity is if we follow what we are told without question.
I'm still waiting on the response to John 8:41...
You Are of Your Father the Devil
39They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41You are doing the works your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God." 42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
putting it into context with the verse's around it you will see that this is not Jesus teaching on the evils of premarital sex. the quote is of the Pharisees insulting Jesus.
but lets not stop there. lets look closer at the insult. depending on witch translation you read will depend on the wording. some use the term "fornication", others use "illegitimate children" or "sexual immorality".
I know we have touched on the issue of 'fornication vs sexual immorality' in the bible. but there is no need to get into that here.
by reading the verse in context you will see that Jesus tells the Pharisees that they are the sons of the Devil (only inferring the point at first, but says it as clear as day in John 8:44).
but then the Pharisees miss interpret Jesus, (to quote directly from http://bible.cc
they affected to suppose that he meant they were a mixed, spurious race; that they had no right to the covenant privileges of the Jews; that they were not worshippers of the true God. Hence, they said, We are not thus descended. We have the evidence of our genealogy. We are worshippers of the true God, descended from those who acknowledged him, and we acknowledge no other God and Father than him. To be children of fornication is an expression denoting in the Scriptures idolatry, or the worship of other gods than the true God, Isaiah 1:21; Isaiah 57:3; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 2:4. This they denied. They affirmed that they acknowledged no God for their Father but the true God.
this in depth (and thus likely accurate) interpretation of scripture, that has come from a trust worthy source... even they say that the term "fornication" was what the Pharisees meant. however, the the quote also says strait up that they meant it as "we are direct descendants of Abraham". ie: if a prostitute sleeps with anyone then the father can be anyone and thus a son of a prostitute, or anyone who sleeps outside of marrage, can not guarantee that their linage is 100% of pure Jewish heritage.
my point of view: this (single line withing a) bible verse is NOT about premarital sex as a sin. it is about 'following in your fathers foot steps'. if your father is the Devil then you will do evil. if your father is of pure Jewish heritage then you will act upright enough to call yourself a true Pharisees.
The Bible is based on Tradition.
I currently strongly disagree. but am looking forward to your explanation
This guy is just trolling.
then don't wast your time with me. just like I would rather not wast my time responding to posts that don't address the questions "is
premarital sex a sin? why?"
Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery
This is absolutely understood by Jews of the past, Jews of today, and all Christians the follow the 10 commandments.
even the other orthodox Christians disagree with this statement. But since we are now talking about how the Jews understood the 10 commandments. I said I will listen to this point of view... so I await your further elaboration.
just note that Adultery refers to Extramarital
sex. not premarital
sex. as has been said.
Orthodoxy is before denominationalism. It was simply The Church. All "denominations" have their historical roots in the original Church, Orthodoxy.
if all denominations have their roots in the original Church (orthodoxy). then all church's are orthodox Church's. lol
nah, but seriously. can you back up that the current teachings of the 'Orthodox' church as its know today are = to the teachings of the "original church"?
and lastly... the last page and a half has been a back and forth conversation that started with Dowry's and proceeded to gender roles, historical sexism, modern social heirachy and feminism.
in the spirit of my new found open mindedness to "non-biblical" reasoning's I shall not complain about or hinder this conversation. but only ask that it is, at least occasionally, steered back towards the topic of premarital sex