OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 12:20:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?  (Read 45518 times) Average Rating: 1
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #495 on: October 23, 2011, 09:04:48 PM »

It's a VERY simple answer.

The 10 Commandments as UNDERSTOOD by the JEWS is

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.

The OP isn't married.

Isn't adultery sex outside of marriage?

One has to be married to commit adultery.  Wink

I disagree.

If you to intend to marry once, then sex outside of marriage, before or after actual marriage, is adultery to your spouse.

 Huh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #496 on: October 23, 2011, 09:05:21 PM »

It's a VERY simple answer.

The 10 Commandments as UNDERSTOOD by the JEWS is

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.

The OP isn't married.

Isn't adultery sex outside of marriage?

One has to be married to commit adultery.  Wink

I disagree.

If you to intend to marry once, then sex outside of marriage, before or after actual marriage, is adultery to your spouse.

Then why do the canons penance fornication and adultery differently? I'm pretty sure it does matter whether you are married or not if you have sex with someone who's not your spouse.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #497 on: October 23, 2011, 09:09:14 PM »

If you to intend to marry once, then sex outside of marriage, before or after actual marriage, is adultery to your spouse.

How does that make sense? What if you haven't even met your eventual spouse yet?
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #498 on: October 23, 2011, 09:40:03 PM »

If you to intend to marry once, then sex outside of marriage, before or after actual marriage, is adultery to your spouse.

How does that make sense? What if you haven't even met your eventual spouse yet?

What does that matter?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #499 on: October 23, 2011, 09:40:57 PM »

It's a VERY simple answer.

The 10 Commandments as UNDERSTOOD by the JEWS is

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.

The OP isn't married.

Isn't adultery sex outside of marriage?

One has to be married to commit adultery.  Wink

I disagree.

If you to intend to marry once, then sex outside of marriage, before or after actual marriage, is adultery to your spouse.

Then why do the canons penance fornication and adultery differently? I'm pretty sure it does matter whether you are married or not if you have sex with someone who's not your spouse.

What is the difference you are trying to argue?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,412


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #500 on: October 23, 2011, 09:51:12 PM »

It's a VERY simple answer.

The 10 Commandments as UNDERSTOOD by the JEWS is

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.

The OP isn't married.

Isn't adultery sex outside of marriage?

One has to be married to commit adultery.  Wink

I disagree.

If you to intend to marry once, then sex outside of marriage, before or after actual marriage, is adultery to your spouse.

Then why do the canons penance fornication and adultery differently? I'm pretty sure it does matter whether you are married or not if you have sex with someone who's not your spouse.

What is the difference you are trying to argue?
That your opinion that premarital sex = adultery has no support from Holy Tradition.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #501 on: October 23, 2011, 10:06:17 PM »

If you to intend to marry once, then sex outside of marriage, before or after actual marriage, is adultery to your spouse.

How does that make sense? What if you haven't even met your eventual spouse yet?

What does that matter?

Because adultery is voluntary sex between a married person and a person who is not his/her spouse. If you don't have a spouse, and haven't even met the person who is to be your spouse (and hence you can't intend to marry them), you can't really be committing adultery. It's still wrong because it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage in any case, but it is not adultery.
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #502 on: October 23, 2011, 10:21:08 PM »

It's a VERY simple answer.

The 10 Commandments as UNDERSTOOD by the JEWS is

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.

The OP isn't married.

Isn't adultery sex outside of marriage?

One has to be married to commit adultery.  Wink

I disagree.

If you to intend to marry once, then sex outside of marriage, before or after actual marriage, is adultery to your spouse.

Then why do the canons penance fornication and adultery differently? I'm pretty sure it does matter whether you are married or not if you have sex with someone who's not your spouse.

What is the difference you are trying to argue?
That your opinion that premarital sex = adultery has no support from Holy Tradition.

No, they didn't say they were the same thing, in that premarital sex is adultery. However, they spoke often against sins of the flesh and held premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, etc. to be of the same sins of lust.

Matthew 5:
Quote
27 You have heard that it was said to them of old: You shall not commit adultery. 28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

But I will maintain that being of the same vein, premarital sin is not keeping with the Will of God, and that is the real crux of the discussion.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #503 on: October 23, 2011, 10:23:12 PM »

If you to intend to marry once, then sex outside of marriage, before or after actual marriage, is adultery to your spouse.

How does that make sense? What if you haven't even met your eventual spouse yet?

What does that matter?

Because adultery is voluntary sex between a married person and a person who is not his/her spouse. If you don't have a spouse, and haven't even met the person who is to be your spouse (and hence you can't intend to marry them), you can't really be committing adultery. It's still wrong because it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage in any case, but it is not adultery.

The difference is I'm not arguing definitions. I'm arguing the commandment represents rejection of 'sins of the flesh'.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #504 on: October 23, 2011, 10:23:56 PM »

 Huh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #505 on: October 23, 2011, 10:25:19 PM »

Huh

 Huh
Logged


I'm going to need this.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,155


« Reply #506 on: October 23, 2011, 10:41:35 PM »

and for my personal opinion on the matter: you are a narrow minded biggot.
are you implying that other Christian denominations are wrong?
Of course they're wrong. They teach heresy. That doesn't make the Orthodox 'bigots' anymore than you for rejecting Orthodox beliefs as 'wrong.'

Quote
I am happy to continue discussing this particular discrepency. I would like to see you realise that you are just another denomination.
Why would the Orthodox embrace a heretical ecclesiology just because you tell them to?
Logged

I wish you'd all just shut up. Then at least you would appear to be wise. - Job 13:5 ISV
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #507 on: October 23, 2011, 11:01:34 PM »


 Huh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #508 on: October 23, 2011, 11:08:31 PM »


Yayah!
 laugh

Lil Jon at the Airport
« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 11:14:50 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #509 on: October 23, 2011, 11:16:49 PM »

This thread has gone from the ridiculous to the cor blimey!  Roll Eyes 
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,839


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #510 on: October 24, 2011, 10:27:42 AM »

Quote
I am happy to continue discussing this particular discrepency. I would like to see you realise that you are just another denomination.
Orthodoxy is before denominationalism. It was simply The Church. All "denominations" have their historical roots in the original Church, Orthodoxy.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Pikhristos Aftonf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Melbourne
Posts: 210


« Reply #511 on: October 25, 2011, 07:37:04 AM »

OP, how can you not understand?
Christianity isn't avoiding a list of things that are "sins" just because God "said so"; its about loving God with all our being. passions further us from God. lust is a passion, sexuality like any other desires of the flesh should at the highest form of asceticism be suppressed outside its context* so that we don't become of this world, but follow in the footsteps of Christ. asceticism is not a commandment, but it is part and parcel of being a christian. the Old Testament is where the Laws were set (Deuteronomy is your cue). but in Christ, the laws were fulfilled and we are not strictly bound by the laws, but by the contents of our heart. so as we are part of the New Testament, more is expected from us, as we are no longer in darkness, but are saved by Christ. I don't think God is going to judge people on a checklist of the sins they have committed, but rather on the balance of their hearts, how much they loved him, etc. so there is no point in resulting to the Mosaic law as it also specifies that we should be circumcised and stone homosexuals, are you abiding by that? these things are fulfilled and are no longer necessary as they are there to preserve what is left of the divine image, but now that we are restored, there is no point! all we need is the love of God in our hearts!
* like the desire of the flesh to eat, is within the context of hunger and gluttony is a sin because its outside this context, the desire of sexuality is within the context of marriage and outside that divinely appointed context it is furthering us away from God.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #512 on: October 27, 2011, 11:37:09 AM »

A dowry is the wealth brought by a WIFE into the marriage. Therefore, in the case of a non-virgin in history, a much higher dowry would be required to encourage a man to marry a woman who was not a virgin.

Oh crap.  All I got by getting married was an old yellow cat I didn't want.  Oh yeah, and the amazing wife and five kids.  That too.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #513 on: October 27, 2011, 07:23:36 PM »

A dowry is the wealth brought by a WIFE into the marriage. Therefore, in the case of a non-virgin in history, a much higher dowry would be required to encourage a man to marry a woman who was not a virgin.
What does the woman get if the man isn't -- aside from a possible std? What kind of encouragement does she have to marry a man who's taken a test drive or two?
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #514 on: October 27, 2011, 07:32:35 PM »

A dowry is the wealth brought by a WIFE into the marriage. Therefore, in the case of a non-virgin in history, a much higher dowry would be required to encourage a man to marry a woman who was not a virgin.
What does the woman get if the man isn't -- aside from a possible std? What kind of encouragement does she have to marry a man who's taken a test drive or two?

Possibly, a guy whose hopeless in bed but who never has to improve his performance because his wife is ignorant of that fact?  laugh

Didn't you know that a man with experience is a stud; a women with experience is a _____? (fill in word of choice.) This sexist stuff is so droll. Double standards abound!
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 07:36:07 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Pikhristos Aftonf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Melbourne
Posts: 210


« Reply #515 on: October 27, 2011, 08:06:30 PM »

no a man with experience is a fornicator as much as  a woman with experience is!
a dowry was paid by the woman's family because women didn't work back then, so a man has to take care of her and provide for her. a non-virgin's family would have to pay more of a dowry because a man is less likely to want to marry her. sounds demeaning to women, but that's history! our belief is still the same, fornication whether by a male or female is lust!
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #516 on: October 27, 2011, 08:15:07 PM »

no a man with experience is a fornicator as much as  a woman with experience is!
a dowry was paid by the woman's family because women didn't work back then, so a man has to take care of her and provide for her. a non-virgin's family would have to pay more of a dowry because a man is less likely to want to marry her. sounds demeaning to women, but that's history! our belief is still the same, fornication whether by a male or female is lust!

Oh please, how was he taking care of her and providing for her when her family supplied the funds to do so?  Huh

Of course, it's demeaning. I'm very well aware of the double-standards of sexist history.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 08:16:31 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Pikhristos Aftonf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Melbourne
Posts: 210


« Reply #517 on: October 27, 2011, 08:23:03 PM »

from the moment of marraige, the woman is her husband's responsibility, the dowry acknowledges that! the man still needs to work, otherwise he wouldnt be able to theoretically raise a dowry for his daughters and feed and clothe his children
dowry=/= not working
 i do agree that it is sexist, but the family model in the early christian era, was in my personal and most flawed opinion, beyond superb
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 08:28:01 PM by Pikhristos Aftonf » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #518 on: October 27, 2011, 08:31:01 PM »

from the moment of marraige, the woman is her husband's responsibility, the dowry acknowledges that! the man still needs to work, otherwise he wouldnt be able to theoretically raise a dowry for his daughters and feed and clothe his children
dowry=/= not working
but i do agree that it is sexist, but the family model in the early christian era, was in my personal and most flawed opinion, beyond superb

Really, that a woman had no rights; was the property first of her father, then her husband?  Yeah, I guess that's superb unless you happen to be the woman. In reality women had little more rights than slaves. Viva la revolution!  Grin
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Pikhristos Aftonf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Melbourne
Posts: 210


« Reply #519 on: October 27, 2011, 08:47:21 PM »

whilst that might have some truth in it, modern feminism is several degrees worse than any antiquated family model!
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #520 on: October 27, 2011, 08:55:13 PM »

Why do we harangue ourselves about stuff like this? The family unit of the past prevented the the entire family from starving or falling apart because everyone had a defined role that they played. That's what was needed then. Now there are more options, which is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself (I like the women have college degrees and don't die in childbirth and all that good stuff), but I think we do our ancestors a disservice by looking at today's arrangements as the best of all possible worlds.
Logged

Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #521 on: October 27, 2011, 09:00:15 PM »

whilst that might have some truth in it, modern feminism is several degrees worse than any antiquated family model!

Really? Were you ever denied the right to live freely? To vote? To give evidence at your own trial? To be educated? To inherit? To call rape within the marriage nothing but a husband's conjugal rights?

I believe there is a Christian model that we never attained, where slavery and the abuse of women was allowed to pass unnoticed because of Greco/Romano/Judaic norms in regard to attitudes to woman and the "way things are"; attitudes that have been slow to kill in some cases.

But give me modern feminism for all its faults to any antiquated family model where a woman can't stop her husband from raping her because it is his conjugal right to ignore her "no".
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 09:01:44 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Pikhristos Aftonf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Melbourne
Posts: 210


« Reply #522 on: October 27, 2011, 09:08:30 PM »

we might be talking about a different history here, but women were allowed to testify and inherit! there was no voting (it was an empire!) , education was a private thing, it depended on how rich the family was! i  think you are exaggerting the situation, women in the greco-roman period had many rights!
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #523 on: October 27, 2011, 09:13:44 PM »

Why do we harangue ourselves about stuff like this? The family unit of the past prevented the the entire family from starving or falling apart because everyone had a defined role that they played. That's what was needed then. Now there are more options, which is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself (I like the women have college degrees and don't die in childbirth and all that good stuff), but I think we do our ancestors a disservice by looking at today's arrangements as the best of all possible worlds.

On the other hand, we do ourselves a great disserve by looking at the past through rose colours spectacles, lameting that we have lost a utopia that never existed.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #524 on: October 27, 2011, 09:15:30 PM »

Hmm. I don't recall writing anything about a utopia. It certainly was not. I think you have me confused with Pikhristos Aftonf.
Logged

Pikhristos Aftonf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Melbourne
Posts: 210


« Reply #525 on: October 27, 2011, 09:16:51 PM »

i am not calling it a utopia, but a better system than the current!
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #526 on: October 27, 2011, 09:18:49 PM »

Eh, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I just am very wary of the "isms" of the world being seen as the saviors of the people rather than...well, you know, our Savior. Smiley
Logged

Pikhristos Aftonf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Melbourne
Posts: 210


« Reply #527 on: October 27, 2011, 09:23:44 PM »

i agree, there is no perfect model, except that of the lord and his wedded bride the church, but we can only hope and aspire to be worthy!
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #528 on: October 27, 2011, 10:25:37 PM »

Hmm. I don't recall writing anything about a utopia. It certainly was not. I think you have me confused with Pikhristos Aftonf.

My comment was general, obviously in the use of *we*. I hadn't claimed it to be a utopia, either.  Wink
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #529 on: October 28, 2011, 01:57:01 AM »

I'm back.

over the last week I gave a lot of thought about what has been posted so far and decided that I am taking the wrong approch to this.

this IS an orthodox site. so I should fully expect to hear the Orthodox side of view. including non-biblical reasons why the church teaches specific points of view.
not only that, but I claim to be a logical minded person who compares facts to assess results. well that should also include the church's point of view.

because of this I would like to appologise for some of the things I have said so far.

so if there are ANY points you would like to bring to this thread then I will address them all individually.

PS: I haven't read everything that was posted in my absence yet. I am working on it.
Logged
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #530 on: October 28, 2011, 05:39:46 AM »

Quote
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.
Quote
You do realize that we are NOT Roman Catholics?
Quote
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"





Quote
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.

Quote
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 sinTick
you claim it is a sin. Tick
I ask you too prove it/ give reasons why, etc.     Tick
repeat from step 2Tick

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




Quote
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.





Quote
I'm still waiting on the response to John 8:41... angel
Quote
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)
Quote
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.






Quote
The Bible is based on Tradition.
I currently strongly disagree. but am looking forward to your explanation




Quote
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?"




Quote
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.





Quote
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
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,913


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #531 on: October 28, 2011, 06:51:32 AM »

I don't know if you are aware, but the latest accepted date for the split between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches is 1054. The Middle Ages occurred long after that.

Again, by that time, any claims the Roman Catholics made about the Orthodox stance on marriage would have been completely irrelevant. This is despite the fact that both churches have historically taught, and continue to teach, that any sex outside of marriage is a sin. The two churches' administrations just did not accept one another's decisions by the time the Middle Ages showed up.

And if you're putting the term Orthodox Church in quotes, one wonders why you are even spending your time on this topic. Your mind is already made up. Why do you care? You are not going to stir the Orthodox Church to do anything differently. We know what your opinion is. You've said it many times. There are other churches which concur with you on your beliefs, but the Orthodox Church is not one of them.

Why do you bother? What is your game?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #532 on: October 28, 2011, 07:17:55 AM »

I don't know if you are aware, but the latest accepted date for the split between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches is 1054. The Middle Ages occurred long after that.


biro,

The most common timeframe for the Middle Ages is from the 5th to the 15th Century.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Pikhristos Aftonf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Melbourne
Posts: 210


« Reply #533 on: October 28, 2011, 07:21:21 AM »

Quote
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)
you completely miss the point. The church is not normally defined using your definition. the Orthodox church is THE CHURCH because it kept alive the traditions, practices and teachings of the apostolic churches. the reason there is a catholic church is because they WENT INTO HERESY and hetropraxis. the reason there is a protestant "church" is because of the political nature of a group outside the church (AKA the catholic church) instead of returning to the church, the protestants moved even further! the fact that other denominations exist only solidifies the history behind the faith and practices of the Orthodox church! thus you medieval church model is not only FLAWED, but completely off the point!
Quote
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

let me try an algorithm of my own:
you define sin as separation from God       tick/cross
you hold that lust is a sin as it separates from God    tick/cross
you hold that premarital sex is a form of lust       tick/cross
thus premarital sex is a sin


if you answered no to any of the above, this thread is useless because you need to understand what a sin is- refer to my earlier post!

Quote
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 understand that you might think that you are not that kind of guy, but to the Orthodox church you are, allow me to explain.
the Christian faith was given in both the bible and apostolic oral tradition, this is verified by the bible in many places, i will dig them out for you when i get a bit of time. by ignoring the oral tradition you recieve but a fraction of the fullness of the faith, in short you don't practice christianity to the full. the apostles have expounded on the bible and as direct students of the Lord they augmented the bible and provided canons for the faithfuls, that includes the whole thing about lust being a sin! so by choosing to ignore the apostolic tradition you are picking and choosing the faith.

Quote
this in depth (and thus likely accurate) interpretation of scripture,
i don't care for your analysis of the passage as it is irrelevant to me. but i must note that the above statement is flawed, it relies on a form of non-sequitor! thus its a logica fallacy. also do you hold "an in depth" analysis over that of the fathers, who got that handed down from the apostles, who drank from the stream that is the teachings of our Lord? i know which one i would pick...

Quote
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"?
there was one praxis, one faith, one church. if you are to believe in the bible you must acknowledge that there can only ever be one church! your sentence makes a total sum of 0 sense. that all churches have roots in the church (orthodoxy) does not mean that they are all orthodox, it means that they have a common ancestor that is still alive, think of it as evolution. let's say species x,y and z evolved from specie w , specie w is still around, that doesn't mean x=y=z=w, it means that w-->x, w-->y, w-->z, and W is the original church the orthodox church(AKA the truth)
2000 years of continuous patriarchs confessing the one faith is our evidence, the Lord is our witness
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #534 on: October 28, 2011, 09:57:37 AM »

I don't know if you are aware, but the latest accepted date for the split between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches is 1054. The Middle Ages occurred long after that.


biro,

The most common timeframe for the Middle Ages is from the 5th to the 15th Century.
330-1453.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #535 on: October 28, 2011, 09:59:49 AM »

Most women don't know they are pregnant until 6 weeks gestation. 4 weeks is when the period is due for most women. But women with longer cycles often won't know until 7-8 weeks. The only reason women DO know before 8+ weeks in this day and age is because of the home pregnancy test. A "normal" cycle is 28 days, but the "normal" variance in length up to 42 days and beyond. With your logic a woman could get an abortion only if she took an early pregnancy test and immediately went in for an abortion. By 6 weeks the heart starts beating, (key here is "starts" the heart starts slowly and then picks up in pace up to about 10-12 weeks) so your 7-8 weeks idea about blood is completely wrong. The heart begins to circulate blood in the 6th week, which is around when most unsuspecting women realize they are indeed pregnant. If the heart isn't beating by 7-8 weeks a woman will miscarry. Unless a woman is specifically hoping/waiting to find out she pregnant, she likely won't know until 6-8 weeks along. Even the most "regular" cycle can vary up to ten days due to illness/travel/exercise.

How do I know all this? I have been pregnant 9 times and (Lord willing) will give birth to my 5th child this March. I have been charting my fertility for almost 15 years as well. Not to mention I have had to deal with the cycle of fertility for almost 25 years. The reproductive information we are given in school is woefully inadequate. Cycles are not always 28 days and ovulation does not always occur on cycle day 14. There is a ton of variance that proved that the "average" is far from common.
Congratulations!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #536 on: October 28, 2011, 10:01:55 AM »

If you are not ready for marriage, are you really ready for all of the potential consequences of extra-marital sex?

There are consequences?  Huh
Could be if you're not careful.

Pre-martial sex is the hardest thing a young male faces when trying to abstain from marriage.
slightly edited.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 10:06:15 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Pikhristos Aftonf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Melbourne
Posts: 210


« Reply #537 on: October 28, 2011, 10:51:12 AM »

I don't know if you are aware, but the latest accepted date for the split between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches is 1054. The Middle Ages occurred long after that.


biro,

The most common timeframe for the Middle Ages is from the 5th to the 15th Century.
330-1453.
surely it would be after 476, the fall of the western roman empire, 330 would be late antiquity!
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #538 on: October 28, 2011, 11:22:03 AM »

Quote
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)

I'm thinking he doesn't realize the full history.

JsG,

The Roman Catholic Church was THE Church (so to speak) in the Latin west. Generally speaking, Western Europe and the then spreading of it's subsequent colonies. The Eastern Orthodox Church existed in the East simultaneously, with the Roman Catholic Church. Prior to 1054 (symbolically), the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church were the same Church (a Latin west and a Greek east).

Prior to the 4th Ecumenical Council in the 5th century, the Oriental Orthodox Church was also in eccelsial union with this body. Some today consider the faith of the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox so similar, that their separation is only a material schism.

If you were more familiar with this than I recognized, I apologize. However, the statement about the RCC being 'THE Church' led me to believe you didn't realize a lack of historical knowledge.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #539 on: October 28, 2011, 11:37:04 AM »



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


You misunderstand, the Orthodox is not a denomination by any means.  Orthodox is the ORIGINAL Church, it has existed in perpetuity since Christ founded Her with His Apostles.  It is an unbroken line, so we are not denominations by any definition of the word.  Rather, our various region churches are called "jurisdictions" which is an entirely different concept.  Denominations are splinters and factions, denominated from an original, whereas jurisdictions are an extension of a single authority.  The legal courts of secular systems have multiple jurisdictions where things such as Federal authority supercede local authority, and with the Church it is the same.  Orthodox is the original Church, and it is One, and the various regional churches are jurisdictions which share a single, autonomous authority of God, as One Church, just as say there is only one United States Postal Service with thousands of branches and local headquarters with regional jurisdiction on behalf of the central USPS.  In this example, the Greek or Russian Orthodox are not then denominations, implying separation or distinction, rather they are jurisdictions of the One authority of the One Church. So when folks say, "we practice abstinence because the Church says so" they are implying the One, Single Church, pan-jurisdictional, and not a result of individual jurisdictional interpretation.  What the Church teaches as "Orthodox" is in solidarity across most jurisdictions.

The Church did not define its "Orthodox" teachings out of speculation or inquiry or reasoning or arguing, rather from discernment of the Holy Spirit.  The Church is not a University, we do not learn by study or discussion, we learn through prayer and meditation in the Spirit.  We are not legalists, we are spiritualists, however our spirituality is grounded in the Tradition.  We eek to conform towards the Tradition, not to conform the Tradition towards our varying whims of interpretation.  The Tradition has continuity which transcends temporal,localised, or contemporary understandings.

Further, our Church does not put restrictions on sexual expression simply out of public health concerns, but more so spiritual concerns.  The Church seeks for the spiritual health of Her people, and sex is a major aspect of our spiritual lives.  The Church puts restrictions then, both in permarital relations and also lawful relations during Fasting periods, in order to spirtualize peoples' sexuality. Its not meant to be rational, or logical, or mathematical, rather in it meant to force a person to dive internally, spiritually, to grasp for God for understanding, and not the fractured human mind.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Tags: premarital sex sin 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.168 seconds with 72 queries.